section 2, at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-bnchings of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1582 to protect consumers by prohibiting the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating his final certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more than $1 billion and will cause significant adverse effects to the economy. . the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in

order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of five-minute er the rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-19. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those comminted in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived.

at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to

revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: house resolution 315 provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation passed by the committee on energy and commerce. the first, h.r. 2218, the coal residuals reuse and management act of 2013, introduced by my friend on the committee, mr. mckinley from west virginia, passed out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote with 54 bipartisan co-sponsors. the second piece of legislation, h.r. 1582, the energy consumers relief act of 2013, was introduced by my friend, mr. cassidy from louisiana. the rule before us today provides for one hour of general debate on each of the bills included in the rule. a total of nine amendments were made in order between the two bills, six on the democratic side, three on the republican side. further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on each bill, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend each piece of legislation

before its final vote. h.r. 2218, the coal residuals reuse and management asket 2013 is a product of hours of work over the course of the past few years that the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, has put in to perfect this legislation. indeed, the legislation includes numerous provisions offered by democrats, and even reflects input by president obama's own environmental protection agency. the legislation was prompted by a move in june of 2010 by the environmental protection agency, to regulate coal combustion residuals. in this rule the environmental protection agency set out three proposals for coal residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. coal residuals are often recycled in an environmentally sound fashion and repurposed for parks, golf courses, and any other number of

state manners. unfortunately many in the industry viewed these proposed environmental protection agency regulations as placing barriers to the continued use or recycling of coal ash. in response to these concerns mr. mckinley's bill would provide for minimum federal standards but allow states to craft a permitting program that could be tailored to the needs in each individual state. the bill makes clear that it does not provide the environmental protection agency with new rule making authority. further, it requires the environmental protection agency to defer to the states with respect to the regulation of coal ash. this would allow states to protect human health and environment by adapting an existing solid waste regulatory program for coal ash. to ensure adequate safety measures for human health, the bill requires installation of ground water monitoring and all structures that receive coal ash. the second bill included in

today's rule has been carefully designed to protect consumers from a run away environmental protection agency, which in my experience as a member of the committee on energy and commerce, constantly uses some pretty strange figures and funny math in depicting the so-called benefits of its rules and rarely fully admits to the full cost of he rules it prom mull gates -- promulgates, since the beginning of president obama's and lisa jackson's tenure with the federal government, the environmental protection agency has promulgated regulations imposing billions of dollars in cost on our critical power infrastructure. famously the environmental protection agency has been so out of control that the president himself was required to intervene and pull the ozone rule in august of 2011 knowing the cost to the country far outweighed the benefits that the environmental protection agency was claiming. in response to this out-of-control agency, dr. cassidy has carefully crafted

h.r. 1582, the energy consumers relief act, which would add another measure of protection for consumers legitimately frightened of whether or not they will be able to afford their air conditioning this summer or their heating this fall. or even turn on their lights at nighttime. the bill is straightforward, it requires that before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the american people, the environmental protection agency must consult with the secretary of energy, a cabinet member who will be working for the very same president as the administrator at the environmental protection agency. the energy secretary must then determine that the rule before him would cause -- would not cause significant adverse effects to the economy or to electric reliability, that's his job. that's what his mission statement is as the top energy official for our country.

for too long the environmental protection agency has dictated our energy policy rather than simply our environmental policy. former secretary stephen chu seemed to have no problem passively delegating his job to lisa jackson. i suppose he was too busy losing america's money to solar companies. the era of the environmental protection agency dictating energy policy must end, and this bill is a solid step toward that goal. mr. speaker, american consumers are struggling. they watch the cost of food, it rises right before their eyes, they watch the gas prices. where are they going? nowhere but up. they watch their electricity bills. they are also going up. and there is no relief in sight on the horizon under this president and this administration. house republicans have not abandoned their promises to protect consumers from an out-of-control bureaucracy imposing cost after cost on the american people.

today's legislation is yet another few arrows in the quiver to stop the federal government from taking more money out of americans' pockets. in the end i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the two underlying bills. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. it hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to use as much time as i deem necessary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i'd like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from texas with reference to his one-minute statement previous to the time hat we began the rule. as i understood him he said that for the last 20 months the democrats have controlled every

level of power. somewhere along the line i think my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the united states house of representatives is and aren't. that said, my recollection is that in this congress, which has consumed six months, and in the previous one which took two years, that my friends in the republican party have controlled the house of representatives. so unless there's no longer one level of power in washington, something is misunderstood by me. mr. speaker, the house faces a number of pressing issues that have bipartisan support. in that we could be addressing in our limited time before the august recess. for example, we could be reforming in a comprehensive

manner our nation's immigration system. we could be ending the sequester. i have not met a democrat or republican that did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. we could be addressing the doubling of student loan interest rates. we could be having a conference on a farm bill. or we could be appointing something that i still find very strange, we could be appointing budget conferees. it used to be that having a conference around this place was a real opportunity for members. and members sought to be on the conference. i know my first experience i was fascinated by the fact that i'm on a conference with the other body, the united states senate. little did i know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but i came to learn. perhaps it wasn't as important

as i thought it was, but it is important to the process. but for any of these important issues to be addressed, members would have to work together to resolve their differences. instead, we are spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know will never become law. i don't have to be a betting person to bet anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will not become the law of the land. the reason that i know that, we have already done it four times. this same measure. and it didn't see the light of day in the other body, and this one ain't going to, either. these bills today show what i have been saying for quite some time now, and it's that my republican colleagues really have not manifest an interest in actually fixing our country's problems. in fact it seems that they are more happy to bring congress to

a stand still and call that success. mr. speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling families. and in case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends recently released their messaging plan for the august work period in our respective districts. that plan is called, fighting washington for america. wow. despite the irony, i would almost want to call it hypocrisy, of sitting members of congress trying to paint themselves as outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the ridlock, fighting washington for americans urges members to consider washington as a place

where nothing good happens. so the less governing that gets done the better. yet these tie bills today -- two bills today completely contradict those ideas. h.r. 1582 gives the department of energy unprecedented authority to veto environmental protection agency related regulation. not only does the bill prevent the e.p.a. from finalizing critical public health and environmental rules, it instructs the department of energy to conduct a duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. even the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they are creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two measures. and i said yesterday in the rules committee, i would be astounded at how much time it's going to take the energy department and the e.p.a. to

