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 $2.6 or who knows what,

billion of american taxpayer money for something, airplanes, supplies, support equipment, trucks, unspecified, unknown to be used by one of the most corrupt governments -- excuse me, the most corrupt government in the world. $2.6 billion of american taxpayer money for something not specified, to be used somewhere, somehow, i suspect more likely in some bank account in bahrain. what are we doing? what justification is there for $2.6 billion of additional expenditure for the afghan national army? have we lost our minds? no. we are just going to lose our money. what is going on here? what are we doing?

what is this all about? this money should never be spent for some unspecified purpose. we take our department of defense and we hold them to a very tight account. we don't let them spend money without a contract, without reviews by the inspector general, reviews by our committee. but here's $2.6 billion unspecified. oh, mr. car decide, use it wisely. -- cars eyed, use it wisely. >> i reserve the remaining time. >> claim time in opposition. mr. womack: afghan national forces includes the national afghan army and police and been one of the united states' top

priorities since operations began in afghanistan in 2001. the purpose of the afghan national force development program is to grow the capacity and capability of the afghan national security force in line with international agreements. this year's request totals $7.7 billion. the request is in the categories of defense forces, interior forces and detainee operations. included within the categories is sustainment to conduct day-to-day operations totaling $5 billion and enablelers that my friend refers to and says that if i heard him correctly that we don't know what these enablers are. we doe no what they are. and people who have backgrounds in security or military would understand the importance of night vision devices or regional

military hospitals, training in maintenance expenses and a host of other associated items that we refer to in this legislation as enablers. the department of defense has taken steps to right-size the funding. the core request is indeed the right amount. calendar year 2014 will be the last year that a large u.s. troop concentration will be in afghanistan. the years to follow, the afghan security forces will be there as the frontline force, thus helping to protect the u.s. and nato troops against our foes. we remain opposed to the amendment and reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. find it difficult that our

esteemed appropriations committee, who watches the taxpayer's money with such intensity, would increase by 51% the amount of support that the american taxpayers are giving to the afghan national security forces, the police, which are among -- no, excuse me, they are the most corrupt, and the army, which is questionable and certainly the government, which we know to be the most corrupt in the world, would simply write $2.6 billion more money than we were giving them last year, $7.6 billion, for something, something, unspecified. we would never do this for our own military.

never would we do that. we would have them lay out how they're going to spend the money before we would even consider giving the money. to hen we would hold them it. i cannot understand why we would do this. there is no justification other than that, oh, we are leaving and have to help them. so throw some more money at them. they already been appropriated $52 billion and only $40 billion of that has been spent. there is $12 billion left in the account, and you are going to add $7.6 billion to that. what are you doing? what justification is there for this other than, oh, they may need it because we're leaving. they are going to use it for, let's see, other things. well, maybe for some field hospitals, maybe for some

supplies. maybe. maybe. maybe. but there's nothing written. there is nothing written. oh, yes. we know the american army, the american military will somehow spend it wisely. there is a record of it being spent unwisely. $2.6 billion. what could we do with it? reduce the deficit? build some levees? educate to kids? do some research in the united states? come on. of all the things we're doing here today, this is the most disgusting. and i yield back my time. the chair: time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. womack: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: three minutes. mr. womack: won't take that long. first of all, we have the list. and i recognize that the

gentleman has argued that while there may be something printed on the list on paper that how would we know it's actual going to go for those purposes, i get that. but let me remind the gentleman that this was all in the president's request as well. so it's in the president's request. . garamendi: would the gentleman yield? how many times have i heard from this side that the president is wrong and the president is wrong in this case. mr. womack: if the gentleman would admit that the president is wrong. mr. garamendi: he is most certainly wrong in this case. mr. womack: reclaiming my time, that we have the list. the lists are items that would go to the very core of the capability of the afghan national security forces to be able to protect themselves and to protect us as we continue to prepare for leaving that theater of operation. so we are strongly opposed to

the gentleman's amendment. and at this time, having no further comments, we yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered on the gentleman offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nays have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi: request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. it the chair understands that amendment number 34 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in house report 113-170. mr. fleming: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report number offered by mr. fleming

of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: my amendment is fairly simple. d.o.d. is permitted to appoint chaplains, individuals who administer to the spiritual needs of the armed services in accordance with the current d.o.d. policy. the chaplains must possess appropriate credentials, two years of religious leadership experience and most receive an an endorsement from a qualified religious organization. in june, the members of this body, democrats and republicans alike twice afffirmed that the military is not permitted to appoint atheist chaplains.

he military is considering the possibility completely bypassing congress. since the formation of the chaplain, chaplains have been affiliated with the faith and spirituality. by definition, chaplains administer to the spiritual needs of our men and women. a vital function that an individual without any inclination towards spirituality would not be able to perform. i would like to thank my colleagues, representatives jordan, idenstine, pitts and lankford and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i thank you and reserve my time. and i yield a minute -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i would like to claim

time in opposition. i rise in opposition to the fleming amendment and i think there is a basic misunderstanding here about the needs of people who lack a particular faith tradition. i would also point out that we already ordained chaplains in our military including bude istories, some -- buddhists. however, over 20% of the members of our military identify as nonbelievers. and while, of course, their needs should be catered to, it's only fair to have their humanism or outlook represented. why is this different as a member of the military might seek support from a psychologist. those are different needs. a psychiatrist or medical professional is not equipped to answer those questions that a

member of the military might seek out with a chaplain. why am i here, how do i justify the use of force. people who are humanists wrestle with those same questions as those of us of faith. i encourage my colleagues to not adopt an amendment that would be restrictive on the military. the military has not announced plans to move forward with ordaining humanist chaplains. this amendment locks in place a 2004 rule placing it in statute and preventing the military, even if they feel the need should arise for the good of the chaplain si from having the flexibility they need to appoint humanist chaplains. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is

ecognized. mr. bridenstine: i support this amendment to prohibit the appointment of these chaplains. my constituents are shaking their heads. the secular left is ripping god from everything and stand with . fleming and opposed to appointing atheist chaplains. as a navy pilot with combat tours, i recognize that war affects all service members, believers and atheists. those without faith have counselors to psychologists to seek emotional support. why does the secular left seek ruining to serve their agenda of

godlessness? i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. . . mr. andrews: our intent is not to promote constitutionalized godlessness. our intent is to promote constitutional feelt. when a young man or young woman raises their right hand and swears allegiance to this country and agrees to serve in the armed forces, they do not con sign themselves to be a second-class citizen irrespective of their faith or philosophy. it is wrong to say to a soldier who comes from such a tradition that he or she, if they have an issue in which they're troubled,

must go to a mental health professional in order to receive counseling rather than someone who comes from their philosophical faith or tradition. the other problem with this amendment is it frankly second guesses the military leadership of this country, the pentagon of this country, the defense department and says that even if they would decide that such a decision would be appropriate, they're prohibited from doing so. our law recognizes that our constitution establishes no religion, we should have equality of treatment for our armed forces. i'd urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to my good friend, doug collins, from georgia, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: who is by the way a chaplain himself. mr. collins: i appreciate the gentleman yielding time. this is an interesting amendment, especially for me, because i am currently a

chaplain in the united states military. i appreciate the arguments that have been made here, but let's just bring back something that needs to be made. and then when we deal with this, in the contradiction of terms, a chaplain is there to provide services and spiritual guidance and a guiding hand, if you would, to all. those of faith and those with no faith. and that is done in a confidential setting and it is done in a way in which the person who brings to the chaplain their feelings, their needs and their conversations are kept in that conversation. what i'm here to do is support this amendment because i believe it attacks the basis of the chaplainsy, it attacks the chaplainsy as a whole, this introduction into the d.o.d. to bring an atheist chaplin, to really at the heart -- chaplain, to really at the heart of the chaplainsy itself. it's beyond do those with no faith have a place to go. it's not about that. it's about the faith of the

chaplainsy as a whole and the standards that have been set up. i believe if a chaplain is doing their job right, then they are there -- can i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i appreciate it. if a chaplain is doing their job right, then all feel welcome. when i was in iraq, i would go across and see everyone at night. and i had many times those who professed no faith at all and would come to me and say, chaplain, i don't believe there is a good, -- god, but i have a wife at home that i'm having trouble with, can you talk to me? that's what a chaplain does. this amendment reaffirms the establishment of our chaplainsy and i believe that is what it protects and it protects those with faith and those without faith and those who are somewhere in between. this amendment needs to be approved and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i appreciate the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of the chaplainsy. i agree with his interpretation of the rules and responsibilities of the chaplainsy and we try to represent a diverse faith

tradition of the men and women who serve. in that faith tradition are those who look at objective fact, free thinkers, humanists, atheists, they too have the same mentoring, spiritual needs as others and of course just as catholics have to handle the needs of jews and muslims in the service and buddhist chaplains handle the needs of others, they're all trained to handle the needs of soldiers. we also want to make sure we have a chaplainsy that reflects the broad diversity of belief systems. over 20% of today's members of the military don't believe how the -- have a theistic outlook are nonbelievers, and that's an important thing to represent in the chaplainsy. many major universities have humanist chaplains, hospitals have humanist chaplains. many allied european militaries have humanist chaplains. as one of the other gentleman argued, there is no political goal or secular agenda here.

we're simply -- want to make sure the military is not prevented from making -- providing chaplainsy services. every man and woman who serves should be able to, when the need arise, have a private consultation with a chaplain and we should include in the chaplainsy people who represent the full diversity beliefs of the quality of the men and women who serve. increasingly seminaries prepare humanist chaplains for order nation and work in the field, in hospitals, in universities, again in the a militaries that have them. i personally hope that this is a direction that our military considers in the future. we ran a similar amendment that would move it in this direction to an authorization bill, 150 members voted for it. i'm confident even more members will want to vote against restricting the military from moving in this direction. again, to be clear, the obama administration and the military has given no indication that they want to go this way, but as we reassess our ongoing personnel needs and how best to support the men and women who

serve, i believe that many members of the military will come to the conclusion that this this. xcellent way to do i urge a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: mr. chairman, how much do time do i have left? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes the gentleman from louisiana has still has. mr. fleming: thank you. first of all, with all due respect to my good friend from colorado, there is no way that an atheist, atheist chaplain or atheist whatever can minister to the spiritual needs of a christian. or a muslim. or a jew. for that matter. mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. fleming: i'm sorry, i'm not going to have the time to do that. as a result that is the whole problem here. when you're talking about a chaplain, what are you talking about? how do we define chaplain? a chaplain is a person who ministers spiritual needs but who is assigned to a secular organization. you know, the military is 99.9% secular. the only thing that we add to it

that is nonsecular is the chaplainsy. and also i would say to you that there's a limited number of chaplains and if we begin to displace chaplains who are actually from religious organizations with those who are atheist, who do not believe in spirituality, or a deity, then that's going to limit even the number that's going to be available to the others. so, again, it's nonsensical. it's an oxymoron. but as i've said before, and i'll say this again, remember that an atheist is a person who does not believe in a deity, does not believe in a spiritual world, it's impossible for that person through his or her beliefs or training to minister to the spiritual needs of somebody who does. but in the final analysis, i believe that an atheist chaplain would be the last person in the world that we would want a dying soldier, who needs that last moment counseling in their life, with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. all time expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. chairman. on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from v.a. seek recognition? mr. rigell: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. rilling of virginia. -- ridgele of virginia. the chair: -- rigell of virginia. the chair: mr. rigell and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. rigell: i thank the chairman and i yield myself as much time as i may consume.

the rye -- i rise to speak in spoffer my amendment that would prohibit any of the afghanistan infrastructure fund to be used to begin new infrastructure projects. there are a host of amendments that will address current projects. that's not the focus of my amendment. my amendment is focused on new projects. mr. chairman, i have in my hand the summary of an audit provided to congress on july 12 by the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. and it contains key findings that really make the case that my amendment is needed. the opening paragraph states this, more than 10 years after the international intervention in afghanistan, the u.s. government, the international community and the afghan government continue to face challenges in irmment -- implementing programs to build basic infrastructure. that's certainly consistent with what i observed firsthand during my trip to afghanistan. it goes on to say that five of

the seven infrastructure projects for fiscal year 2011 are up to 15 months behind schedule. usaid, the lead agency of this effort, certainly doesn't need to be taking on new projects when it can't get croil of its -- control of its current projects. and really of far more importance and what is so deeply troubling, mr. chairman, is what is stated at the close of that same par gratch. -- paragraph. quote here, in some instances these projects may result in adverse counteru.s. is -- counterinsurgency efforts. let that sink in. the inspector general is making it clear to us that the american axpayers' dollars may be funding infrastructure projects that actually work against our counterinsurgency efforts. it goes on to state both reasons why that might occur. first, these projects create an expectations gap among the affected population.

and second, they lack citizen support. look, even the afghanistans don't want some of these projects. the harsh reality is this, mr. chairman, while we're furloughing hardworking americans who work alongside and support our men and women in uniform, we have poured not millions but literally billions, $89.4 billion, in reconstruction efforts really into a calendar ron of graft and construction -- caldron into graft and corruption. it's no way to spend americans' tax dollars. mr. chairman, it's time to stop building infrastructure in afghanistan. finally, the inspector general's report makes clear that we are building infrastructure that the afghanistans cannot possibly maintain and sustain. they don't have the money. and they won't have the money. buildings will deteriorate, generators will run out of fuel, lights will go out.

yet we keep building. we keep adding to the national debt. look, we're hiring afghanistans and laying off american workers. this doesn't make any sense, mr. chairman. it's time to stop building infrastructure in afghanistan. that's why i urge my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to look carefully at this issue. i believe that will lead to a vote for my amendment which would prohibit any of the afghanistan infrastructure funds to be used to fund new infrastructure projects. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? does any member claim time in opposition? mr. visclosky: i claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes.

mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, this is another in a line of amendments that we have debated here this evening and i hate to be repetitive, but i am going to be. and that is, we and the international community have failed the country of afghanistan in the last century. today, both in terms of the loss of life, in terms of injury and in terms of our national treasure, we're paying the price. for over a decade we have now had a commitment to this country and we ought to meet that commitment at the end just as we did at the beginning.

the gentleman wants to prohibit projects any new from commencing. i think it is important for our colleagues to understand that there are a number of very important projects that do need to be undertaken and completed. and all of them involve basically power systems. i don't thinkly there there's anybody in this chamber who has not at one time or another lost power to their home or their business. it's something we all take for granted as american citizens. the y of you have read carol biography on lyndon johnson, in the first volume i was most struck by his chapter describing the day in the life of a woman in texas with no energy.

and how hot that house was and how hard it was to bring that water to that house and how difficult it was to make sure clothes were cleaned and food was prepared and how exhausted and bent and broken these women were in the state of texas before rural electricfication took place. i think there are a lot of people in afghanistan, that they are lacking power, they are bent and broken and potentially persuaded that there are after news to take in life as opposed the principles that our country espouses. i think particularly for those women who are bent and broken because they have no power, we ought to give them a fighting chance. we have been fighting in that

country for 12 years. let us undertake some new construction to give them that chance. simply because we have failed in some instances in this country is not again a reason we should fail others and i see the gentleman from california rising. i would be happy to yield to him. >> i understand the gentleman's concerns about what has happened in afghanistan. many of us have been to afghanistan many times. that country was totally destroyed by the russians during the prior wars. they were left with nothing. probably not the poorest, one of the poorest countries on earth. rubble on rubble. when we leave and we are going to leave afghanistan in 2014, what we are saying is going to give them the basic parts of energy production, which is what the primary source of this money is going to develop.

mr. calvert: i reluck tantly oppose the -- le luck tanly oppose the gentleman's amendment. mr. visclosky: i reserve. mr. rigell: i appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues and i don't agree. if i understood the gentleman who led in opposition and i want to yield if i don't get it correct, but i made the notes that the gentleman said that we failed the people of afghanistan. look, -- yes, please. mr. visclosky: i don't want to fail them. mr. rigell: thank you for the clarification. by any measure we won't and have not and will not fail those people because we have sacrificed so great a measure of treasure and loss of life.

we have met every obligation to the people of afghanistan and look, our principal and primary and exclusive obligation is to the american people. e best indicator of future performance is past performance. we have not demonstrated competence as we have tried and good people have given their role. and some of our civilians have given their life in their effort but we have not demonstrated a competency to advance these projects. the entire revenue stream for the afghan government is about $1 billion a year. we raised up a military operation there, afghan army and police, largest employer by far in the country that has an annual expenditure of $7 billion, 8 billion. the math doesn't work. we have created a structure here sharps going to require a

expenditure there. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. 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 amendment is not agreed to. mr. rigell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 37 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in house report number 113-170 offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman. mr. scalise: the amendment i bring forward is a commonsense amendment that deals with the funding priorities within the department of defense. we are living in a post-sequester world and we have many hearings where we have generals and the secretary of defense talking about the threats to military operations through the sequester cuts. and we know that those are real and especially in these tight economic times and even if we weren't in tight economic times, but especially right now, we ought to be watching every single dollar that's spent within the department of defense and work to find ways to make smarter use of those dollars. one of the things we have found is that the department of defense has been entering into contracts to buy renewable fuels, biodiesel and other forms to supplant what are the traditional fuels. the problem is that the

contracts that they are entering into are more tremendous to the taxpayer than if they bought conventional fuel. what this amendment would do would be to say that the department of defense cannot enter into those contracts to buy nontraditional fuels at these higher costs. and i want to give couple of xamples and note a few of them because this has been happening. there is a member rand you umh of understanding between the navy, department of energy to end $170 million each to quote, assist, develop and support a sustainable commercial biofuels industry. whatever you think of expanding and developing a biofuels industry, that's not a mission of the department of defense and especially when their budgets are being cut and the secretary of defense is saying they don't

have enough money to perform their basic military operations yet spending $170 million to prop up a biofuels industry. i want to give one example of what we call the renewable energy sticker shock. you have furloughs at the pentagon and they have a contract right now to buy renewable jet fuel at $59 per gallon when the traditional cost of traditional jet fuel is $3.73 per gallon and yet the military to carry out a social agenda is spending an extra $56 more per gallon so they can buy renewable fuel. this is one example of many where the military is not making the smartest use of their military dollars when secretary hagel has testified before a

committee that the services have begun to significantly reduce training and maintenance of operating forces. if they're reducing the training and maintenance of operating forces, why are they propping an biofuel industry? they are spending 12 times more to buy this renewable energy, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and this amendment just says that has to stop. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would begin by pointing out that the department of defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the united states of america. and i certainly do believe that we need to move from a

carbon-based economy, particularly given some of the countries in the world where we procure carbon products such as petroleum. many people talk about it as an economic problem, and it is. many people characterize it as an environmental problem, and it is. we are talking about the national defense today, and i certainly agree with former senator richard lugar from the alwaysf indiana, who has characterized our dependency on foreign petroleum as a national security issue. this is the perfect bill to have the largest consumer of energy begin to reduce our dependence on these very countries that have cost us so much of our treasury and so many of our lives. this amendment would defund section 526 of the energy

independence and security act. the fact is the argument is made that this hurts our readiness, and that is not the case. in july, the department of defense stated very clearly, and i'm quoting the department, the provision has not hindered the department from purchasing the fuel we need today. worldwide, to support military missions, but it sets an important baseline in developing the fuels we need for the future, end quote. the gentleman would indicate there's nearly a 20-fold difference in the price of renewables and the price of petroleum at the pump today. cents ae of $3 and some gallon and $4 a gallon can be purchased close to this building. many of these fuels have to be ansported to places like

afghanistan. there even an additional cost that is worked into that 20-fold increase. and additionally, i do not think that we need to complicate the department's efforts to provide energy options. we want to give our war fighters as many options as possible when they are in the field to take advantage of. this section also does not prevent the sale of petroleum products, nor does it prevent federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need them. instead, it prevents the federal government from propping up the makers of these types of fuels from long-term contracts when we are trying to wean ourselves from them. i do think the amendment should be opposed and i do so and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. scalise: i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime.

i'm prepared to close. mr. visclosky: it is my understanding i have the right to close. the chair: that's correct. the gentleman from indiana has the right to close. mr. scalise: the gentleman makes an important point when the united states is the largest user of energy and i think it's more important they watch every penny. i have hard-working taxpayers that will drive an extra three blocks to save a penny a gallon on gasoline and it matters to them. if they can save a penny a gallon, they will drive a couple of blocks. you have the department of defense, the largest user of energy saying they aren't willing to drive a block to save money but a couple of blocks to save $59 when they can buy it for $3.73. another contract. there was a big high profile on the production of the great

green fleet where they flew planes, extra $10 million. they are flying the blue angels and they are groupeded right there and we are flying jets on algae and cooking oil than if you use traditional jet fuel. while i support the gentleman, that's not something the department of defense should be wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on when the secretary of defense has said that we actually are right now significantly reducing training and maintenance of operational forces. we should take those hundreds of millions and provide it to our troops for the support they need because it is a 50% higher risk for them to be transporting renewable fuels than to transport traditional fuels. it puts them more at risk. let's save those hundreds of millions of dollars. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i indicated my opposition to the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment by -- on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. terry: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 38 rinted in house report 113-170 offered by mr. terry of nebraska. the chair: pursuant of house resolution 313, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry and a member opposed each will be recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: i rise in recognition of 650,000 people that serve at

the air force base in nebraska are being used as political fbles, programs like section 526 that we just heard the gentleman from louisiana discuss. that mandate that the armed services spends entirely too much money on fuels. section 526 also bans our military from using other traditional energy sources like l sands from alberta or even coal-to-liquids. mr. speaker, i ride today to offer my support, though for the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, who has done this amendment in the past. to me, it's not about who gets the credit, but -- or who reaps the rewards but that it gets done. i'm tired of the pentagon using civilian workers on base as a

political football. and then spends the money that they do on fuels. so by working together to cut waste from this bill like section 526 we can find ways to protect our constituents who have devoted their lives to serve the men and women who wear the uniform and with that, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. . the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it's now in order to consider amendment number 9. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. charity recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. mr. wittman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr.

chairman. the amendment that i have before you today provides that none of the funds in this year's defense appropriations act may be made available to propose, plan or execute an additional base realignment and closure round, better known as brac. remember, we have a current brac in place. that continues to cost our nation dollars in the defense budget. i want to remind folks, too, that this same language passed in this year's national defense authorization act by a vote of 315-108 on june 14, and it says this, it says, that we want to make sure that we're making the right decisions in the context of what's going on around us. we have an existing brac that will not save a penny until 2018. the original cost savings estimate on that brac were $21 million. today the cost of that brac is estimated at $35 billion.

and the nation won't break even until 2018. in fact, in this year's president's budget, the estimated cost to that brac is $450 million. now, we wouldn't want to proceed with another brac, with potential cost savings somewhere in the future while we're still paying for the additional brac, especially in light of the budgetary needs that are before us with our nation's defense budget, with the sequester going on, with those reductions. and with the uncertainty surrounding the current state of affairs with our national defense, why would we want to continue in the realm of uncertainty, spending more dollars with an uncertain future about when savings would occur when we haven't even accrued savings from the 2005 brac? again, just not the time to go about this time, to put in place another base realignment and closure commission. r. chairman, at this point 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 seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i seek to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act ay be used to propose, plan or execute an additional base closure round. if the gentleman has simply said today we should not execute that next additional base realignment and closure round, i would not have stood on my feet. but the fact is he said we shouldn't propose or plan either. he also indicated that because we are today paying i believe some hundreds of millions of dollars for the current base closure, we should not consider paying for another one. but the question i would ask

rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleague, is, don't we have to sometimes make an investment there future, that is are cleanup costs, there are closeup costs, there are demolition costs and those are short-term costs. but potentially those are investments year in and year out nation's s where this taxpayers can save money. and where the gentleman says we shouldn't consider another closure and at this point i'm not aware that there's a proposal pending, what if we could save money by doing that? should we simply say no? should we just say no to everything? is it wrong to consider how we might look at every last base and military facility in this country to save taxpayers money? essentially the gentleman's

amendment says it's it's wrong to look at them -- says it's wrong to look at them. it would be wrong to propose to the congress that has the authority under article i of the constitution to decide whether then we execute that proposal. is it wrong for an administration to look nationwide where we're spending almost $600 billion for a more expensive department of defense but not a larger one, that says we have a plan and they send it to the congress but we can't even do that so we can't have a discussion. we can't have an open and free debate. we can't even, would not be allowed under the gentleman's amendment to say, you know what? you got to plan -- a plan, but we could make it better, we could make it more efficient, we could amend it but we're prohibited from doing that. i think the time for simply saying no, no, no, no is gone and i think the gentleman's amendment is wrong and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i would say to the gentleman that in light of what we have today, with the uncertainty, with the sequester, with the reduction in funds, where we are saving money by furloughing federal employees, now is not the time to spend more money in this realm of uncertainty, especially when the secretary of defense is undertaking a strategic choices in management review to determine what our strategy should be going forward, certainly want to determine the strategy first before we're going to make additional expenditures on closing bases. also there's a current evaluation going on with our facilities in europe and our facilities in the pacific. shouldn't we fish that first before we start -- finish that first before we start even considering closing bases here in the united states, where by the way, we still haven't gotten to the point of saving money from the last brac round, which will take at least 13 years to save money, so if we start another one, that would take

another 13 years, are we in the position to spend more money to do that while we have these areas of uncertainty surrounding us? a sequester resulting in furloughs, and an evaluation of the current strategy for the united states. a evaluation of base structures in other areas of the world. i say that this is absolutely the wrong time to pursue a brac in any way, shape or form, to propose, plan or execute a brac, in all those areas. let's create some certainty with what's happening right now with this nation's defense, with what we're doing with planning, to make sure it's a logical, a thoughtful process where there's some certainty, not throwing more uncertainty into the process, which is what a brac round would do now. mr. chairman, with that i yield back the balance of my time. excuse me, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i will reserve and understand i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. again, i want to emphasize this time in our nation's defense

budgeting, we ought to be looking at where we can save dollars, where we can apply dollars that that -- to those areas of greatest need and i argue those areas of greatest need are for this nation's readiness. the training of our troops, the operation and maintenance of our equipment, making sure that we get those dollars there. and that before we pursue a brac, we ought to know what the other areas are, where we're going to go with this nation's strategy, with what our base structure should be in other areas of the world, and after being at war for nearly 12 years, now we have a well-trained, battle-hardened, combat-tested force and they are an all-volunteer force that's more joint than ever. we want to understand where we need to be going forward, to make sure that we provide for them. closing these bases now or even pursuing a base realignment and closure commission is not the time to do that. mr. chairman, again, this is the wrong time, we ought to be looking at the place in time where we have actually accrued

the savings on the last brac, which started in 2005, before we pursue another. we ought to make sure we know what this nation's strategy is militarily before we pursue a base realignment and closure commission. we ought to know what's what should our base structures be elsewhere in the world before we do that here in the united states. we ought to make sure we understand where we're going with the sequester, where we're going with furloughs, where we're going with end strength, with our military, before we close bases. we're going to be reducing end strength by 100,000, say, by the way, let's pursue a base realignment and closure commission now, how do we know where we need to be? that uncertainty is not where we need to be and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that the gentleman on any number of occasions during his discussion talked about the uncertainty that we face in this country because of sequestration. and i couldn't agree with him more. and would point out that the

gentleman voted for the budget control act that created sequestration that has now created the uncertainty that we face which i find very regrettable. the gentleman also in his concluding remarks indicated that we need to look to save money. couldn't agree with him more. he also indicated, and i would accept it for the sake of our discussion here on the house floor, that some of these processes take 13 years. i think the gentleman makes my argument. if it takes 13 years, we ought to start today so that that child whoist born later this week -- who is born later this week has the benefit of the savings we both want before they get to high school. why wait to save the american taxpayers money by potentially not considering a plan? i think we ought to be thoughtful here. and i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the 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. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in . use report 113-170 it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. flores: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. mr. flores: mr. chairman, i rise to offer an amendment which addresses another misguided and restrictive federal regulation. section 526 of the energy independence and security act prohibits federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of fuels unless they're life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less-than or equal to emissions equivalent from a conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. my amendment is simple. it would stop the government from enforcing this ban on agencies funded by the department of defense appropriations bill. as my good friend mr. terry from nebraska said a few minutes ago, the initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the defense department's plans to buy and

develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet fuel. we can and must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. one of the unintended consequences of section 526 is that it essentially forces the american military to acquire fuel refined from unstable middle east crude resources. i offer this amendment to the fiscal year 2014 homeland security appropriations bill and the fiscal 2014 energy and water appropriations bill and they both passed on the floor of the house with strong bipartisan support. my friend, mr. conaway from texas, also added similar language to the latest defense authorization bill to exempt the defense department from this burdensome regulation. at this time, mr. chairman, i now yield two minutes to my good friend from texas, mr. conaway. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank my good friend from texas. i also want to encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. section 526 was added to the