coordinate their efforts. evidently these people haven't been trying to talk to these bureaucrats the way that i have over the course of time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination despite the office of management and budget's interagency review of all regulations which include the department of energy in the review of e.p.a. rules. i did a little research, mr. speaker, of how many times, over the course of the time that i am here, that members on the other side have offered measures that did not become law to abolish the department of energy. hear me loud and clear, to abolish the department of energy. now we come today, after that hasn't been -- after that having been done numerous times, we come today that the energy department is the answer. these same people want i guess

everything with an e in the cabinet. they wanted the department of e.p.a. to be abolished at one time. the department of education. they need to change their acronyms over there or they'll find themselves abolished if b, c, d, get past a, e. it instructs the department of energy to do as i said, duplicative measures. as for h.r. 2218, the coal residuals reuse and management act, the second bill being considered under this rule today , it encourages, in my view, a race to the bottom. where the state willing to have the least protections will become the dumping ground for the entire country. i said last night that i would be mad today. i tempered myself with my passion over my reflections of

my comments in the rules committee. but i cannot but return to them when i think of the community that i live in and that have lived in for now coming up on 51 years. where every one of the superfund brownfields was in the minority community. every dump that ever dunked anything in broward county was in the minority communities. treatment waste across the street from where i lived, and i uess perhaps these people have not had those experiences. while there are certainly inefficiencies within the federal government, and they're numerous, the 2008 coal ash spill in kingston, tennessee, is evidence that the environmental protection agency has an important role to play in protecting our nation's public health. this bill would allow states to undertake permitting programs

for the management of coal ash and let me talk about what's in coal ash. people seem to think that coal ash is all this great stuff. led,ash has in it mercury, chromium, but these are things that are poisonous. and, yes, it is true that we have managed on the regulations to constrain ourselves with many of these products that have been utilized for benefit. but do not mistake arsenic and lead for anything other than armless -- harmful products. the federal environmental standards that are put forward here do not take into contemplation how important it is to establish uniform protections while our nation's health and environment -- four

or -- for our nation's health and environment. let me return to the kingston, tennessee, situation. the tennessee valley authority is still paying in exs of $1 billion -- excess of $1 billion. somewhere in the enabled of $1.2 billion, for taking this stuff and dumping it in uniontown, alabama. 100 feet from where people live. and i suggest, as is the case in the community that i am privileged to serve, where people that are friends of mine have died as a result of not coal ash but dumps being in their communities and incinerators burning it and that's the same in many respects. i compliment florida power and light, the largest utility in my state, for destroying their two coal ash plants in fort lauderdale and we still find that florida power and light manages their business well

enough to make handsome profits and as far as electric rates going up, i would suggest to my friend, it's sort of like health care measures. and i continue to ask everybody, tell me today, before there was anything called obamacare, tell me today that your insurance rates for health went down. tell me today that your utilities went down. i don't recall any period where that happened. and somewhere along the line we need to address these things in meaningful ways. different standards in each state provide an economic incentive to send coal ash to the state with the lowest level of regulation. this bill will not ensure the safe disposal of coal ash or make current law any stronger. fighting washington, that's what you are getting ready to say in august. -- august, does not keep our air and water clean. fighting washington does not provide the sick with medical

treatment. fighting washington does not keep wall street from preying on the american people. fighting washington does not provide student loans for children who aren't going to be able to return to school this year because of the prohibitive cost. fighting washington does not provide immigration reform in a comprehensive manner and somewhere along the lines we have to understand there are more than 11 million people in this country that are here illegally. and i can point to you, people that work right around this capitol, and a few that are in it, that we rely upon, that we need to straighten this law out about. but we prefer to fight washington. fighting washington doesn't help the center for disease control prevent us from having diseases. at robert e. lee high school in fairfax county, one of the best counties for education in this country, they've had a recall of students for tuberculosis,

something that i thought that we have pretty much abolished. but when we can't find the necessary research money and we can't find the necessary provisions, largely because we're fighting washington, then we're going to have other outbreaks like that that we have to contend with. fighting washington doesn't provide the national institute of health the things to do to provide women's health and mayo research in order for us to better the health of the united states of america. fighting washington makes for a great talking point. might even make for a great fundraising. might make for a good bumper sticker. but it is far from a serious strategy, to actually make this country better. a better title would be -- than fighting washington for americans would be washington fighting for americans. now, this do-nothing congress, i've been here 21 years, it's given new meaning to do nothing.

and all of this repealing things didn't just start this year. next week we'll be back here on the floor talking more repeal. we're going to have something called the reins act. we're real good up here at naming things. reins. we're going to be doing some more repeal. but in the 112th congress, i looked back, we had 137 votes to block actions to prevent pollution. we had 55 votes targeted at the department of energy. we had 57 votes to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives. we had 47 votes to promote offshore drilling. we had 81 votes targeted at the department of interior. we had 87 votes to undermine protections for public lands and wilderness. we had 53 votes to block actions that address climate change. we had 38 votes to dismantle the clean water act.

317 repeal votes. i've changed you-all's name. it's no longer the republicans, it's the repealicans. you must be people that just repeal. and over in the other body republicstructionists. it gets ignored here when we start talking about who's responsible for. what it gets ignored that the minority in the other body has arcane rules that permit them to block everything and that's what they've done. everything you haven't blocked or sought to repeal, here we have been here trying to get health care for people and you all are voting to repeal health care 39 different times. i'm tired of voting on that kind of stuff. i want to vote on something that's going to provide some jobs for america. i want to vote on something that's going to have some students have some jobs had they get out of school. i want to vote on something that's going to allow for technology and innovation to

catch up with what's going on in the world. we nt to make sure that exact our responsibilities, particularly with reference to education. i want to make sure i just left a meeting with the homeless providers and nonprofits, i want to make sure that there's meals on wheels. i want to vote on something to make sure that every child has an equal opportunity for a very good education in this country. i want to vote on something that's going to look 50 years down the road to what america looks like and not 50 months from now or not one month from now in august when you're going to be fighting washington. i'm going to be up here with you in washington and we're consummate insiders and it's ridiculous for you to go home and try to tell somebody you're anything other than that. you do control 1/3 of the legislative body and you do have exacting responsibilities, given to you under article i, that you're not exercising. you have the ways and means act, you have the -- ability, you

have the numbers to undertake to do those things. so, yeah, i'm mad. and i think many in america are mad too. with a congress that is doing nothing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, let me just yield myself one minute for a couple of brief responses, pending which i want to yield five minutes to the gentleman from west virginia. first off, i don't know whether the gentleman misheard or only caught me in midsentence. i was responding to the minority leader's statement about this september is the four-year anniversary of the crash in the economy. and the preceding 20 months from september of 2008 in the congress, all of the levers of power were handled by the democrats. now, on this issue of fighting washington, good strategy, bad strategy, i can't address that. but i do know what's going on out of this country. people are flight -- frightened of washington. it's not fighting washington. they're scared.