2007 energy bill as last-minute add-on with no hearings, without any information about it whatsoever and it is beyond misguided. may sound good on paper but it is totally unenforceable. no one in their right mind has a clue what the life cycle greenhouse gases are for any of the fuels that anybody buys. and quite frankly, as we blend crude oil sources at a refinery, to run through the refiner on a most efficient basis, there is no way to separate out the gasoline jet fuel december that will comes from that refining that would be required if say some crude oil, if -- let's assume for the sake of the conversation that we get the keystone x.l. done, some of that oil from canada starts flowing south into our refineries, there's absolutely no way anyone could certify which gasoline's coming out is related to those sources versus some others. this is misguided, it's unworkable, and extreme. i would prefer that we exempt the entire -- all of government from section 526 but that's obviously yobbeds the scope of tonight's legislation and i want

to thank my friends for proposing this striking or exempting department of defense from the misguided requirements in section 526 and i encourage all of my colleagues to vote for t and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. flores: as we said,s that simple fix,, stopping the impact of section 526 will help us promote american energy, grow the american economy, create american jobs, and become more energy secure. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i won't prolong the debate because this is the

third or fourth installment, if you would, of this debate, but my response to the current iteration is the same as i have expressed throughout the night. we do have an energy problem in the united states of america. and i do agree with former senator richard lugar that it is first and foremost a national security issue given where we get petroleum products. we have been at war in the mideast, we have been at war in afghanistan, with have other problems precipitated because of our dependence on that fuel. this is not the time, i believe that we ought to in any way, shape, or form retard the largest consumer of energy in this country from examining and helping to create a vibrant market for alternatives to reduce that. for those reasons and the reasons discussed earlier in this evening's debate, i would

be opposed to the gentleman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. flores: i have enjoyed the debate tonight, i appreciate the comments of the gentleman, i would say this. this amendment does not do any of those things that he said it woult. it does not prevent and it does not restrict the ability of the fovet or the department of defense to purchase any alternative fuels. it does not restrict those, including biodiesel, ethanol, or other fuels from renewable resources. it does not do any of those things that would prevent the flexibility from the department of defense. as a matter of fact it helps the department of defense have more flexibility and with that, i urge my colleagues to support his bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: 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.

he amendment is not agreed to. mr. flores: i request a recorded vet. 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 42 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42, printed in house report 11-170, offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. the chair: pusuant to the rule the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. cole: i'm offering a bipartisan amendment this evening prevent funds from the so-called working capital fund from being used to implement

furloughs of d.o.d. employees. this amendment would affect approximately 180,000 workers scattered around the country in different working capital fund units. tippinger, hill, robins the great center account for much of those. working capital fund employees are indirectly funded by the government and not be direct appropriations. the commands where these employees are played have more than sufficient funds to continue to operate without a furlough. furloughing these workers would be counterproductive and ultimately cost money. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman -- >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's concern and the fact that he is focused on working capital that is essentially funded through customer

reimbursement. as i mentioned in an earlier debate, i am opposed to the gentleman's amendment. i voted against the budget control act. i think sequestration is an abhorrent way to run the government. i was disappointed last year when we made every federal agency in this nation including the department of defense wait seven months before we told them how much money we'd give them and most of the agencies we told, well, we're just going to give you what we gave you last year. now we're suffering because of furloughs. the concern i have here again is making distinctions between one federal employee and another. they're all very important. i don't know what going to work every day as a guard in a maximum security federal prison must be like. but i don't know that we have an exception for them. i don't know what it is like to be a federal law enforcement

official working undercover, putting your life at risk, getting reimbursed but not being carved out for furlough. we have people at n.i.h., national institutes of health, doing ground breaking research as far as people's health and safety and perhaps they not themselveses are risking their lives but tomorrow if they were at work could make a discovery that could improve or prolong someone's life and i think it's a very difficult proposition to begin to make those distinctions between various federal employees. i absolutely share the gentleman's concern as to what is happening with the federal work force. i have mentioned in committee and on this floor more than once today thyme apalled that for four years we hold federal employees in so little regard, we have not given any of them a raise in four years. we scurry, scurry to the fort because people were going to be

inconvenienced on the house floor, not the house floor, at airports, because of potential slowdowns at the f.a.a. federal employees actually do things for air safety, like make sure when we leave the ground in an airplane, we're safe. so again, i'm very concerned here. the fact is allowing exceptions for one agency i do think is unfair for others. allowing exceptions that pit one agency against another wrongfully determines the ral soft the work performed by some government employees vis-a-vis others. we ought to value all of their work collectively, together. we should not be looking for temporary fixes of one dislocation as great as it is caused by sequestration. when we ought to be about and i know the gentleman is about that, is to end this madness if you would, and get back to the business of governing this country. i would reserve the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to extend one minute's worth of time to my good friend from the state of washington, a new member from the sixth district. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: -- >> i believe congress should be working to stop furloughing workers, but congress hasn't done that, now we're forced to cut accounts and furlough workers because congress can't get its act together. mr. kilmer: this amendment respoppeds to what i believe was an incorrect response to department of defense that were funded through working capital accounts. those working capital funds are revolving funds that provide goods and services that were established to promote stable pricing and reliable access.

they were designed to be self-sustaining. i sympathize with other workers and groups facing furloughs but these workers are not funned through direct appropriation. i believe that this indirectly funded -- that these indirectly funned employees are specifically exempted by law from sequestration. furthermore, i believe that purr lowing these employees and delaying their work will not save any money, will only increase costs for d.o.d. and hurt taxpayers and jeopardize our military readiness. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority whip from california. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. mccarthy: this deals with capital funds. this is like owning a business, when you provide a service or

product you get paid for it. that's how defense working capital funds operate. they are paid through reimbursements for the services they provide to the department of defense which is already funded for the fiscal year. thus working capital funds do not receive direct appropriations and therefore furloughing these individuals have no savings. they have the direct opposite effect. they'll cost you more, there'll be delays and most importantly, individuals will be harmed in the process. the specialized work that the defense working capital fund employees perform is vital to our nation's security. and our war fighters around the glofpblee a blanket 11-day furlough policy will only end up slowing down our war fight the best and latest technology to complete their mission when called upon to perfect and defend -- protect and defend america and safely return home to their families. this is very simple. hey do not affect inside a

furlough, they are a business that performs work and they get paid for it an the money is already there. that's why i ask and urge all of taos join in supporting this amendment. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman on the rules committee, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: this work load is a self-sustaining process, which means if the work load is there, and it is, then the money is there, and it is. to furlough employees in this area saves no money, completes no work but raises the cost of overhead for the depots. i have empathy for the pentagon they made a decision that everyone should share the pain in an effort to be fair. unfortunately, section 10, or title 10, section 2472, tells

how this fund should be managed, sharing the pain ain't one of the options. i appreciate what is going on here but the defense department cannot simply pick and choose. this amendment does not start a new program it simply requires that existing law be followed. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i would like to yield one minute to my good friend from iowa, mr. loebsack. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. loebsack: i want to thank my friend from oklahoma for yielding one minute. i am a proud co-sponsor of this truly bipartisan amendment as demonstrated by those speaking in favor of it tonight. i, too, voted against sequestration and i oppose furlough anything d.o.d. citizen who works on behalf our our troops. those working at the arsenal i represent proudly represent our country. they don't deserve a pay cut,

simple as that. that's why congress and the administration must find a way to replace sequestration. it addresses the unique situation of the working capital funds civilians like those at the joint manufacturing and technology center who are funded from prior years. i think that's important to keep in mind. furloughing those men and women doesn't create direct savings, as has been mentioned. rather delays hurt our troop, hurt our readyness and increases costs for taxpayers without direct savings. i do oppose all fur hes and i do oppose sequestration this amendment is a commonsense policy for deform o.d. and working capital fund employees and i urge my colleagues to support it. again, it's a fully bipartisan amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized with 15 seconds remaining. mr. cole: i yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from

georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: this is a bipartisan solution, it helps those who work in our depots and other couldn't areas and i urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan coalition in support of this amendment and i yield back the remainer of the time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the the chair: the chair understands that amendment number 43 will not be offered. now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number printed in house report 113-170

offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. delauro: funds would be prohibited to train the afghan special wing to maintain russian-made helicopters. the syrian war is being fueled by the russian. they are now hosted across five countries. half the population of syria will be in need of aid. we know that the russian arms manufacturer is arming syria. the syrian army requested 20,000 assault rifles, 20 million ounds of ammunition, mission grenades and russia announced it

would provide assad with advanced missile defense batteries. yet, our defense department continues to channel business to this russian arms manufacturer. d.o.d. recently skirted around a prohibition on purchasing mi-17 helicopters from russia's state-arms dealer last year. signing a contract with the manufacturer to procure mi-17's for the afghan specialty mission wing using 2012 afghanistan security forces funds money. this contract signing, flying in the face of congressional intent, came just days after this house voted 423-0 to strengthen the prohibition on pentagon business with the russian arms dealer. a prohibition also included in this defense appropriations

bill. even more egregious, it came on the heels of a report by the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction that recommended suspension of the plans to purchase these helicopters for the afghan special mission wing as the afghans do not even have the capacity to use them. the defense department touts the 30 years of experience the afghans have with the mi-17 helicopters as a key reason to purchase them. yet, we are training them to fly these helicopters instead of american-made helicopters. training that the inspector general report says has been slow and uneven. the report argues that moving forward with the acquisition of these mi-17 helicopters is highly imprudent ent, until, among other things, an agreement is reached on nato's training

mission concept for reorganization within the afghan government to support the special mission wing. mr. speaker, u.s. taxpayers should not be subsidizing the russian state arms dealer that is fueling the war in syria. the language already included in this bill states it. we should also not be spending money to train an afghan unit to fly these russian helicopters particularly when the inspector general has raised serious questions about the content of that unit's capability. i urge support for my amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: the afghan national

forces are the major component of the afghan national security forces and made significant strides toward becoming an independent and effective force in afghanistan. the only path forward to getting out of afghanistan is to make sure that we have effective army, special force, that can do the necessary work to make sure that the fragile afghan governance that is there survives. the purpose of this amendment is not to limit the afghan special forces but to further restrict the use of the helicopter employed to support its mission. the development of the afghan army special operations is a component of the overall strategy to transition to afghan security. in other words, if we want to get out of there by 2014, 2015, the afghan air force must succeed. and it has a history, whether we look it with the mi-17.

it is more efficient to expand its fleet, build on their existing knowledge of maintaining that fleet and -- than to completely shift to a different aircraft. and additionally, u.s. helicopters are more technologically advanced. they are a better helicopter, but it would further prolong the time lines of getting the af ready to go to where they need to be to completely take over the program. the mi-17 has been certified by the department of defense to be the right aircraft for the missions in afghan. it has a long history in afghanistan and was designed for high altitude terrain. so i reluctantly oppose the gentlelady's amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: how much time is

left? the chair: 1 1/2 minutes. ms. delauro: i say to my good friend that i think that we ought to be amenable to working with afghanistan in these final days, but i don't make up this information. our defense department continues to channel business to this russian arms manufacturer. d.o.d. skirted around the prohibition on murg mi-17 hell i-17 purchasing m helicopters. there was a vote 423-0 to prohibit this. what does the d.o.d. that? it went around that and went to a different pot of money and one could acknowledge that but in addition to acknowledging that, i'm going to quote to you from the special inspector general

for afghanistan reconstruction. afghan special mission wing, $908 plans to spend million to build airwing that the afghans cannot operate and maintain. now i don't know why we keep in business an inspector general that would give us this report and then we fly in the face of it and not acknowledge its veer asity. in addition to which, we are dealing with an arms dealer that supplying arms, grenades, missiles to syria where over 93,000 people have already been killed. the point is that we shouldn't enter a contract when there is no capability to fly these helicopters. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired.

the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. calvert: we aren't talking about a helicopter manufacturer that would suffer. it's the combat unit in afghanistan that would be mr. defazio: stated and unable - deficient stated and would not be able to fulfill its mission. i'm not going to defend russia or their foreign policy and what they are doing in syria. but we want afghanistan to succeed. i reluck tantly oppose the -- reluctantly pop oppose the amendment. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. calvert: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman from california asks for a recorded vote.

pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the the ent offered by gentlewoman from connecticut will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 45 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: let me thank the congressmen who have joined me in offering this amendment. our amendment is very straightforward. it would trim pentagon spending

by a very modest 1%. the congressional budget office estimates our amendment would result in a reduction of discretionary spending of $5.9 billion and does so while maintaining our national security and protecting our active duty military personnel. this defense appropriations bill the billion more than current funding level which includes $5 billion more than the president's request. in total, this bill includes over $85 billion in war spending at a time when the majority of the american people and a growing bipartisan group in congress are calling for an expedited end for military activities in afghanistan. our amendment simply takes the total amount of the bill, reduces that amount by 1% and then allows the department of

defense to choose what accounts to take the reduction from. as i mentioned before, military personnel accounts and medical and health care programs are exempt from this amendment. mr. chairman, month after month we have been talking about ways to address the budget and impabts of the harmful sequester. the question before the body today is, how do we ensure that we have a budget that reflects our national security priority, our moral value and our underlying economic strength? i'm talking about a budget that protects the most vulnerable in our country and a budget that ensures that we have priorities to create jobs and turn this economy around. in other words, nation building in our own country. what this amendment does is say we need to put everything on the table, and i mean everything, and that includes the pentagon. believe me if i could, i would support much greater cuts to the pentagon, but surely $5 billion

can be found among the tens of billions of dollars lost each year at the pentagon due to waste, fraud and abuse. and you know that that $5 billion is a mere drop in the bucket when you look at what has been actually taken away without knowledge of where that money has gone, when you look at the suitcases filled with cash in afghanistan and previously in iraq. even with this modest cut of 1%, the pentagon base budget would still far outpace any other nation in defense spending. the united states spends as much on its military as 13 countries combined. but all of these are close allies. i'm talking about china, russia, united kingdom, france, japan, india, saudi arabia, germany, brazil, italy, south korea, australia and canada, combined, we spend more than those

countries. americans believe that no federal agency should really be immune from cuts, including the pentagon. in fact, the average american would pursue a larger cut of over $93 billion according to a poll released in 2012. ithoigs long overdue to be honest with the american people and have debate about deficit reduction, job creation and the reduction in spending and that includes the pentagon. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i'm first to admit that the department of defense should not be immune to reductions. we should be doing that and that's what we have been doing

the past few years and will continue to do this year. this bill, this bill that we're deciding today and tomorrow is $3.4 billion below the president's request. in fact, over the three past fiscal years, this committee has produced defense budgets which totalled $71 billion below the request. only 32 of which have been due to sequestration. the department is already facing another $44 billion in arbitrary reduction in spending if we don't stop sequestration from going into effect in f.y. 2014. any further, immediate reductions would likely bring the department to a grinding halt, perhaps past the point of recovery. t could cancel returning

troops. reducing flight training. delaying or cancelling maintenance of aircraft, ships and vehicles. and delaying important safety and quality of life repairs to facilities and military bar racks. the allocation of this bill is in line with the ryan budget as well as the defense authorization bill. we should show our support for those brave men and women who sacrificed so much and continue to do so. i strongly oppose this amendment and i yield whatever time to my friend. >> i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> and i appreciate the gentleman -- the gentlewoman's approach. mr. visclosky: i have on more than one occasion in talking about the department of defense at my constituency indicated that as the gentleman noted, no ne should be immune to cuts.

and if you can't find one cent out of every dollar at the department of defense to save, there's something wrong with the leadership at the department of defense. but i rise in reluctant opposition for two reasons. one is i have an inherent objection to across-the-board cuts because i think we ought to make sure we're very targeted as far as our financial decisions. secondly, given the across-the-board cut that has been referenced of more than $30 billion in the current fiscal year because of sequestration under a bill i voted against, we are talking in this instance about filling a significant, arbitrary hole. so again would reluctantly be opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment and appreciate the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves.

the gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: how much time do i have remaining. the chair: the gentlewoman has one and a half minutes remaining. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me first thank our ranking member for his comments and reiterate the fact that while this is a 1% cut across the board it allows the pentagon to make those decisions about where the pentagon and our military officials believe that the money -- where the cuts should come from and how to reallocate our funds. certainly as the daughter of a veteran, 25 years, i'm an army brat, i recognize and support our young men and women who have been placed in harm's way and sacrificed so much for our country and there's no way that i would offer an amendment that would harm our troops. a 1% cut really forces us to pause, quite frankly, and forces taos look at where we can find savings when we scrutinize the pentagon budget, the same way we scrutinize our domestic

discretionary spending. at a time where american families and businesses are facing budget cuts why shouldn't the pentagon be asked to become more efficient and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. let me reiterate that this bill includes $5 billion more than the president's request for the overseas contingency account. so it makes no sense. we need to begin to focus our resources on nation building at home, ensure our national security, and really make sure that all of our agencies begin to look at waste, fraud, and abuse and certainly the pentagon should be the first to do that, especially given the fact that we have not had audit requirements of the pentagon and till don't know what type of resources there have been wasted and misallocated. and so i ask for support for this very modest amendment. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the gentleman from california is ecognized.

mr. calvert: we have made significant cuts and continue to do so, lowest level of expenditures for g.d.p. in a long time. i rise in opposition to theme and urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 46 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. mr. quigley: i move to dispense with reading.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. quigley of illinois. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. quigley: my amendment is simple, it cuts the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles by a third. we are nationing unprecedented -- et crisis yet we spend $ we spend billions to maintain an tarsal to fight a cold war that no longer exists. we are working closely with russian leaders to reduce our nuclear arsenal. while other nations have some nuclear weapons, their stockpiles pale in comparison. china has no more than 50 to 75

single warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles. we can significantly reduce our ars until of 1,700 and still maintain an edge over any rival. we should be strategic and make targeted cuts. according to a recent report issued by general james cartwright, retired vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and former commander of the u.s. nuclear forces, secretary chuck hagel and a number of other military and foreign expert, all land-based icbm's could be eliminate the former commander of all u.s. nuclear forces thinks we don't need any icbms. none. according to the renoshte u.s. icbm force has lost its central utility and it outlines four reasons it should be eliminated. first, direct wartime nuclear operations against russia alone were cold war scenarios that are

no longer plausible. second, flight paths over all land-based icbm's to any potential adversary would have to travel through russian air space and could trigger -- could confuse russia and trigger nuclear retaliation. third, u.s. tryton submarines and bombers can deliver nuclear weapons to any point on the earth. fourth, icbm's and n silos are targetable. once again, these are not my assess. s or the assessments of an anti-nuclear group. this is the assessment of general cartwright, retired vice chairman of the joint chiefs of stand and former commander of nuclear forces, richard burke, a former arms negotiator, secretary of defense chuck hagel and a former senior nato official. the former commander of u.s.

forces has issued his support for the elimination of icbm's. this calls for a reduction of one third. we have limited resources that mean we was to make choices. as we look to cut spending, let's cut military investments that do nothing to keep us safe in today's threat environment such as icbm's. r. speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. opposition i rise in to this amendment. unilateral reductions of nuclear forces are wrong period. these reductions have been directly and explicitly recommended against by the joint chiefs and senior d.o.d. civilian officials who have said reductions must be made bilaterally in concert with

russia. i am deeply concerned that not nly is this proposal to disarm unwise, it's also shortsighted. it could seriously diminish the long-term security of our nation. we face a world today in which nuclear threats to the united states are increasing and our conventional military capabilities face dramatic reduction. given this our nuclear deterrence is becoming more important, not less. the air force base in my home state of montana is home to 150 of our nation's intercontinental ballistic missiles. earlier, i visited there and met with the leader of the 341st missile wing and discussed the importance of our icbm mission to our national security. colonel robert w. stanley, the ommander there, gave me this commander's coin that bears a motto that sums up why our defense strategy sesketive.

it says this scaring the hell out of america's enemies since 1962. this molt toe clearly demonstrates teleimportance of our peace through strength gentleman ji -- strategy. ke cannot underestimate the role our strong nuclear defenses have played in keeping america secure and maintaining peace not only with russia but throughout the world. some say we have never used our icbm's but i would argue we use them every day to ep sure the world is a safer place. that's why i urge my colleagues to support the amendment i have introduced alongside congresswoman lum lue misand congressman kramer it well help maintain a strong nuclear detesht and prevent the obama administration from unilaterally he deucing the nuclear arsenal. the obama administration requested funds to do

environmental studies of icbm's. our amendment prohibit this is study. now is not the time to reduce the icbm fleet which is why i urge my colleagues to oppose mr. quigley's amendment and support he daines-lamb born-lummis -cramer amendment. with that, i yield to the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis. mrs. lummis: i rise in opposition to the quigley amendment as well. it will defund the operation and main nance of 150 of our land based intercontinental ballistic missiles. regardless of your stance on the nuclear triad and we'll have the opportunity to discuss that later, it's irresponsible to stop funding maintenance of our nuclear weapons with no formal reduction plan. are we supposed to leaf war heads rotting in the silos? this amendment does not fund the decommissioning of war heads. if it did a full scale reduction

of our force would be a costly endeavor, one that takes time and is a decision that should not be taken lightly. but it will effectively reduce our icbm capabilities by one third without any strategic considerings or multilateral negotiations with other nuclear powers. the joint chiefs have directly and explicitly recommended against a unilateral reduction. as the administration continues to weigh final force structure decision scheduled to occur in f.y. 2015, i ask my colleagues to consider the consequences of removing this funding the year before. the mission of the air force global strike command is to provide a safe, secure, effective nuclear deterrent force for the president of the united states. the quigley amendment would impede the air force's ability to fulfill that mission, preempt hinks president's decision and

lacks feasibility without preparation. i urge you to oppose the quigley amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from montana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. daines: i yield time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i rise in opposition to this amendment. mr. calvert: this is not required by any treaty, there's no estimate of how this would affect the balance between the united states and other nuclear powers. events over the last several years as well as through analysis such as that done of the knew leer -- nuclear posture review confirm we need to maintain and revitalize our nuclear arms so i rise in strong opposition to this reck legislation amendment. i yield the the balance of my time to the gentleman from montana. mr. daines: i'm always concerned when the joint chiefs have a strong opinion about our national defense.

given that these reductions have been directly and explicitly recommended against by the joint chiefs and senior d.o.d. civilian officials these gentlemen have said the reductions must be made bilaterally in concert with russia. this is shortsighted, it's unwise, it's a threat to our national security, therefore we oppose this unilateral reduction in our nuclear forces. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. quigley: how much time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. quigley: before i yield, let me say this. i've been here four years and i recognize what the department of defense. is it's our jobs program. i support my colleagues defending jobs in their decision but this is not about national security, it's about job main nance. if we're going to spend money creating jobs, i want to build bridges and schools and transit

systems. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from indiana. he chair: the gentleman is mr. visclosky: i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. rather than getting larger and more expensive, the military has simply grown to be more expensive. and our world has fundamentally changed since the days of the cold war and certain aspects of our military strategies have evolved. however, i do not believe that our nuclear weapons have had a corresponding change relative to our consideration as to their deployment in numbers. i do think congress has a very important role to play in helping the administration make rational decisions on the size and composition of the stockpile and the complex that supports it. in talking about that complex as a member of the energy and water

subcommittee, point out there are significant costs over and above those in this particular bill given the civilian control over the warheads. i do not have any concern that the gentleman is proposing that we disarm this nation. i believe we certainly have adequate protection and support his amendment. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. quigley: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. the clerk: amendment number 47 inted in house report in

3-270 offered by mr. den ham of california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: it's crucial in this time of limited budgets that we transfer funds from those programs that are dupe apply cattive. such as maintaining readiness and taking care of our personnel. i have introduced a limiting amendment to prohibit the department of defense from using funds to implement the transregional web initiative. this program consists of a series of general news web sites that cater to foreign audiences. the department requested $19.7 million to continue this effort during fiscal year 2014. in april of 2013, a report found that the program lacks meaningful performance metrics and is poorly coordinated with the u.s. department public

diplomacy programs. i want to put this in perspective. with this money, the army national guard could have retained 2,000 soldiers of its 4,000 that it was forced to reduce due to budget cuts. 2,000 gurdsmen who could be supporting our active component, responding to natural disasters or responding to the border. it is providing entertainment news and lifestyle advice to the ball cans and middle east. it -- balkans and middle east. the united states already spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year in providing independent journalism overseas through the broadcasting board of governors. every week more than 203 million viewers, listeners and internet users engage with international broadcasting programs completely separate from the duplicative

and expensive programs. how can we justify unnecessary and ineffective duplicative measures by the department of defense. how can i tell someone many my district that they were furloughed because we found an article about the plight of child actors in turkey. our senators have acted. the senate armed services committee found that the costs to operate the web site are excessive and effectiveness of the web sites is questionable and the performance metrics do not justify the expense. i want to thank citizens against government waste, taxpayers for common sense and project on government oversight for their support on this amendment. mr. chairman, in this time of limited federal resources we cannot afford to continue wasteful programs like this.

the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. denham: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise time to claim time in opposition. chairman the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. over the past several years, this committee has taken a hard look at all of our military information operations programs, a very hard look. while the committee reduced or eliminated funding we judged not to be appropriate department of defense activities, this was not one of them. this is a fully acknowledged program with each web site supplied by a combatant command ant. and there are activities being conducted in that region. these web sites is an important

opportunity to inform foreign audiences about u.s. military activities in their region, including joint military training exercises or very importantly humanitarian assistance. we find ourselves frustrated with foreign populations fail to appreciate the support they receive from the united states, particularly the united states military or to understand the u.s. position on issues impacting their part of the world. this is often because people are unaware of our efforts. these web sites offer the ability to get the word out. and i believe that we and the committee believe that's important. i urge rejection of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back and would yield -- i didn't see that you were standing. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey yields. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i associate myself with his remarks and particularly his introduction. the subcommittee has had concerns and questions about the program in the past and worked very closely with the department of defense. it shows the oversight that the subcommittee continues to exercise and joined again with the gentleman in opposition and thank him for yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: i would just end in saying this is another attempt to cut waste. give the department of defense the flexibility to retain our personnel. 2,160 national guardsmen to be exact could be saved a and retained by cutting this amount of waste. the senate, i think, has shown great wisdom in this particular

instance, to show they can come together with us and cut the type of waste and have citizens against government waste. this is a great opportunity to really show that we support the brave men and women and retain those positions. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: this program supports our very brave men and women. i oppose the gentleman's amendment and 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 california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. denham: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california 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 28 by mr. cicilline of rhode island. amendment number 29, amendment number 30, amendment number 33, amendment number 35 of mr. fleming of louisiana. amendment number 36 of mr. rigell of virginia. amendment number 44 by ms. delauro of connecticut. amendment number 45 by ms. lee of california. and number 46 by mr. quigley of illinois. and amendment number 47 by mr. den ham of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 28 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. cicilline on which further

proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in house report number 113-170 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. 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: the yeas are 184, the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 29 print printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. cohen on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

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

the chair: the yeas are 247, the ays are 173 --

the chair: the amendment is adopted. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 30 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from colorado, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 346, the nays are 79. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 33 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by oice vote chesm clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 150, the nays are 276. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 35 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, on which further proceed wrgspoponed on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a recorded -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 253, the nays are 173. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a railroaded vote on amendment number 36 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote chesm -- the clerk will redez igthate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 36 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. rigell 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 sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 332 and the nays are 94. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 41 printed in house report 113-170 on the amendment by mr. flores.

the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. minute vote o- [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 237, the nays are 18 . the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 44 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut and which the yeas prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: the yeas are 333 and the nays are 93. the amendment is adopted. unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 35 offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 45 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: a recorded has been requested.