why are they scared? what this they seen with the n.s.a.? what do they see with the t.s.a. when they go to the airport? what have they seen with the i.r.s.? nobody likes the i.r.s. to start with but now people are concerned that their first amendment rights are going to be trampled by an out-of-control agency and it all devolves back to the administration. ah, the congress has its own problems, but the administration is actually what is driving the frightening of america, not the fighting of america. i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the rule. for over 33 years congress has wrestled unpredictively on how to -- unproductively on how to with coal ash which is a byproduct of coal. the bill before us today provides a resolution finally to this issue. and avoids kicking the can down the road. h.r. 2218 has two parts.

the first part codifies the previous e.p.a. studies that were conducted in 1993 and 2000 under bill clinton. both of them, i have copies of it here, and perhaps those that need to read those reports would understand that in the 1993 and the 2000 reports, they concluded that coal ash is a nonhazardous material. and should be beneficialy recycled for use in products such as concrete blocks, brick, wall board, and used in our roads and bridges across america. the second part, unfortunately they're not aware of it yet, but they would read the bill, they would find it has been significantly rewritten since last year. we listened to what people were saying. we listened to the e.p.a. we listened to the administration and incorporated those into this bill. so that this second part now

provides for all new and existing landfills to be state-run, using a federal law known as ricrum which in and of itself incorporates the federal guidelines for protecting, quote, hime health and the environment -- human health and the environment. consequently, disposal requirements under h.r. 22 will require liners, dust control, groundwater monitoring, financial assurances, emergency action plans, inspections, structural stability, just to name a few. in fact, the e.p.a. states that the primary goals are to, quote, protect human health and the environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. closed quote. for the first time there will be a uniform national standard for disposing of coal ash. however, as you just heard, you

hear opponents of this legislation, this legislation does not protect human health and the environment. but quite frankly, that's not the case. h.r. 2218 not only includes nine different references and sections which protect human health and environment, but also incorporates the existing part 258 regulation. to use the words of the e.p.a., quote, e.p.a. believes that part 258 criteria represents a reasonable balance, ensuring the protection of human health and the environment, closed quote. . from the e.p.a. . the opponents of this measure seem to lack a fundamental understanding, mr. speaker. there are jobs at stake here. 316,000 jobs across america. it's really that simple. a compromise is available. anyone who opposes this rule

will continue to support the status quo. if we do nothing, coal ash, which is generated every day in 48 of the 50 states, will continue to be disposed of. the status way it's been since 1950's and 1960's. and the unwarranted stigma asocial yeated with recycled material will continue. fortunately, they are finally today, after listening and compromising and working together, there appears to be an emerging consensus to allow for the beneficial recycling of coal ash. and the concerns raised by previous congress has been addressed. mr. speaker, after 33 years of fussing with this issue, it's time to put it to rest. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: would the speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 17 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. but this is actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental protective. all you have to do is look at the statement of administration position to see how this bill has gotten worse. the administration is concerned there is no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective action on unlimited or leaking empowerment units.

unlike h.r. 2273 from the last congress, this says that an unlined empowerment that is found to be contaminating ground water, only has to close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same site. many of these facilities don't have the space for additional capacity at the same site. that means that the pollution can go on for years or even indefinitely. this bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. that's why all of the environmental groups oppose this legislation. they even sent a letter to the house today that states, quote, this bill is more dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of this legislation. mr. speaker, i'm very sad today one of my college classmates is being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. her funeral was at 11:00.

she lives in a community called golden heights. in golden heights in the two square mile radius from dump that dumped in that community for a considerable period of time, the incidents of cancer, dear friends of mine, male and female, is inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the state of florida. something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and not be mindful of who the victims of that pollution. mr. speaker, and i make the distinction that i was not talking about coal ash, and i'm glad i don't live near one of those places where they are dumping like in uniontown, alabama, if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 2070. representative tim bishop's bill, to protect consumers from price gouging at the gas pump.

to discuss his bill i would like now to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, my friend, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in opposition to the rule and urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the house can consider pro-consumer job protecting legislation, the federal price gouging prevention act, which would deter the sale of gasoline at excessive prices. i introduced this legislation so that my constituents and long island businesses are not harmed by unscrupulous business practices designed to increase profit margins. my constituents are facing rising prices on nearly every tern on sop of stagnant wage road. they are worried about paying for college, mortgage, retirement, or groceries. they are also wondering what congress is doing for them to create jobs and raise their standard of living. the triple-a estimates that gas

prices are expected to increase as the summer continues. in fact the aaa reports the average price per gallon is up to $4 on long island, from $3.87 a week ago. this comes as americans are heading to long island's beaches, historic villages, and open spaces. excessive gas prices will cost them businesses and jobs, and that's something we cannot let happen on long island or anywhere else. the east coast is also in the midst of hurricane season which can bring out the unscrupulous who will take advantage of hardworking families as we witnessed in the aftermath of sandy. in fact, just this week a new york state judge fined one long island gas station and two others have reached settlement with the new york attorney general's office for price gouging. this congress should protect those harmed by natural disasters so they don't have to worry about price gouging while they rebuild their homes, communities, businesses, and livelihoods. let's do it now before the next crisis erupts. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, support

consumers and jobs, and support the federal price gouging prevention act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds in response, penning which i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia. in the previous seven months i have spent on the rules committee in this congress, there's only one time the administration has not issued a veto threat to legislation we were considering under the rules committee. this is h.r. 2218, mr. mckinley's bill. that is a red letter day in this institution. er -- every other piece of legislation that's come to the floor has done so under threat of veto by the administration. i yield to the gentlelady from west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: i rise in strong support of the rule and two underlying energy bills that the

house will consider today. proud co-sponsor of both of these bills because they will protect west virginia jobs and prevent increases in electricity cost for many of those millions of folks across this country that cannot afford it. my colleague, mr. mckinley, has worked tirelessly to see that h.r. 2218 has met the demands and answered the questions. to my colleague from florida, when he stated he was -- he's glad he doesn't live in these areas, guess what? we do. so it's exceedingly important to us that we do this the right way. that's why i'm supporting the framework for state regulation that will ensure that coal ash will be used productively. i visited the sutton dam in my district for its 50-year anniversary, and i can tell you i was there when it was built and i was there 50 years later. as they were describing the sutton dam and how successful it's been and still a fortress of strength holding the water

back, they started talking about the construction materials used 50 years ago. guess what? coal ash was one of those construction materials that was used to strengthen this dam and also have it stand the test of time. so i think the regulatory uncertainty that's been around -- for years about what to do about coal ash has really cut the use of coal ash by millions of tons, but also wouldn't we rather be recycling and reusing this in a productive measure rather than increasing the empoundments and increasing any kind of risk to the environment. this bill just makes perfect sense. and the second bill addresses the growing number of billion dollar e.p.a. rules. in my view, billion dollar e.p.a. rules has two major causes, loss of jobs, and the cost to seniors and those on fixed incomes and the folks who

are trying to heat their homes or cool their homes to be able to meet the high cost of electricity. so these make great sense to me. i'm very proud of my colleague from west virginia for bringing this to the floor for the fifth time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. burgess: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the previous speaker is a person that there are few in congress that i have greater respect for, and i certainly understand the dynamics of living in ommunities, in my judgment she's absolutely correct that what we should be doing suffering we can to constructively make sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of all the communities that we live in. to that degree while i stand by my position that i'm glad i don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately i live

close to and have for some time facilities that have been harmful, that claimed that they were protecting the health and the environment of people. mr. speaker, last night, yesterday in the rules committee, my friend from illinois, mr. shimkus, said something that i would like to correct. he'll be down here, i'm sure, later today whenever this measure comes up. he noted that the environmental protection agency testified, quote, that they do not oppose, unquote, this coal ash bill. i want to make sure that everyone knows that the environmental protection agency said that because they are not permitted to take a position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they support or oppose legislation, and the administration position last night they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill

nor was it a veto threat. and i would urge my colleague from texas to point me to the time that barack obama has vetoed something. one of the things i have been on that committee, he's been there seven months, i have been there years, and i have been there with other presidents, and it is t uncommon for congress to propose and to have the administration oppose. and vice versa. mr. speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is important to the people in this great country of ours. these bills undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect communities and provide for the development of energy to run america. while we need to develop laws

that promote energy and commerce, and snide commentary regarding failed policies at the department of energy, ignores the number of successes through the years under different administrations and this one that the department of energy has put forward. we cannot in many respects develop laws that promote energy and commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. pollution is not equivalent to progress. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill and i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no

the op -- and be about business of trying to do something construct niff in -- constructive in this house of representatives. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman. i yield myself the balance of the time on our side. mr. speaker, we all know in order for this economy to flourish energy has to be available and energy has to be affordable. unfortunately the situation we have seen in recent years is anything but that. the department of energy was created back in the 1970's. in response to the oil embargo. the department of energy was created to deal with the situation of scarcity. unfortunately, the department of energy has not evolved since that time. and where do we find ourselves today? we find ourselves right on the threshold, right on the horizon

of america being an energy exporter, again, for the first time in a couple of decades. that's a huge change. has the department of energy changed and kept pace with the reality that is going on in development of energy in state lands, private lands, and, yes, some federal lands, but have they kept pace with the development within the industry? i submit they have not. i submit that they have been an impediment. yeah. i would be happy to work on improving where the department of energy could be in fact a facilitator rather than an obstruction for developing energy for our economy because we know what's that available and affordable energy, and promise the economy create the number of jobs it needs to create, not just to replace the jobs that have been lost, but all those people who are getting to the age where they expect the job to be there for them without

that energy production, it ain't going to happen. . i do want to talk about the other bill that is before us today. dr. cassidy's bill, h.r. 1582, let's think about this for a minute. the congress works its will on a bill, it becomes law, that law then goes to the regulatory agency, they work their will on the bill and we all know the story, 1,000-page bill here on the floor of the house can generate 10,000 pages of regulations in the federal register. and i don't know about you, mr. speaker, but it's hard to discipline myself to wake up every morning and read what was written in the federal register the day before. the american people who are out there creating and producing certainly don't have time to do that. ut when these rules are then visited upon the people, what happens then? well, they just simply have to accept the effect of those rules

and congress, well, they did that a couple of years ago. they have no -- they are not playing in that arena any longer. but here's what dr. cassidy says. he says, before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the american people, the secretary of the -- the administration of the e.p.a. has to consult with the secretary of energy. this seems like a logical and straightforward maneuver. and in fact, when we talk about the reins act in the weeks to come, in fact, come back to congress and get us to either yes or no on that regulation that is going to have such a profound effect on the american people. mr. speaker, i've been in business before. i've made investments before. i know very well if someone comes to investors with a cash call and says, you're going to have to pony up a lot more money here, the very least that the in -- that the investor expects at

that point is a pro forma, a profit and loss sheet, some reasonable expectation that there can be a return on investment. you say, wait a minute, no one's coming to the american people with a cash call. well, it's called april 15 and it is a cash call and we owe them that scrutiny. the congress owes them that scrutiny. the department of energy owes them that scrutiny. and i would assert that we owe them an up or down d vote on those -- up or down vote on those regulations that are going to have such a profound effect on the economy. mr. speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical bills, ensuring that the american people are not further penalized by out-of-control policies coming out of the environmental protection agency. consumers need relief. it is clear. for that reason, as i yield back the balance of my time, i move the previous question on the resolution and i urge an aye vote on the previous question. aye vote on the rule. and an aye vote on the two underlying bills.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 224. the nays are 191. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

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

the speaker pro tempore: on his vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 232. the nays are 188. the resolution is adopted.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 312 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2397. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly ake the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2397 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other

purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, july 23, 2013, amendment number 66 printed in house report 113- 170 offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 12, proceedings will now resume on amendments printed in house report 113-170 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 48 by mr. jones of north carolina. amendment number 51 by mr. lamalfa of california. amendment number 55 by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. amendment number 60 by mr. stockton of texas. amendment number 62 by mrs. walorski of indiana. amendment number 65 by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for each electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 48 printed in

house report 113-170 offered by mr. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 48 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. jones of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise nd be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, 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: on this vote the yeas are 177. the nays are 246. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 51, printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 51, printed in house report number 113-170, offered by mr. lamalfa of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 188. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 55 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 55, printed in house report number 113-170, offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has bven requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