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

>> the yeas are 108 --

the chair: the yeas are 109 and the nays are 317. the amendment is not adopted. unfinished business is request for vote on amendment number 46 offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 46 printed in house report number 113-170 offered by mr. quigley sm of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

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

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 142, the nays are 283rk the amendment is not adopt the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 37 printed if house report 113-170 offered by mr. denham. the clerk will redesignate at the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. denham of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having 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 185rk the nays are 238. the amendment is not agreed to.

the chair: the house will come o order. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order.

the committee will come to order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in house report 113-170678 for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. jones: i have amendment number 48 before the house. the chair: the clerk will redez -- will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, and a member opposed each will control

five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: i have been here all day like most of my colleagues, i've watched it on tv, i've been here on the floor, i've heard so many times other members say, we'll be out of afghanistan in 2014. i hate to tell them, but that's not true. the administration right now is negotiating a bilateral -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will come to order. please remove your conversations off the floor. the gentleman will continue. mr. jones: so many have been saying we're out of afghanistan in 2014. it is not true. the administration is about to finish the negotiations with mr. karzai, who is a crook. to say we'll be there are for 10 more years. this amendment, what it does is

to say that we in congress have a responsibility to the american people to meet our constitutional responsibility of making sure that any agreement that the president should negotiate with any country, and we're responsible for funding that agreement, that we will vote on it. that's what this amendment does. it says that as we move forward with this strategic agreement that the congress will vote on the funds and not just have any administration, democrat or republican, just to assume for 10 years that the taxpayers will buy into this agreement. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from indiana. for what purpose do you rise? mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's concern and would point out that i do think it is

long pastime -- past time that we should be considering the underlying authority, the authorize use of military force, that was approved by the congress and signed by the president of the united states in 2001. but i do believe, absent the reconsideration of that legislation, which i do think this body should be about, i believe it does provide the underlying authority for the strategic partnership agreement the president has initiated. it has been enforced for over a year, serving as a guide for the relationship between the united states and afghanistan and in may of last year, the president and afghan president signed the agreement. e agreement does, i believe, infer the role of congress to fund and says the administration

shall seek such funding annually and there is a congressional role this agreement provides a necessary long-term framework for the relationship between the two countries after the drawdown that will have taken effect by the end of 2014. i do believe that the amendment offered makes no allowance for what agreement might serve to guide our relationship with afghanistan in the future. given its importance in managing our drawdown and transitioning the afghan security forces themselves, i believe it is essential for the u.s. to continue to honor this agreement and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: i rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from north carolina, mr. jones. i want to thank him for his long

and tireless leadership on ending the war in afghanistan. he always asks the hard question the questions no one else wants to take on because he believes so strongly in stand big our men and women in uniform and their families. in 2012, the united states and most of our nato allies entered into an agreement with afghanistan tchailed strategic partnership agreement that outlined how we and our allies will continue to support the development in afghanistan over the near and long-term. on the positive side this agreement provided the outline for how the united states would turn over responsibility for combat operations and national security to afghanistan forces last year and this year and end the war in afghanistan by next year. congressman jones and i would like to see that drawdown happen faster and sooner but at a minimum to happen on the time frame outlined by the president. the unknown question is what

happens post-2014? will the president determine that u.s. troops need to remain in afghanistan in if so, how many troops, for how long and for what purpose? will we continue to train afghanistan's military and police force and how many u.s. troops will be involved? how many will -- how long will it take to pleat that mission? i believe it's right for congress to sit the terms. congress has put this war on auto pilot for too long. it is shameful. we need to take responsibility. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. this is a reasonable, rational amendment and every one of us, democrat and republican, should vote for this i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. mr. jones: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has one and three quarters minutes, the gentleman

from indiana has three and three quarter minutes. mr. jones: i reserve. mr. vis closity: i recognize the gentleman from new mexico. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: this strategic partner shp agreement involves the protection of our american troops and our allies then there's good reason to oppose this amendment. if this is an agreement between two sovereign nations. understandably, the two proponents of the amendment are against our involvement and would like us to leave tomorrow and indeed, we may. but in the process, i would hope that we wouldn't be removing, putting ourselves and our soldiers at risk by an amendment of this type and nature. for those reasons, i oppose it and i thank the gentleman for ielding.

mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks, i would say i do not argue we should argue thought of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. jones: it's ridiculous that america is financially broke, can't pay our observe bill, but we boar oh money to pay for this agreement in afghanistan. the former commandant of troops in afghanistan, when i asked him what he said, he said, i am not in fare of this agreement, it lets the united states continue to prop up a corrupt regime and place ours troops at risk. we are not being realistic. the american people are fed up and tired. we had 79 americans killed the

first of march to the end of june 30 and not one person on this floor knows that tonight but me. why and how can the american people continue to work their butts off, pay their bills, and 're going to prop up a crook in afghanistan named karzai and give him 10 more years of the american taxpayer paying his bills. it is a sad day for the taxpayers of america. thank you, mr. mcgovern. this is a reasonable approach. all it says is we in congress every year will vote whether we keep funding the wasted time, life, and money in afghanistan with. that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. jones: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed

option the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 49 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina -- for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. jens: i meant to withdraw the next amendment. k40eu7 amendment number 49 has been withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 50 printed in in house report 113-170, for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in house report 113-170

offered by mr. kline of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: i rise in support of as a retired marine colonel, i have the unique and fortunate position to make sure that the men and women have the best education in defense of our nation. currently, students who earn a high school diploma from other means of modern education are required to score significantly higher on the armed services qualification test than others just to qualify in the military. this policy, mr. chairman, is indirect contravention of congressional intent established in the national authorization

act for fiscal year 2012. last month, my colleagues unanimously supported my endment to the f.y. 2014 national defense authorization act to reverse the d.o.d.'s discriminatory policy and ensure equal treatment for all students who desire to enter. the bipartisan amendment prohibits funds being used by the department of defense to enforce any policy that continues to not equally treat education credentials for enlistment. it stops d.o.d. for giving lower priorities to students and makes congressional intent clear that all students should be given the same opportunities to enlist in the armed forces. i urge my colleagues to vote for men and women to raise their hands. and i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i claim time in opposition. i strongly support this amendment and i salute the leadership of chairman kline, who fully understands the public education side and the military side. and we are bringing forth this amendment as another opportunity to make sure that what is already clearly the will of this house as articulated, actually comes to pass. very simply, this is a provision that ensures that any students who receives a diploma from an accredited secondary school in compliance with the laws in the state and district which the person resides is given the same opportunity to enlist as a traditional bricks and mortar high school graduate. this includes graduates of online schools, hybrid schools who have completed their secondary education and earned a degree.

currently, these classified students who attend online schools are called per 2. what this means is this they can enroll in the military but on the tests, they have to score 50 or higher instead of 31-36, depending on the service branch for bricks and mortar high school. is we should care about preparedness for the job, not what particular type or model or size or shape of school that they went to. from the military perspective, we need young men and women who are capable and able to execute their responsibilities. from the education perspective, we want to encourage innovation and shouldn't be sending a message. we should not discourage innovation in public education and not say that because a particular school is distributed or doesn't have a bricks and mortar campus, as long as it is

accredited by a school district and held to the same standards, that should not be dealt with in a separate way. congressional intent is clear. the bill includes includes language not let the d.o.d. make a distinction between graduates from traditional schools and online schools. this ensures that all students are held to the same standard when it becomes eligible for military service. i join chairman kline and representative paulsen, leaders for online education to propose this amendment which would ensure that no funds are used to give a lower enlistment priority from students from online schools as compared to raditional bricks and mortar school graduates. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota -- mr. kline: i yield time to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: we accept his amendment. i would note that i nomar evens never retire and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. kline: i thank the gentleman and i thank my colleague and friend, mr. polis. i think the congressional intent has been absolutely clear and is in fact in law and astonishing to me that we have to be down here with this amendment to bar funds from the department because they are failing to comply with congressional intent in the law. i urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. question is on the amendment on the amendment from the the

gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the ntleman from california seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 51 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. lamalfa of california. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: i rise today to ask support for my amendment. this amendment ensures that funds appropriated to support our men and women in uniform are used for the purposes that the house intends and not used by agencies attempting to pad their own budgets. this amendment provides a simple

funding limitation prohibiting the use of funds appropriated to pay fines levied against the various branches of military by the california air resources board. the the board is known for excessive regulatory burdens it attempts to impose on every sector of california's economy from automobiles to farming. the boards have targeted military installations for alleged mission violations, in many cases simply failing to notify the board. for example, a northern california air force base faced fines of $10,000 after using emergency generators to power radar installations serving an roll.lisk

other was fined $715,000 for demolishing an outdated building. lastly, camp pendleton was fined last year for unapproved solvents in a bottle of spray cleaner. these are critical to our national defense as we pivot towards the pacific. how can we tie the hands of these vital installations when they are at the forefront of our national security installations. these amounts may seem minor in the appropriations measure we are taking up. $10,000 a day, just two days of these fines could actually fund at least a year of college for a veteran under the g.i. bill. voting for this amendment keeps funding for our military in the hands of our service members. please support our service members and vote yes.

i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana seek in recognition? mr. visclosky: i rise time to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: the amendment, as the gentleman suggests, speaks to exempt the department of defense from paying any fines relating to infractions which seem to be environmental in nature from the california air resources board. i would point out to my colleagues that as they know, there are a large number of military bases in california and i believe it's imperative to maintain good working relationships with the communities who host the bases as well as the various state agencies who ensure good living conditions for all californians. accepting this amendment could create the perception that the federal military installations in california are above the law. when dealing with environmental

issues. so i would certainly urge a no vote on this particular amendment. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: this is a very narrow amendment that simply says is a green light to our military installations that yes we welcome you in california. we like the idea that you are here providing safety security net on the only our state but all the united states a and that regulators have had a hostile relationship with these installations and the businesses in california. we need to send a signal that go unchecked nger for them to write up a fine any time they choose to. i would reserve the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: i think that being such a narrow measure is what we have here, we do need to send the proper message to our military, to our people that when they serve in the military and want to get out and be part of the g.i. bill and to the tax dollars, your dollars are being spended towards the type of thing you care about and that is defending the nation and not having to defend themselves from overzealous regulations that anybody can list in california. i hear carb is one of the biggest complaints from my constituents and those in the military who are there just trying to defend us. and taking up this measure tonight, i think it's a proper thing that we do to have the right signal that we do support our military and fighting men

and women and it's best to put forward the defense of our country rather than defending some frivolous environmental regulation. i would yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i would notice that the gentleman suggests that his amendment is very narrow on scope, and i appreciate that fact. i appreciate the fact that the indiana department of environmental management was not cited. the department of environmental management in the state of illinois was not cited, nor for the other 47 states in this country relative to the enforcement of environmental statutes. i would further propose to my colleagues that the gentleman seeking a solution for a problem that does not exist. i do not know the specifics of the fines that were purportedly imposed at camp pendleton.

however, the gentleman did allude to a northern california air force base and did suggest that fines were imposed by the california air resources board. i would suggest that that is not necessarily the case. n fact, it was the air quality management district. it was not the california air resources board that found that this air force base had 526 days of multiple violations of local air district rules. the district came to a settlement agreement with the air force base to properly permit its equipment and bring it back into compliance on a certain time line. the statement states, settlement states if the air force base did not hold up its end of the bargain, it could face a fine. the gentleman provided a second example for a southern california naval installation.

in fact, it was not the california air resources board that was involved, but the san diego air quality district that took enforcement action when this air force base did demolish a building because it did not do asbestos testing. the san diego air quality district was enforcing a federal asbestos law in this case. and they fined the navy, that is $917,000.000, not i would suggest that the amendment is a solution that is looking for a problem. and i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. lamalfa: i ask for a

recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. t is now in order it is now in order to consider amendment number 52 pripped in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i seek permission to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 52 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. the chair: pursuant to houseres. lution 312, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used to on environmental study

intercontinental ballistic missiles. you might think that an environmental impact study or e.i.s. sounds inockwouse but let me lay out the facts. the obama administration has made it clear that they believe in nuclear zero, a world without nuclear weapons. it sounds like a wonderful idea but our competitors and adversaries will almost certainly never give up their nuclear weapons. until our adversaries have a change of heart this could be disastrous. nothing we have done today has made our adversaries reduce their nuclear programs. they've been increasing. countries like iran and north carolina. in president obama's second berlin speech a few yeeks ago, he anouned the desire to reduce america's arsenal by one third,

regardless of what the russians, the iranians, or anyone else does. it's in this context we see in this budget the president requesting an environmental impact statement for our current icbm forces. we decisively rejected an amendment not just a few minutes ago here on this house floor that would have defunded one third of our icbm forces. i'm proud to be joined in this effort to protect our icbm's by the three members who represent states where the bases are located where we find our icbm's. i would like to yield a minute to my colleague from wyoming, representative lummis. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman from colorado for sponsoring this amendment. the new star treaty -- new start treaty does not require an icbm

facility but the purpose of this study is to close an icbm wing or squadron. while the president announced plans to reduce nuclear capabilities, there's no proposal with russia or senate-confirmed treaty for reductions of this size. the air force has a plan for ratify red ducks placing 30 silos in warm status before february 2018. these baseline numbers will meet the treaty deadlines if the administration allows them to move forward. support colleagues to this amendment and ensure congress provides proper approval of the goal before spending money on the process. i thank, again, the gentleman from colorado and yield back the balance of the time. ms. lamb -- mr. lamborn: i thank my colleague for pointing that out. i appreciate her coming to the floor. we are joined in this representative by representative daines of montana and representative kramer of north dakota and they whole heartedly

support this amendment as well. a strong nuclear deterrent is what we need in the face of uncertainty, not any kind of unilateral disarmament. at this point, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: the amendment is aimed at the administration's plan to consider further reductions below the levels establish in the new start treed treaty. as the gentleman indicated it would be -- it would prohibit funds being used to conduct a study of the environmental impact on the intercontinental ballistic missiles and their facility thesms president in his june 2013 guidance on nuclear employment afirls the united states will maintain a credible deterrent capable of convincing any potential adverse sare of

the adverse consequence of attacking the united states or an ally. and that our abilities far outweigh any potential benefit they may seek through such an attack. i believe that the united states national security resources ought to also be considering other possibilities as to our national security beyond the remote possibility of a direct nuclear exchange. events of the past several years demonstrate the u.s. faces a complex set of national security checks. the possibility of attacks such as those preceding 9/11 including the u.s.s. cole bombing an the u.s. embassy bombings in tanzania and kenya, regional instability and strategic channels arising from the arab spring in egypt, syria, libya, and elsewhere. the continuing challenge of iran including its support of

terrorist organizations with regional and global aims. refocusing u.s. national security priorities to the asia-pacific region with a focus on china and north korea and the nearly constant threat of cyberattack. as i said in arn earlier argument, also do not think we ought to arbitraryly throughout this evening and tomorrow continue to say no about proposals and studies and plans. we ought to be having a full and complete conversation and debate about those possibilities and for those reasons i do oppose the gentleman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i would like to inquire the balance of the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remain, the gentleman from indiana, two and three quarters.

mr. lamborn: we have already reduced our nuclear forces under new start to 1,550 weapons. when you reduce beyond that, it becomes less credible to our allies that we will have a credible deterrent. if we start -- we have a nuclear umbrella right now, mr. chairman work about 30 countries relying on us. if we start unilaterally reducing the number of our nuclear war heads they will become less certain about our deterrence. they will be incentivized to start their own nuclear programs. countries likea pan and south korea, who have a neighbor, north korea, which is threatening to them. so if we want to see more nuclear weapons in the world, we should reduce ours. other countries simply are not going to follow our example. it will lead to more nuclear weapons worldwide.

so i would urge adoption of this amendment. i disagree with my colleague from indiana and i would ask for a yes vote on thement and i would like to yield the plans of my time to my colleague from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the icbm land-based missiles are the most cost economical deterrent of the nuclear triad. this is the most efficient way to deter our enemies. mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i reiterate my objection to the gentleman's amendment and ask for a no vote and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 53 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 53 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. tonight across this country, 600,000 defense department civilian employees are struggling with a 20% pay cut due to civilian furloughs, and these are scheduled to go through the end of september. these are hardworking american patriots who work hard to keep our nation secure. they're supporting our war fighters, they're doing essential work. they're working side by side, shoulder-to-shoulder, with active duty personnel who because of the language of the budget control act are exempt

from any kind of furloughs. i approve of that but it's sad that the civilians are singled out for this treatment. mr. chairman, i talked today to someone from the administration who came to a hearing for armed services, he said that the savings is estimated to be about $2 billion for the rest of the year. that may sound like a lot of money except when you look at the entire d.o.d. budget of $500 billion. so $2 billion is .4%, less than half a percent, of the total defense budget for this year. so this is a savings that is a false economy. it's demoralizing. it's hard on the families that are suffering this. and we should adopt this amendment which says that the defense department can find other savings but not take it out of the hides of the civilians who are supporting our war fighters. mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute at this time to my colleague from texas, mr.

o'rourke. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. o'rourke: i want to thank representatives lamb born, barro and jenkins for their bipartisan work on this amendment. we need a comprehensive solution to the sequester, idea ideally that's what we'd be doing. absent a comprehensive solution, we need to ease the pain of the sequester when and where we can. at fort bliss in texas, 7,000 civilians are furloughed for 11 days and a 20% pay cut the rest of the year. many of them are essential, caring for injured veterans who are returning. it's already becoming harder to retain the best employees. we have to do better both by our service members and the civilian employees who are critical to our military. i urge my colleagues to help

prevent more furloughs and support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamb born: i would like to yield one minute to my colleague from georgia, mr. barro. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barro: i rise today as a co-sponsor and strong supporter of this amendment because congress can't get its act together, more than 3,200 department of defense employees in my district are being furloughed this amendment offered a simple fix to that serious problem. it's also a positive indicator of what we can accomplish if congress is willing to come together on issues that matter most po folks back home. we have a fiscal crisis but the solution shouldn't be built on the backs of people who didn't get us into this mess in the first place, especially since our national security depends so much on civilian d.o.d. employees. this allows necessary cuts but protects the folks whose livelihoods are on the line. issues like this demand we put aside our differences and find common ground. i urge my colleagues to get behind this effort and support

this effort to end these furloughs. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamb born: i would like to yield one minute to my colleague from kansas, ms. jenkins. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: i rise in support of this amendment. my district is home to fort lovene worth and another kansas military installation. families are struggling with the d.o.d. civilian furloughs. while they may not serve in uniformmark provide critical support for our war fighters. while i support this level of spending cut, i oppose the administration's decision to take certain programs off the table and put an unfair burden on our military. the house acted six times to prevent these furloughs, to resolve sequestration and find savings elsewhere in our bloated udget budget and even the though administration and senate majority had nearly two years to develop annual terntive they did

nothing. civilian employees are not the problem and should not be singled out to pay for washington's out of control spending habits. i ask my colleagues to join me to protect these americans from another round of painful furloughs next year and support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time to mr. lamb born. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from colorado. the chair reminds the gentleman from colorado he has 30 seconds remaining. mr. lamb born: i would like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from texas, mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i rise in support of this amendment that does away with painful furloughs that may have been political in naturism represent the corpus christi army depot where the civilian employees are capital funding employees who are funded not by appropriation bus by the work they do and they are equally subjected to this when they could be saving the government money, rebuilding helicopters for less cost than original equipment

manufacturers. but we need to relieve all federal employees from this burden that is politically motivated, in my opinion. this is a good way to do it. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. choi the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i agree with the proponent of this mr. visclosky: i have noted throughout the evening that a number of my colleagues voted for the budget control act that led to sequestration that led to some of these problems and i would like to note that the gentleman voted against that bill. and i think very knowingly anticipated that there could have been very serious unintended consequences. so i do respect the persistence and consistency of his views. but having said that again as i have on a number of amendments

this evening have a great concern between differentiating between employees in one department and another. no question that the civilian employees throughout the department of defense do critical work. it could be serving in a hospital or doing security analysis or serving the troops in any number of capacities. no question about it, but i don't think we should make a distinction between that type of work and those who work for osha who make sure that workplaces are safe for americans. e shouldn't make a distinction between civilian employees and f.b.i. agents. or between those employees and u.s. marshals that risk their lives every day. federal correctional officers, u.s. apitol police,

customs and border protection, those who serve in the coast -- d, foffers try who fight forestry employees who fight wildfires, so again, the point i would make, we do have a very bad law. we ought not to be making temporary fixes for dislocation that had been caused by it, that only defers decisions that need to be made on a more permanent base basis. i appreciate the fact that the gentleman was correct in the first instance as far as not wanting to see us reach this point. i understand his impulse in trying to begin to correct some of these problems. i personally think we need a better approach and i respectfully oppose his amendment and ask for a no vote and i yield back. the chair: the question on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 54 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. meadows: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 54 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: my amendment is simple and straightforward and prohibits use of funds for salaries of presidential recess appointees until they are formally confirmed by the senate. n 1863 a law was passed that barred them from being paid.

this law stayed on the books until 1940, however over time, a number of broad exceptions were made that gradly eliminated the original intent of the law and rendered the prohibition useless. this amendment reaapplies the intent of the law to reassert the senate's authority and to that fact in the confirmation process and prevent taxpayers from having to pay the salaries of unconfirmed presidential appointees. our founders envisioned a nation of checks and balances to ensure no branch of government has too much power. the united states senate is in charge of confirming executive appointees for a reason, to ensure presidential appointees are in the best interest of the american people. for too long, democrats and republicans have creeded congress' authority to the executive branch. this is a positive step to ensure that the administration is accountable to congress.

i thank you for your time and due to the lateness of the hour, i urge support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i rise time to claim opposition to the gentleman's amendment. this amendment is trying to undo long-standing rules about when salaries can be paid to people who receive recess he appointments under presidents' constitutional powers. the amendment is injecting unnecessary and unrelated controversy into this bill. this enactment could result in paralyzing gridlock that is affecting our ability to govern. the constitution clearly gives the president of the united states the power to make temporary appointments during the recess of the senate to positions no, ma'amly requiring senate confirmation. this is a power that has been

routinely exercised by presidents since the beginnings of our government. it is true that an issue has risen about the scope of that power. two federal courts have ruled that the language is being interpreted too broadly and recess appointments can only be made in a recess between dine.ons after sine the new interpretations, of urse, would invalue -- invalidate made by president obama and others including onald reagan, president george h.w. bush and president bush. if the court does rule that presidents obama, bush, clinton and reagan were misreading, then

the landscape for these appointments will have changed and the proposed language of this amendment will be largely irrelevant. but if as many believe likely the court upholds the interpretation for tight restrictions may themselves be contrary to the constitution. the proposed amendment would alter rules that had been place in more than 70 years which recess appointees cannot receive salaries under fairly narrow circumstances. the amendment would expand that prohibition. it strikes a reasonable balance which the amendment would completely upset. we have a gridlock. i do not want to make it worse and i certainly do not believe is the place for this amendment or the debate and i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and understanding that he has conceded his time.

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 north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 55 printed in house report 1113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 55 rinted in house report 113-170 over by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. he chair: the amendment by mr. mulvaney and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. mulvaney: very briefly, this amendment is very similar, identical to a similar amendment that mr. van hollen and i offered burg the national

defense authorization act. we have added mr. coffman, a republican and mr. murphy, a democrat. but we made important changes to the amendment. what does the amendment do? it seeks to take the budget back down to what the pentagon asked for. the pentagon asked for $81 billion. the committee saw fit to give them $86 billion and we think letting the pentagon decide is a good basis for discussion and the basis for this amendment. there is one exception and this is where the important discussion comes in. there was some concern, mr. van hollen it was ill life founded but there was concern whether it prejudiced the national guard. we disagreed with their position. for that reason, that specific reason, there is explicit language in this amendment that ex cludes the national guard. instead of going to back down to

where the pentagon asked for we are giving them what they asked for plus the $1.5 billion for the national guard. for folks who had difficulty with our amendment a couple of months ago because they had concern with the impact on the national guard, we have sought to protect that. what we are asking for is what the pentagon asked for in the first place with x protections for the national guard. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment budgeting for contingency operations, especially one and a half years in advance is difficult. goodness knows the war in afghanistan and what we did in iraq, we never knew how long we would be there and how expensive it was. for example, despite having a

higher overseas contingency allocation for fiscal year 2013 from $87 billion, budget execution during fiscal year 2013 has proven that that request was understated by as much as $10 billion as a result of the extent possible, funds for o.c.o. are baselined from funds that are being squeezed from the sequester. ships are not sailing. planes are not flying and civilians are being furloughed. we have heard a lot about that on the floor today. all of us know we are exiting out of afghanistan. the timetable may be a year or two or maybe the commander in chief will decide to expedite our departure. transportation costs as

equipment is moved and deployed and god only knows things can happen on the travel route. we have heard a lot about that on the floor, too. things might happen in pakistan that might require billions of dollars more if we have to move men and material by aircraft. contracts spike, such as forward operating base pes. some of that is happening now. excess material is turned over to the private sector. and the reset of equipment carries a very high price tag. there are a lot of reasons that this money is needed. i strongly oppose this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. mulvaney: i recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> i thank my colleague, mr. mulvaney from south carolina and

our colleagues for offering this bipartisan amendment. mr. van hollen: secretary defense hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified before this house as to the amount of money that would be necessary to support the war in afghanistan and our overseas operations and the o.c.o. account and what they told this congress, the president's request of $80 billion was the amount necessary to accomplish our objectives and support our troops. this defense spending bill before us adds another $5 billion that was not asked for and unnecessary. so if there are extra monies stuffed into this account, why are they put in this account as opposed to somewhere else? and the answer is, it's a very clever accounting scheme, because the other account, the base budget for defense spending is subject to a cap. but monies for the war account

are not. so every dollar you somehow put into the war account is a dollar that escapes the cap. and so you can put lots of dollars in that war funding account even though they do not support overseas. an f in truth in budgeting. what this amendment does is say to the military, we are going to provide you the funds you asked for but as the gentleman from north carolina said we are going to add $1.5 billion additional for the guard and the reserve. but there's no reason we should be throwing money into the war accounts that don't belong there as an accounting scheme to avoid the cap. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: the $5

billion was in the national defense authorization act which the house passed in june and just for the record, funding for the overseas contingency fund, in our bill, matches the amount recommended by the house budget committee, which membership is well known and is present on the floor this evening. so it's had a pretty good endorsement, and for this reason, i strongly oppose. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ? mr. frelinghuysen: i do not reserve. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mulvaney: i thank my friend for the opportunity here. i would agree with him that it is difficult to plan out 18 months in advance as to what's going to be happening in afghanistan. however, i would think that the folks best suited to be able to do that planning would be the folks who are actually running the overseas operations, it would be the pentagon, it would

be the armed forces who are the folks that asked for the $81 billion that we are giving them. mr. van hollen's point that the secretary was here saying this is exactly what he needs. i recognize there could be contingencies but you have to think that number is already built into the request. request. moreover it's not saved for some contingency that might come up in the next 18 months, it's sponet. we try to get back in line with the money the pentagon asked taos spend, respecting the integrity of the base budget but not using up money in a wasteful fashion in the account. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

south carolina. many those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i request a roll call. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 56 printed in house report 113-170678 for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. palazzo texas spiffen amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez igthate the amendment. the clerk: earment number 56 prinned in house report 113-170 offered by mr. palazzo of mississippi. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo an meab opposed will each control five minutes. mr. palazzo: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: my amendment is simple, it prohibits the air force from making changes in fiscal year 201460 days after

congress hears from the commission west tablied to report on the global structure of the air force. over the last two years, congress and the air force have engaged in numerous discussions about the future of our forces. i've had an opportunity to engage in many of those conversations about what the air force can afford what provides us the greatest capability and what ensures that our men and women get home safely. these discussions have included decisions the air force has made regarding the realignment of forces. some of these decisions made a will the of sense. some of them did not. but as we've had these conversations, as these decisions are being made, i can't help but feel like i'm listening to the air force play the same broken record over and over again. because what i see happening, mr. chairman is the air force continues to talk about cutting cost, they talk about mission capabilities and readiness and then turn around and spend millions upon millions of dollars rebasing planes and uprooting personnel all over the in addition tonl re-evaluate and

move them again a few years later. in the end, it seems like the air force isn't making smart financial decisions as some of these moves don't make sense if a mission perspective. last year my colleagues and i addressed some of these issues in the national defense authorization process. we included language in the house version to stop movement of some of these planes until the air force could provide better answers for their decisions. i was disappointed that the final sthroferingse bill omitted this amendment. instead the time billest tablied a national commission on the structure of the air force. for the very purpose roaf-evaluating these basing decisions and reporting back to evening co-. specifically we're looking for that commission to tell fuss or how the current air force structure should be modified to best fulfill mission requirements in a manner that is consistent with our available and limited resources. the commission was also given several considerations to keep in mind while completing this study. they wanted to ep sure that

structure meets current and anticipated rirpes for the come banttant commands, achieve the appropriate balance between active duty air force and reserve components prorkvide sufficient up ins of active air force to pull from the reserve component and maintain an adequate peacetime force. i'm encouraged by the process of this commission. in fact i went and testified before the commission earlier this afternoon. i think they have valuable contributions to make in these discussions but i'm still disappointed that the air force is still determined to enact those questionable decisions before hearing from the commission. if this body doesn't act, those inisions will go into effect october of this year moving hundreds of planes, uprooting family, modifying missions, spending millions of dollars, possibly to rethink it all and rebase again in a few short years. yet the commission's report is only a few short months away.