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

kip on this vote the yeas are 215. the nays are 206, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 60 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. stockman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 60, printed in house report number 113-170, offered by mr. stockman of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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: on this vote the yeas are 137. the nays are 286. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on

amendment number 62 printed in house report 113-170 offered by the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 62, printed in house report number 113-170, offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counchted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote -- be without counted. a sufficient number having arisen, 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: on this vote the yeas are 237.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are 185. he amendment is adopted. the committee will be in order. he committee will be in order. he committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania

seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i seek permission to speak out of order for a moment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: you see this trophy before us. we've been on this floor many times to celebrate baseball victories, football victories -- i should say baseball debackles. we celebrate golf. we had a wonderful experience last week with a the washington castles who are seated up in the members gallery. we had a bipartisan game of tennis obviously between the members, republicans and democrats as well as the media. i'm pleased to report to you there were two teams, the stars and the stripes. my colleague here, mr. watt, ms. shelley moore capito. we had a wonderful game. members of the media played. part of our stripes team

included david gregory of "meet the press." he's a bigger problem on the tennis court than he is in an interview on "meet the press." big serve. got to watch him. ur coach, leander page, former senator john broe, shelley moore capito. ivision i captain from duke. donna edwards. good sportsmanship award. mel wta. one of the most -- mel watt. david gregory. jonathan carl from abc news. one from bloomberg. it was a great time had by all. i know it's not appropriate to gloat when we win but we'll do it anyway since we're members of congress. here's our trophy. stripes beat the stars. at this time -- hold it up together. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop.

mr. bishop: thank you very much. i appreciate my friend for yielding although i must point out i don't remember coach doyle gloating like that when we won the baseball game. but we had a great night, and i was pleased to play with my fellow members, jim costa and mike mcintyre and cheri bustos. we had two members from fox news, ed henry and brett beir. two members of the white house. from d.c. united. we had ambassador dino -- >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. we were joined by three members of the castles. we had murphy jenson. we had martina hingeas and we had anastasia rodnova. i want to yield to my colleague, mr. costa. mr. costa: i, too, want to thank my colleagues who participated with the stars and stripes.

fun was had by all. we raised a good amount of money for the charity. want to thank the castles for their wonderful hospitals. i got a tennis lesson from my partner, martina hingis. the stripes, our opposition, pulled in two ringers from the main street media with nbc's david gregory and bloomberg's hans nichols. these two failed to disclose their professional tennis status in an amateur charitable tournament. so much for press ethics under full disclosure and i yield the balance of my time to my colleague, mr. mcintyre. mr. mcintyre: thank you. mr. speaker, when you talk about helping with education, when you talk about helping food banks and when you talk about helping our military families, it really was worth raising a racket about. and that's what happened down at the cassel stadium. we want to thank them for their hospitality. tennis is a lifetime support

but this offers a lifeline to those in need in our schools, those who are hungry and also to our military families. so we appreciate the great opportunity. it truly was a great time to have the ball in our court to do something in a positive way. with that i yield back the remainder of the time. mr. dent: many charities supported. i should let you know that the washington castles are playing down at the marina, waterfront. get down to watch them. it's not tennis anyone. it's tennis everyone. thank you for doing it. yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from ennsylvania yields back. the chair will remind members that the rules do not allow references to members of the gallery. without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 65 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, which further proceedings from ostponed and on which the noes

prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 65 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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: on this vote the yeas are 264. the nays are 154. the amendment is adopted.

the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 67 primented in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the ntleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 67 offered by mr. kilmer of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington for

five minutes. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment seeks to protect the continued employment of needed and trusted department of defense civilian employees. d.o.d. civilian employees who are critical to our national security mission may be endanger -- may be in danger of losing their security clearances and their jobs if financial hardships from being furloughed result in financial delinquencies. right now the d.o.d. has issued vegas guidance that there -- vague guidance that they will take into account the impact sequestration is having on service members' financial situations. while i appreciate those efforts, i believe that congress should strengthen our commitment to our service members by ensuring no funds are used to deny the renewal of security clearance to workers who are only experiencing financial hardship as a result of sequestration. i believe that this is a commonsense amendment and it's my hope that it will receive strong support. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek

recognition? mr. young: mr. chairman, i claim the time. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i understand the gentleman's intense interest in trying to protect these folks who would be affected by sequestration. but awarding or granting or ving a national security clearance is not a simple thing. and it should not be taken lightly. if the department of defense or government agency decides that a person doesn't really qualify, they feel that they don't deserve a national security and ance, if the phrase, let me quote this, the furlough caused by sequestration is included in the denial, then the

denial is not unvoid -- is null and void. you can't deny it if it's claimed that it's due to sequestration. that's not fair. that's not fair to our national actually it's not fair to the defense department and i just think this is not a good idea. but i know what the gentleman wants to accomplish. and would like to work with him to figure out how to do this without denying the defense department the right to deny a security clearance to someone that they think is not a good risk for a security clearance. and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. kilmer: thank you. i'd like to yield one minute to my colleague from the state of washington, mr. heck. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank congressman kilmer for offering this amendment today and frankly for

his tireless advocacy on behalf of the men and women in our civil service who support our service members and veterans every day. without this amendment, hardworking men and women who live in the district i represent , also who work at joint base, risk losing their security clearance through furloughs that are at no fault of their own, thus complicating their employment situation and we should not let that happen. the issue this amendment aims to resolve, however, is yet another issues that ies of show why budgeting by sequestration is frankly just bad policy. i don't think anyone in this chamber actually thinks civilian employees should lose their security clearance because they were furloughed, but the way sequestration was designed makes that a very real possibility. this is a good amendment. to fix a bad policy. and i strongly urge my colleagues to support it. and i yield back. thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington

reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. kilmer: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the remarks on the specific language of the amendment and i do hope that we will continue to work through the conference process to address any concerns about the language, because we can all agree that this is a serious issue. it's extremely important that the d.o.d. continues to grant security clearances to employees who are charged with doing critical and sensitive work. there are many factors that the d.o.d. considers when determining if an individual can do these important jobs. and to ensure that an employee is trustworthy. sequestration-related furloughs and any financial hardships that come from sequestration are not an employee's fault. no civilian employees should be denied a security clearance because of congress' inability to undo sequestration.

i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support d.o.d. civilians and the work they do for our country. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: mr. chairman, again, i sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do. it's just the problem, if in the denial they use the phrase furlough caused by sequestration , they can't deny that request for a security clearance. and there may be a lot of good reasons why that person should be denied. and so it's a question of, do we protect the national security by giving the defense department the authority to deny, regardless of what the furlough language is, or do we allow this

amendment which is probably poorly written and we would like to work with the gentleman to write it in such a way that it doesn't cause us great distress. but i just don't want to see someone who should be denied a security clearance given one because of a technicality. and if the gentleman's prepared to yield back his time -- the chair: the gentleman has already yielded back his time. to the gentleman from florida is to closing -- florida is closing. mr. young: is the gentleman prepared to yield back his time? the chair: the gentleman from washington has already yielded back his time. the gentleman from florida will close. mr. young: then i yield back the balance of my time as well, sir. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. kilmer: i demand a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 69 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 69 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment prohibits funds from being used to detain cleared individuals held at guantanamo. of the 166 people currently being held there, 86 have been cleared by release. that is they have not been charged with any offense, they

have been found guilty of nothing, and they have been judged by our military to pose no threat to the united states if released. we should release them now. holding these 86 people who have been cleared for release is against everything we claim to stand for. in response to this very situation, president obama asked, is this who we are? i hope today we will answer no. we are better than that. i hope we will support this amendment and move expeditiously to support the release of these detainees. it's truly astonishing that in 2013 the united states continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted of any crime, who admittedly do not pose any threat to the united states. they should be released. guantanamo's an affront to america and to the founding principle of the united states, that no person should be deprived of liberty without due process of law. our continuing to hold prisoners indefinitely, without charge and without trial, is a rebuke to our professed support of liberty. and if they have been judged not to pose a threat and we hold them anyway, what kind of

message are we sending, by what claim of right to we -- do we hold people in jail who have been charged with nothing, we are not bringing to trial and who we have decided pose no threat to us? what are we saying about the united states and our values? we must change course and we ought to support our amendment. now, i know that some will say these are dangerous terrorists. no, they're not. they're people who were captured in some way, who have been judged by our military not to pose a threat to the united states, who have not been charged as terrorists, who have not been judged as terrorists, that simply d.c. some of them may be simply victims of the fact that we paid bounties to people in afghanistan to turn in people they said were terrorists. the hatfields turned in the mccoys because why not, we were given them a couple thousand dollars? anyone who has not been charged with a crime, who has not been charged, who has not been convicted and who we have already decided poses no threat ought to be released and therefore this amendment says no funds may be used to continue

their confinement. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, the amendment would allow and probably require that a very large number of detainees from guantanamo are sent back home to their home country or a country that they might have come to. they're detainees for a reason. they are detainees because they afflicted harm ordaininger or threats or -- or danger or threats or death to our american interests. our american soldiers. they came from the battlefield. -- we know that two of the

two of the former detainees that have been sent back to their , is a group established and run by two of those former gitmo detainees. i don't think it's a good idea. i think we should keep the detainees that are dangerous and until such time as they meet the requirements of the law. hey should stay at guantanamo. they would have to ensure that the remaining gitmo detainees who most judge as the most dangerous will not be released or otherwise brought into the homeland where u.s. citizens could be threatened. second, they ensure that the -- the present law ensures that prior to releasing the guantanamo detainees to a

foreign country, a careful and deliberate assessment must be made that the detainee is not likely to re-engage in terrorist activities. now, what's wrong with that? there's nothing wrong with that. so why change it? why turn these people loose, to go back to the battlefield which many of them that have been released have already done, causing additional harm to our troops? so, i'm strongly opposed to this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: i thank the gentleman from our judiciary committee for yielding. and i want to say to my very good friend from florida, the chair of the defense appropriations committee, who i greatly respect, but i'm afraid there's a misunderstanding.

this amendment is only about those detainees who have been cleared for release. this is not about the entire 166 people who are there. aese are the people who after very careful review have been cleared for release by the intelligence community and by the joint chiefs of staff. so, we're holding these people without cause. we're holding them for convenience because we let our rhetoric get ahead of ourselves. the fact is they would be released to their countries of origin. their countries of origin are because watch them these are people who we have found and determined they are no threat to the united states or to anyone else. they shouldn't have been rounded up. they shouldn't have been detained, and they've been detained for 12 years at 46

detainees now having to be tube fed. they're strapped down and a tube is forced down their nose and into their stomach and they're strapped for two hours so it gets digested. and people that should get the clear to release, should we do this to them? will we keep them until they die in prison? people that have been cleared to release, we're going to detain them until they die? because that's the only solution from what we're being told. once they get released they should be released. well, who are we as a nation to indefinitely without cause? it doesn't make sense. it's not american. it's a complete violation of our constitution. the most foundational principle of equal justice under the law. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from new york has one minute remaining. the gentleman from florida has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. f.d.a. ndaa and he wants to re-- mr. nadler: and he wants to reserve now? the chair: the gentleman is reserves. mr. nadler: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. speaker, it would serve a purpose that people actually read the amendment. none of the funds available may be used to obtain an individual who has been approved for release or transfer to a foreign country. we hear from the gentleman from florida these people are there for a reason. yes, when we arrest somebody, a murder is committed, a rape is committed, we arrest somebody. but then the grand jury says, no, we're not going to indict this person. there's not enough evidence. do we hold them in jail indefinitely forever even though there's no charge, even

though the district attorney said we made a mistake, it's somebody else, they didn't do it? no. because maybe they'll commit a crime? that's anti-theycal to what the united states is about. these are 86 people who is not charged s, have been by the military to pose no threat to us. what right do we hold them in jail? we are no better than a kidnapper who we put in jail and release. approve the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: is the gentleman prepared to yield back his time? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york's time is expired. the gentleman from florida has the right to close. mr. young: mr. chairman, i don't think it can be said any

stronger or needed to be said any more often, these detainees are bad, bad people. they hate america. they've sworn to kill americans and in fact they have done so on the battlefield. and that's why when they were captured they were sent to uantanamo. that's where they should stay unless the current law is abided by and that is to be sure that the remaining gitmo detainees who are most judged as the most dangerous will not be released or brought into the homeland where u.s. citizens could be threatened. and second, they ensure that prior to releasing guantanamo

detainees to a foreign country a careful and deliberate assessment must be made that the detainee is not likely to re-engage in terrorist ack tests and the foreign government can maintain control over -- activities and that the foreign government can maintain control over the individuals. what's wrong with that? it protects americans. it protects america and it keeps the bad guys where they need to be kept. and in this particular case is at guantanamo. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. nadler: mr. chairman. on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 70 printed in

house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 70 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would prohibit any funds in the bill being used to construct or expansion detention facilities at depaunt. the bill contains $-- facilities at combaunt. the bill contains $249 million to have more permanent structures but the administration wants to close guantanamo and release or transfer the detainees. so why waste $428 million to construct facilities that will not be used? because many in congress want to keep the detainees in guantanamo forever. now, we have, we know, 166 detainees in guantanamo.