am i the only one who thinks this doesn't make much sense? we are making bold decisions on the struck tchoifer air force without waiting for the recommendation of the study we mandated. s that plain as day example of putting the cart before the horse. my amendment would simply call for a temporary freeze on air force movement until we can review the finds of the report. i feel this is a reasonable amendment given that we asked for the study in the first place. at a time when our military is already under incredible strain, when budgets are already tight, it is imperative that we get this right. my amendment may even save us money in the long run. i ask that my colleagues support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi reserves. for what purpose dizz the gentleman from indiana rise? pll visclosky: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sliss closeky: while i

presht the gentleman's concern, the subcommittee would agree that looking back, it was poorly conceived and was made even worse by the lack of communication between the services, the reserve, and congress. and i supported and the subcommittee supported and the armed services committee supported a requirement that the air force go back and re-evaluate its force restructuring. but i ran for congress and i'm a member of the house of representatives and we're elected to make decisions. i'm not a member of a commission, i don't support commissions, and i'm disappointed that at the insistence of the other body, the armed services authorized another commission. i find it interesting that often we say, we need a commission, we need a select committee, each time there's a difficult

decision to be made. we ought to make them. that's what we get paid money for. we ought to make those decisions and not give toyota a commission. what happens when we give toyota a commission? well, that's a bad idea. we don't support the commission's decision. and then that report sits on a desk. the gentleman mentions that the time is short. we have but a few short months before the commission's report is due back to the united states congress. the report is due on february 1, 2014. that means that we have the short month of august, the short month of september, the short month of october, the short month of november, the short month of december, the month of january before the commission reports back to the congress before the congress can begin to

act. now two years after a botch red . rt the gentleman mentions budgets are tight, i agree with him. all the more reason why if the air force now has a plan to wait more than another half year to look at a report, to decide what we're going to do, we ought to see what the air force has to say, if it makes sense to do it, if not to have it changed. i'm a member of the house of representatives, not a commission. i would yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i relalk -- reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment. it seem this is amendment attempts to reopen issues that were resolved in the 2013 bills and prohibit the air force from conducting authorized rebasing actions until april, 2014.

this amendment appears to be not so great for the national guard. the national guard is depending on rebasing actions or back illing yundts that otherwise would lose aircraft. i think that needs to happen and i don't think it necessarily is going to happen after the receipt of this report which is due sometime in the future. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's rars and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. palazzo: i appreciate my colleague's remarks but the air force has a bad track record of doing this every few years and what they're doing, they're spending millions upon millions of dollar, talking about cuts costs but all they're doning is moving planes around, spend manager on capital investment, basically upsetting communities that have given their heart and shared everything that they've had in support of our armed services over and over again and i hope eventually that the air

force can get their act straight and they'll be able to figure out a strategic and structural plan that will save taxpayer dollars. and that's what this is about. we're living in a time of limited resources. i know there's a lot of people out there that want to do americans harm an we have to have our national security, you know, front and center as our top priority. i wish the air force would continuedis-- wouldn't disrupting communities around this nation. i ask that my colleagues support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the amendment is not agreed. o -- is not agreed to. it is now in orer to consider amendment number 57 printed in

house report 115--- 113-170678 for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. palazzo: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 57 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. palazzo of mississippi. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. palazzo: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment corrects what i think was an oversight. o.m.b. offered an exems for all military personnel accounts. a elieve that decision was deire to relieve all uniform military personnel from the furloughs caused by sequestration's defense cuts. unfortunately a specific group was left out pause of a technicality. our nation's national guard and

reserve military technicians are some of the most important asset we was to keeping our service men and women safe. just like any other service member they proudly wear the military uniform to work and are expected to abide by the same standards. perhaps most importantly, every one of them is deployable. miltechs are national guardsmen and reserve personnel. many have deployed to iraq, afghanistan and been in harm's way all around the world. these dual status technicians work every day in direct support of our war fighters. they ply our troops with the equipment they immediate to fight and win and return home safety -- safely. but because of a technicality, because they're paid out of a different account, these guardsmen and reserve tists have been on furlough almost a month now. all my amendment would do is ensure they receive the same treatment as our other uniformed personnel, are included in the furlough exemption. the congressional budget office verified that my amendment is budget neutral.

let me say i was one of the first on the house armed service committees to sound the alarm about the damaging effects of these cuts to our national defense. i supported several alternatives that would resolve the sequestration mess around this our defense budget and across the federal government. i have rain aback at night worrying about the effects these cuts would have. i hope we see consensus on a real fix to sequestration soon but the exception has already been made for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to defend this nation an rightly system of my amendment simply ensures we include all our deployable men and women in union forl. this is supported by our commission and enlisted national guard members and other organizations. i ask -- i ask that my colleagues support the legislation and i reserve the plans of my time. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. the chair: the gentleman veck ighed for two minutes.

>> i thank the gentleman from mississippi. this is a simple fix to a problem that is an oversight and from the state of florida's perception. i live in florida and we are prone to hurricanes. mr. neugebauer: our national ard and our first -- mr. nugent: they keep the army national guard up and flying the helicopters that are utilized to rescue people. without these dual service technicians, without these women and men who actually repair and keep the equipment running, we are at risk particularly in the state of florida, but all along

the golf coast when we can't protect us here at home, much less out in the world and our national guard and particularly aviation in my hometown that's affected. they are currently deployed in europe. but the fact that they have the inability to keep their equipment maintained and we are furloughing these dual service technicians and puts us at risk and hurts our readiness. from a florida perspective, it is imperative that we pass this. i appreciate representative palazzo to bring this forward and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. palazzo: i thank the representative from florida. he brought up a good point. not just our technicians and making sure our war fighters are

operating and many times they dely to iraq and afghanistan and multiple hot spots but another purpose of our national guard and that is helping us here in the homeland. we are in the middle of hurricane season and my governor, the governor of louisiana have sent a letter to the president of the united states asking for this exemption as well, because those are the first responders. they are there before the storm, during the storm and after the storm. i thank him for bringing that important point up. i would like to close and by saying in times of bitter gridlock, the trait of this congress is we keep our promises to the men and women who defend this nation at home and abroad at great personal sacrifice. a vote against is this to break faith.

i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i would want to suggest i appreciate the gentleman from mississippi raising the issue relative to the guard as well as the gentleman from florida. the guard protects us internationally as far as our military and international threats as well as takes care of us at home. the gentleman mentioned given their portion of the country that it is hurricane season. it is tornado season in the midwest and earthquake season every day in the state of california and wildfires out west. the guard does terrific work. i'm proud of the fact that although indiana has continued to decline relative to other states and only the 16th largest

state by population in this great republic, indiana national guard is the fourth largest guard unit in the united states of america and it is the quality of the men and women who serve just as the states of mississippi, florida and throughout our country. but i would reference back the observations i made on all of the furlough amendments that have been made tonight. everyone who does civilian work, whether it be at the department of defense or any other agency of this government, does important work. and we ought not to make that distinction. the gentleman who has spoken in favor of this did favor for the budget control act that did create sequestration and this problem. what we ought to do is begin to solve this problem and not move chairs around on this particular deck. and i would yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 58. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. rogers: i have an amendment. the clerk: amendment number 58 printed in house report 113-170 fered by mr. rogers of alabama. the chair: the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, and a member opposed, each will be recognized for five minutes. r. rogers: recently, the house and the f.y. 2014

money that the white house has requested, they have to provide for the congress the 1042 report which was due 18 months ago by law that outlines how they are going to spend the money. the white house has refused to submit that report to date. we put in the authorization language saying give us the report. i went to chairman young to ask him to include this in his appropriations bill. he said he would welcome the amendment. i hope that's the case tonight and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? vision mr. visclosky: i rice to claim time in opposition. the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment and would state my opposition to it.

we have a handful of amendments that have been made in order regarding our nuclear weapons stockpile this is one that urges maintaining the status quo and others have pushed for the reduction in nuclear weapons. i firmly believe that a further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons will not negatively impact our deterrence goal. even under the recently ratified new start treaty, both the upes and russia will have more than 1,500 deployed warheads each. additionally, the treaty contains no limits on nonstrategic nuclear weapons or nondeployed nuclear warheads. with regards to the amendment, i don't think it's responsible to prohibit the united states from carrying out the reductions prescribed by the new start

treaty. bilateral strategic arms reduction treaty was passed by a wide margin in the united states senate according to the constitution and it remains in force. i think it is very bad policy to go back on an international treaty obligation that would in fact reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world. and would, comben, reference back a quote that i read in my opening statement. because the gentleman is saying let us maintain the status quo. over the last 12 years, it has gotten us a more expensive military that has grown more expensive, but has not gotten any larger. the reality that we face today gives us very difficult choices at we are going to have to

make looking forward. our military is at a familiar crossroads, one they have been at before at the end of combat operations. the additions and subtractions that we make today must be carried out with an eye to the future. the status quo will no longer get the job done, one as far as our national security, the security of this world or a responsible budget that does provide us with a reasonable defense. and for those reasons i object to the gentleman's amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i appreciate the gentleman's observations and while i may not agree with the new start treaty, i'm not trying to prohibit implementing the law of the land. however, we do have a constitutional obligation to be

responsible with the taxpayers' dollars and under the new treaty law that was signed by the president, he had 90 days to provide to the congress a report of how he was going to spend the money. that's all we are saying, when he gives us the report that was by law due 18 months ago, we will give him the money, but not until then. i yield back. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 59 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 59 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, and

a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: i yield myself such time as i may consume and i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment which would eliminate all american military aid to pakistan, since 9/11, the united states has given pakistan over $25 billion with over $17 billion going to their security forces. these funds have been and continue to be used to fight an internal war of suppression against those who reject their corrupt and brutal domination by pakistan. sadly pakistan also uses billions of american military aid to support terrorist attacks on its neighbors, including afghanistan. and in its last decade, our generous gifts to pakistan have been used to finance the killing

of americans both military and diplomatic personnel. we have been acting like suckers. no shame on pakistan being two-faced and murderous. shame on us for being so stupid for financing a regime that despises us and considers us its enemy. it is a charade to believe that our aid is buying pakistan's cooperation in hunting down terrorists when the pakistani establishment not only gave safe haven to osama bin laden for 10 years but jailed the courageous man who pinpointed bin laden and instrumental in bringing justice to him, the mass murderer to our fellow americans on 9/11. the doctor is an american hero, but we have left him to rot in a pakistani dungeon. shame on us for letting him

languish in misery and pain for helping us to bring justice to osama bin laden and those he murdered on 9/11. pakistan is not a government in which we should be giving billions of dollars of aid. my amendment would cut off all aid because pakistan has betrayed our friendship time and again. any money we send them only strengthens their ability to act and st us, to murder undermine moderate muslims in afghanistan even as we withdraw. in a time of tight budgets, we should reserve our aid for our friends and our allies and end assistance to a government that targets and kills americans. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves.

the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: race to claim opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: the secretary of defense -- i'm sorry, let me say gain, section 1994 of the bill specifies ar certification by the secretary in order to give the reimbursement to pakistan. the secretary of defense must certify that pakistan is cooperating with u.s. counterterrorism operations and not supporting terrorism activities against the united states, taking measures to export the i.e.d. materials and preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials. as mentioned earlier, the relationship with pakistan has always been difficult. it is a gray world. but maintaining that

relationship is essential. it has helped the united states make progress against terrorism and pakistan has allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to the counterterrorism mission. in june of 2012, pakistan demonstrated its commitment to a stable and secure pakistan by reopening the ground lines of communications. i certainly regret that previously they had been closed. ut this has eased tensions and provideded logistical support for our troops. his would exacerbate pro and anti-american risks within the military and government generally and i don't think we need to aggravate a very sensitive relationship that can in the future be more productive to the united states. and will be happy to yield to he gentleman from new jersey.