86 should be released immediately. the gentleman from florida says they're bad people. they are terrorists. they're there for a reason. no, they're not. they're there for different reasons. some because they were handed ver from bounties by rifle militias -- rival militias or rival chance. some because of mistakes. some because of terrorists. the gentleman say we shouldn't release them until a careful assessment has been made. a careful assessment has been made. 86, half those in guantanamo, have been cleared for release. that is to say the joints chief of stf and the intelligence agency -- staff and the intelligence agency say they are not terrorists and not likely to pose a threat to the united states when they're released. they're guilty for nothing. they've been tried for nothing. we are not saying we are bad people, we ought to hold them in jail indefinitely without a trial normally, except here. 86 e ought to release the

who have been cleared for release immediately. and the others we ought to try, put on trial. separate dispute whether that court or an article 3 military tribunal, i prefer an article 3 court, but either way put them in front of a military court or tribunal and let them be tried. perhaps most will be found guilty and put them in jail for long periods of time. maybe some will be innocent. that's what the justice system is about. are we really going to say that guantanamo is separate? anyone who's unlucky enough to be sent there should stay there indefinitely without a trial? the assessment from 86 of them have been assessment -- assessed not to be guilty. tried r 80 ought to be and if convicted ought to be put in prison in the united states. we have hundreds of terrorists in maximum security prisons in

the united states. there's no reason a few more couldn't be put there and we could save $249 million. guantanamo was originally set up because it was thought by the bush administration that if we held people at guantanamo they could be tried or handled without having the constitutional rights of someone in the united states. but the supreme court said no. the people at guantanamo have the same rights as if they were held in the united states. so it doesn't change what will happen to them whether they're kept in prison in the united states or in guantanamo. so let's release the 86 who ought to be released because they have been judged they should be released by the joint chiefs and by the intelligence agencies. let's try the others and let's keep them in jail if the -- if they're judged guilty. let's proceed with american justice notions and do ourselves proud and let's stop wasting billions of dollars on guantanamo. so this amendment says don't permanentize what should be and will be temporary, however

temporary it is, don't waste $249 million on making these facilities permanent. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, as i read the amendment i'm assuming that the gentleman is trying to prevent any further construction or money of that type for the guantanamo detainees. and i can understand that because we have just recently spent a lot of money building two brand new prisons. air-conditioned, comfortable, and we've already spent that money so maybe we don't need to spend any money there. but what the amendment doesn't 1903 we is that since

have had a presence at cuba, for our own military purposes. the fourth fleet is headquartered there and has , n there for many years allied shipping, allied navy facilities, allied forces moved through guantanamo bay in a fairly regular basis. i don't know if they had any specific request right now for any kind of construction, but i don't think we want to deny it mountain event that the defense department finds -- if the defense department wants to do a construction project there. so understand guantanamo bay, cuba, has been part of the united states military facility

since 1903. and so i don't think amendment is a good amendment because it would deny our troops, our forces not even involved with guantanamo detainees the right to form military construction or the right for whatever needs to be spent. and so again i just have to oppose this amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: how much time do we have left? the chair: the gentleman from new york has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. nadler: how much? he chair: 2 3/4 remaining. mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman from virginia 45 seconds.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 40 seconds. mr. moran: we just approved $265 million for guantanamo. we approved $146 million to instruct a new temporary facility. -- construct a new temporary facility. almost half a billion dollars. e spent this year $2,670,000 per guantanamo detainee, 86 of them have been cleared for release. we have no reason to keep them, and yet we spend that much money. in u.s. prisons we spend $34,000 per year. imagine the discrepancy. and we have convicted 300 terrorists in u.s. prisons that are being held at 98 federal prisons for the fraction of the money. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: there have been no convictions at guantanamo that have been overturned. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized.

mr. young: mr. chairman, i think the gentleman just made my case. more 't really need a lot money for construction at guantanamo detainees. we already spent a lot of money there. the point is we don't want to deny the ability of the defense department to provide whatever is needed for our own military orces at guantanamo bay, cuba. not part of the guantanamo detainees. and i think we talked this one to death. we're repeating ourselves. in the interest of time i'm going to yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, the $249 million in the budget is for expansion and permanentization of detention facilities. i have no construction to the

construction of military facilities in guantanamo bay. i don't know whether that makes sense or not. but the $249 million we're talk about is for more detention facilities. that's a pure waste of money. i would be happy to clarify this should apply to detention facilities. if you're opposed to wasting $249 million on detention facility soss we can spend hundreds of thousands of year per prisoner in instead of $34,000 per year per prisoner in the united states, if you want to waste, then vote against this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. nadler: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 71 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico seek recognition? peerlpeerl i have an amendment at the -- mr. pierluisi: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 71 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. pierluisi of puerto rico. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from puerto rico, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: thank you, mr. chairman. this budget-neutral amendment which i offer with mr. young of alaska would enable d.o.d. to remove unexploded or hand in -- unexploded ordinance from land in puerto rico which was used as

a military training range for seven decades. in 1974, congress enacted legislation directing the navy to cease operations there. he provision stated that the present bombardment area shall not be utilized for any purpose that would require decontamination at the expense of the united states. in 1982 the federal government conveyed land in culebra to the government of puerto rico, including a 400-acre parcel within the former bombardment area. the deed provided that in accordance with the 1974 act, the government of puerto rico will not hold the federal government liable for decontamination of the land. four years later, in 1986, the cercla law. it established the defense environmental restoration program for d.o.d. to carry out these responsibilities.