-- free lipping hughesen: i mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman. because we're very strong friend, i understand the passion he expresses on some occasions. pakistan does remain a key counterterrorism partner and their cooperation is essential as we withdraw from afghanistan, we're going to have to use, as we did in the war in afghanistan, we're going to have to use air routes over pakistan, we're going to have to use maritime capabilities, we're going to have to use the land routes to get our troops and material out. otherwise we depend on dir zig stan and russia, it's going to be expensive, it's going to be expensive anyway but approximately $20 billion worth

to withdraw from afghanistan if we don't have the cooperation of the pakistanis. and the other issue is pakistan is a nuclear power. and i think we need to have a close working -- working relationship with them to make sure those weapons in the future never fall into the wrong hands. appreciate the gentleman's remarks. i associate myself with them. i trongly oppose this amendment. obviously i respect the sponsor for his strong views as well. thank you. >> appreciate the gentleman -- mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and like he said i appreciate the passion that the author of the amendment has brought to this. we need to make sure this is an adult relationship that is in the end beneficial to our nation. i appreciate his objective but am opposed to his amendment. eye elled back. the chair: the gentleman from

indiana yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: the gentleman noted that this is a gray world. it is not a gray world in so many cases. this is not a gray world when people are killing americans. this is in the a gray world when -- one who slaughters organizes the slaughter of 3,000 americans on 9/11 and then is given safe haven by someone claiming to be our friend, that's not gray at. they pakistanis decided a long time ago they consider us their enemy. when they took osama bin laden and gave him safe haven from us and took our money for doing it an took our money and used it to finance terrorist groups that have murdered american soldiers in afghanistan, that's not a gray world, that's black and white and we should stand nirp principle that people who are killing americans will not receive american military aid. and that's how we can -- we can proclaim that tonight in this

resolution and i ask my colleagues to join me in standing up to make sure that the world knows that when they kill americans they're not going to be treet like they're our friends. we're not that stupid. i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the noven echair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number of printed in house report 113-170. frup does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. stockman: i have an amendment at the table. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: ealt number 60 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. stockman of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from texas, mr. stockman, and a member opposed each will control

five minutes. mr. stockman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is an important amendment in that the chinese have demonstrated they're willing to take our tactics and technology, and coming up in 2014, president obama invited the chinese to participate in the world's larmingest maritime exercise. the chinese plan to use these exercises to increase their knowledge about our tactics. the participation in these military exercises are particularly concerning at this time when china is hacking our computers, stealing our weapon plans andest ka lating pressure in the south sees -- south seas of china. china's behavior doesn't appear to be on the radar of the administration and i'm concerned that they're becoming belligerent in the pacific area of the rim, they're declaring rights to land and we are going to, by participating with the chinese, make it look like we're

siding with the chinese and help really the chinese allies and against the united states. at this time i would like to yield time to my friend the co-sponsor, the gentleman from california, i yield him such time as he may consume. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in support of theament offered by my good friend from texas. the chinese munist party is a gangster regime that rules over billions -- over a billion of its subjects. it is the world's worst human rights abuser and does not deserve the recognition nor the legitimacy that comes with participating in military exercises with the armed forces of the united states. as the great threat -- as the greatest threat to world peace and stability, the last thing we should be doing is trying to fine tune and helping them fine tune the military and their familiarization with their military with the strength and

weaknesses of america's armed forces. the chinese military is the armed wing of the communist party in that country. for decades, china has occupiedity bet, east turk stan, and threatened the government of taiwan with total anilings. he communist party uses force. thousands of practitioners who do nothing more than promote yoga and meditation have had their organs ghoulishly ripped from their bodies before they were executed so those organs could be sold. the moral deprave i have to the chinese communist party cannot be overstated. they are using military expansion to back up territorial claims against india, japan, taiwan, philippines and other countries. the chinese military is golvet even more agregs in cyberspace as we have heard if my colleague from texas.

they've stolen dozens of our defense systems. they have vast amounts of intellectual property they've stolen as well as the business records for many of our companies. the damage has been estimated in the trillions of dollars. any cooperation with the chinese military only weakens our own moral credibility and discourages our allies in the face of threats from communist chi demasm we should be drawing a clear distinction between us and the chinese military, not helping them train to become even more efficient. i call on my colleagues to vote for congressman stockman's terrific amendment and again making sure that we stand up and are counted when this is a threat to the freedom and stability of the world. the chair: i reserve the balance of our -- >> i reserve time -- mr. stockman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: this will block funds for any military exercise in which chinese participates president obama confirmed that they will participate in rimpac in 20 14678 the invitation had been extended to china in then-secretary panetta's visit to the country in 2012. rimpac is the largest international maritime exercise where 28 countries and more than 40 ships and submarines working to. in 2012, not all participants were our traditional allies. russia, for example, india, for example, were participants i believe the amendment is shortsighted in that it attempts to place an unneeded stumbling block in the path of a relationship that's continuous.

i would suggest the secretary would not have extended the invitation if the department and the united states navy did not feel that would be a benefit to be gained by these exercises with the chinese participation. i refuse to believe as a member of the united states congress that the department would take such a position. the united states gains maritime knowledge and renewed relationships with other navies of the world and considers participation in this exercise as crucial to their mission. rimpac participation has gained an ever greater meaning with the d defense department eas rebalance to the asia pacific and i do think that this amendment should not be dopped by the house. i would reserve the bns of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. stockman: i would point out that the military works if congress, not the other way around. so if we direct the military to do something, they do it.

if they object, they're not going to object and say we're not going to do it. we're the body that controls the military and we're responsible for this nation's future and it's so on the face of it so obvious what we're doing is giving away our secrets. i can tell you right now they've stole the plans to the f-22, they're build manager f-22's than we are. they're not part of the negotiation for nuclear weapons right now, we only negotiate with russia. we have no idea how many weapons they have. we have no idea how many nuclear weapons they have. we are blind spotted by what they're doing, they're shooting down satellitings and they could blind us. but anyhow i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman and agree with his i assertion that we do have civilian command of the department of defense and the united states navy and god bless the united states navy, they follow orders. but also having dealt with the navy for some number of years as a member of the subcommittee, i

would suggest to my colleagues if the navy had reservations, or had some concerns, we would have had a whiff of that objection and concern wafting from the potomac to this particular building. i have not sensed that myself. i would yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me associate myself with mr. visclosky's remarks. i think there's some benefit for us to have joint military -- they may learn something about us, we may learn something about them, and i can assure you the committee is in a state of denial. we know the chinese are very aggressive, setting out a strategy for a blue navy and i think these joint exercises may be extremely beneficial to us in terms of their strategy, their

naval strategy, and to be part of an overall pacific rim program gives us a pretty good opportunity to take a look at their capabilities. i thank the credit for yielding. mr. stockman -- mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and yeemed back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no have it. the credit from texas. mr. stockman: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. 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 61. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition in mr. turner: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 61 offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would restrict president obama from unlawfully divesting our nation's strategic delivery systems. since the enactment of the new start treaty in 2010, the president has continued to jeopardize the security of the united states by unilaterally pursuing policies and international agreements that call for the drastic reduction of our nation's nuclear deterrents. not only are those agreements harmful to the united states but also they are in violation of standing laws such as the arms control disarmament act which states that international agreements cannot limit or reduce the military forces of the united states unless enacted pursuant to a treaty or congressional executive agreement. it is unfortunate that amendments such as this one have become necessary as the president chooses to ignore the role of congress when negotiating arms reduckses. as recently as last month, president obama delivered a speech in berlin in which he

outlined his plan to further predeuce knew leer war -- nuclear war heads by as much as one third. since that time the administration has given no indication that he would seek to negotiate or seek senate ratification of a formal treaty as required by law. instead the scradmrgs continues to engage directly with the russian federation while averting a formal treaty process in coordination with the senate. these drastic reductions by the president are ill conceived and have only encouraged the further proliferation of nuclear weapons by countries like russia, china, and north korea, which continue to expand the nuclear weapons programs. this amendment seeks to ram the president's misguided policies y biensuring -- seeks to end the president's misguided policies by instructing that up in of the funds be used. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise?

mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman we have had a number of amendments this evening and we have proposals and discussions and consideration taking place and i don't think it's our duty to stop all of that from happening. the fact is none of these weapons have ever been used. in the united states or elsewhere on the planet earth. and i would hope, as an institution, we would take this much time to consider the asymmetrical threats that have considered against this country and its citizens and allies such as the attack on the uss coll, kenya, the in

events of 2001. think about the instability and strategic challenges we face in egypt and syria and libya and north africa. the continuing challenge of iran that supports terrorist organizations with regional and global aims. the effort that we are going to have to put into the priorityization of an asia- pacific region with focus on particular emphasis on korea and continual attack by cyber against our nation and our assets. again, as far as deliberation and consideration, i don't think we should be here all evening saying no. no. no. the president obviously, if there is any further reduction according to a treaty would have to have that ratified. i do oppose the gentleman's

amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: i won't question his historical description of the use of nuclear weapons but i find it confusing. this amendment and its terms are not about the issue of the use of or even the number of weapons of the united states or russia might have. this is about the constitution and the laws of the united states. all this says is that the president has to follow the constitution and make sure he seeks senate ratification of any formal treaty or that he conform with the disarma meant act. the concern why this amendment is necessary is because the president felt the need to leave this country and go to another country and announce to take it

on as president and his intention of further reducing our nuclear weapons. this amendment is not about amendments but about the law and our constitution and upholding the law and the president conform to it. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 62 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mrs. walorski: i have an amendment at the desk. .he clerk: amendment number 62, the chair: the gentlewoman from

indiana is recognized and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. walorski: the president announced he was lifting his self-imposed transfer. i believe it is a dangerous policy for our troops overseas and our citizens living in the homeland. it prohibits any funds from being used to transfer gitmo detainees to yemen. this is similar to an amendment i offered in the past. this amendment is needed because detainees represent some of the most dangerous detainees. after yemen was the starting point of the airline bombing over detroit, the obama administration decided not to transfer these detainees. they pose a real threat to our national security. in addition, transfers to yemen should be prohibited because the

country has become a hotbed. the director of national intelligence says there is a an fill yacht. qap will kill as many americans. there is an al qaeda network that we know has been targeting the united states. the radicalization can be traced back to yemen. their poor track record of securing its prisons. citizen of yemen, the mastermind of uss coal bombing. he was recaptured and able to escape from yemen in 2006 with 22 other terrorists. why would we risk another jail break by people on who intend to

do us harm. i learned about how 00 prisoners escaped from iraq after they launched an assault to free them. many of these prisoners were senior members of al qaeda who were convicted and received death sentences. it's an example of what happens when the u.s. delegates its national security interests to other countries. this is a commonsense amendment of protecting amendments. this congress needs to get reports on factors that contribute to re-engagement so the choices can be made. that report is mandated by law and is still currently overdue. in 2012, it was reported that the combined and suspecteded rate of former gitmo detainees has risen to 30%. i consider you to join me in supporting this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady

reserves. anyone seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i claim time in opposition and reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized and now reserves. the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: can i inquire as to the balance of my time? 1/2 1/4. 2 mrs. walorski: i yield to mr. briody bridenstine. mr. bridenstine: i am against transfer of guantanamo bay detainees. hundreds of convicts including al qaeda broke out of iraq's abu ghraib jail. the abu ghraib prison break says that most countries cannot secure terrorists including yemen. yemen has a bad record of prison breaks including al qaeda terrorists. in 2011, several escaped from a

prison. in 2006, 23 militants broke out of a jail and established the core leadership in yemen, a group that has sprayed into al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. it seems obvious we shouldn't transfer a single detainee. yet president obama is committed to closing guantanamo bay that i fear he may try. mr. chairman, the gitmo detainees is a huge problem. the latest report, 97 of the 603 transferred gitmo detainees have re-engaged in terrorism. 97 of them. 72 are suspected of re-engaging. one-third of all transferred gitmo detainees are either confirmed or suspected of getting back in the fight. clearly congress needs to get

involved. as a navy pilot with combat tours in iraq and afghanistan, our troops' job is difficult enough. we don't need to fight the same people twice. mr. visclosky: i rise to claim the time. i appreciate the fact that this is the first instance that my friend and colleague from indiana and i are participating in a delate on an amendment on the house floor, which is why i respectfully and regretfully have to oppose her amendment as well intentioned as it is. i do not believe that we should impose on ourselves, the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at guantanamo. walking through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses and

now serving long sentences in federal prison. not one has ever escaped custody. what wire's told, we cannot bring these detainees to the united states for trial or custody. and we are told in three other instances in the bill that we cannot close guantanamo. but i think the rationale for establishing guantanamo in the first instance was a misplaced idea that the facility could be beyond the law, a proposition rejected by the supreme court and continued operation of this facility continues that the united states selectively observes the rule of law. and with this amendment, now we would have a fourth restriction within this bill and i think that is not the best policy for this country to pursue. and for that reason, do oppose

the gentlewoman's amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mrs. walorski: could i infire quire the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady has 45 seconds and the gentleman from indiana has 3 1/4. mrs. walorski: this amendment isn't whether gitmo stays open or closes. this amendment is specifically about not allowing transfers of highly dangerous terrorists to the country of yemen because they aren't capable of holding terrorists. the job of this congress and what we are talking about is protecting the american people which is what we are charged with. and i would respectfully ask our body to approve this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the gentlelady from indiana request a rodded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 63 print the in . use report 113-170 now in order to consider amendment number 64 considered in house report 113-170. it is now in order to consider amendment number 65 printed in house report 113 -- 170. ms. bonamici: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 65 printed in house report number 113-170.

the chair: pursuant to house the chair 312, recognizes the gentleman from oregon. ms. bonamici: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of this amendment to provide our national guard with the aircraft it needs to perform its mission effectively and efficiently. the national guard relies on c-23 aircraft for a variety of uses and especially for missions stateside. these small cargo aircraft transport personnel after hurricanes katrina and they aid the guard in fighting wildfires. these planes are flexible. they can be put into use quickly and this is important, mr. chairman. they are less expensive to operate than other options.

despite opposition from the national guard association of the united states and from governors around this country, the army now wants to eliminate the use of these. the c-130 planes they propose using is two times as expensive to operate. plus eliminating would require rely on the air force for the use of planes. this would add up to a week to access planes cutting off the guards to be flexible. they are extremely popular with e special operations popularity. my amendment would uphold current law and prevent the retirement, divestment or transfer of c-23 aircraft and ensure their continued viable operation preventing the them