that program is funded by the bill under consideration today. it directed d.o.d. to clean up former defense sites, conveyed to third parties prior to 1986. these sites are eligible for federal funding, even though there were no specific authorities enabling their cleanup at the time they were decommissioned and conveyed. nevertheless, d.o.d. contends that the 1974 law and the 1982 deed that tracks it prohibits the use of federal funds to decontaminate the 400-acre parcel on culebra and that these provisions were not superseded by certificatea. interpretation, -- sera. after this interpretation, this is the only site in the nation that d.o.d. contain tends it is barred by -- contends it is barred by statute from decontaminating. this make noes sense. the 1974 act and the 1982 deed may have been consistent with federal policy at that time, since there was no legal

framework in place that would have enaged the federal government to pay for the -- enabled the federal government to pay for the cleanup of the property, however, they're now quarely at odds with federal policy that has been in place for more than 25 years. accordingly, there's no principled basis to treat culebra differently than thousands of other former defense sites conveyed out of federal hands prior to 1986. which the federal government is obligated to decontaminate. the status quo poses a threat to human safety, since this parcel contains beaches, walkways and camp grounds visited by over 300,000 people a year. a recent d.o.d. report found that since 1995, there have been 70 incidents in which members of the public encountered unexplode -- unexploded munitions that could have caused great harm. in fact, in march of this year, a young girl visiting culebra at culebra beach suffered burns after she picked up an artillery shell. the f.b.i. responded and found

six other munitions which it detonated and removed. this potentially tragic incident underscores the need for congressional action. this amendment would ensure that the 1974 act ceases to function as an obstacle to implementation of current federal policy as reflected in cercla. the amendment simply ensures that culebra will receive the same treatment as other sites. the u.s. citizens in culebra sacrificed so our military could receive the training it needed. congress in turn should take this small step to remove the barrier that is preventing d.o.d. from addressing safety hazards that remain on the island. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: certainly the appreciate the gentleman's

passion on this issue and agree this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. as he's aware, mr. chairman, the department estimates it will take multiple years and a significant investment to properly address these contaminated sites in puerto rico. we look forward to working with the gentleman and we understand that he may be considering with drawing his amendment so we could continue to work with him , which s this problem significantly has impacted the commonwealth. mr. pierluisi: i look forward to working with -- mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman is recognized. free mr. pierluisi: i look forward to working with the majority but at this point, if you allow me, i yield to the gentleman from indiana. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd be happy the ld to the ranking --

gentleman, mr. visclosky. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate my friend yielding to me. i simply want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. the agreement that was reached, and i think some people use the agreement as an excuse to do thing, is 40 years old and entered into in 1973. well, they agreed to it. i grad from law school in 1973. the world's a much different place today. people have changed. i certainly think our environmental conscienceness has improved and our conscienceness of our responsibility in this instance has improved and i do think this is an opportunity to rectify that. i serve on the energy and water subcommittee of this great committee, the chairman chairs that energy and water subcommittee. unfortunately in the formerly used defense sites that were cited by the gentleman, we have

over 10,000 properties, which is one of the problems i think the gentleman alludes to as far as the cost and the list we have to deal with, all the more reason, i believe, that we ought to be very acid white house and active in beginning to address these sites. so i appreciate the gentleman raising it and certainly support his position and appreciate the gentleman yielding his time to me. mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: it was my understanding that you would consider withdrawing your amendment if we gave up a commitment to continue to work with you on this very important issue, which you've dedicated so much time and effort to. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. mr. pierluisi: that's absolutely right. so, i will withdraw it, but let me just say that, again, this is one property, it's only one property out of thousands of properties, facing these circumstances. so i hope we can work it out. it's not going to be costly. and it makes sense to clean it

up. thank you. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from puerto rico withdraw his amendment? mr. pierluisi: i do. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. the committee will come to order.

the chair: will all present ise? all those in the gallery rise as well. pursuant to the chair's announcement of earlier today, the committee will now observe a moment of silence in memory of officer jacob j. chestnut and detective john m. gibson. will all present please rise for a moment of silence? it is now in order to consider

amendment number 72 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. brooks: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 72 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks: mr. chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to implement or execute any nontreaty executive agreement with russia regarding missile defense or to provide russia with information about america's ballistic missile defense systems, both classified and unclassified. the reason the amendment says classified and unclassified is to prohibit the administration from declassifying missile defense technology to skirt the law. a similar amendment was passed with bipartisan support to this

act last year and is included in the current continuing resolution that is funding our government during this fiscal year. multiple news sources over the years have reported that the obama administration may seek to share our missile defense secrets with the russians. i am concerned these reports may be accurate. while the danger to national security is a serious concern, so is the loss of billions of dollars we have sunk into creating these exceptional technologies. the congressional research service estimates the united states has spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. roughly 90% of that $153 billion or $140 billion, has been spent on hit-to-kill tech normal. i ask the house -- technology. i ask the thousand support this amendment, to preserve america's lead in missile defense technologies, protect america's investment of billions of dollars and ensure the viability of current and future missile

defense technologies. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i have my breath taken away with the assertion that the president of the united most might give away the intimate defense secrets of this country to russia. and that we are debating an amendment to defense appropriations, with all of the other problems we face and all the threats we face of this country, based on the assumption that the president of the united tates might give away the most intimate defense secrets of this country to russia. i would simply ask my colleagues

to think about the underlying assumption based in the gentleman's amendment and vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. speaker. reclaiming the balance of my me, there have been numerous indications in which the media has reported that the administration is considering as a part of negotiations or other things divulging our sensitive hit-to-kill technology to the russian federation. i am thankful that my colleague across the aisle says that it takes away his breath and i hope with that that he will support this amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentleman yield? mr. brooks: i will yield. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we support your amendment. as you said, it is similar to what the bill carried last year and what was a provision in the armed services bill. so, we're supportive of it. we're obviously mindful and respectful of the ranking's

position. but the majority of congress felt the way you and i do and the committee did as well. i thank you for yielding. mr. brooks: thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: the gentleman responds to my concern by suggesting that he has discovered the possibility that the president of the united states is going to give away the most intimate secrets this country holds to russia through the media. i'm wondering, and i ask this question simply rhetorically, not necessarily to my colleague. i wonder if it was fox news, i nder if he saw that on the coba -- colbert report.

i didn't see any report of that yesterday, although i saw a baby was born in another country despite the world coming apart that was the headline news. i didn't see msnbc, and i don't know if that was it. perhaps it was even on bbc telecast. but i'm wondering what media outlets are providing this inside information as to the deliberations of the president of the united states to give away these cherished secrets and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd submit, mr. chairman, that the appropriate way to gather the requested information is simply for the gentleman to google what i have just stated. this i shally arose in 2011 with numerous comments by the white house that reported in

numerous outlets by way of background, my source is not fox news in this particular instance. all he can do is google it and he can find it. also, there were numerous reports in 2012 where the president indicated and what turned out to be an open mic that once the elections were over with he could more freely negotiate or give away information to the russians. those aren't the exact words used by the president. unfortunately i don't have perfect recall. it was words to that effect. i would emphasize this house has visited this issue previously. this has passed with bipartisan support, so i'd urge this body to again as a precautionary measure adopt this amendment to prevent the sharing of our hit-to-kill technology with the russian federation to the extent that risk becomes a reality. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: i reserve and understand i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama.

to close. mr. brooks: i yield at this point. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. brooks: yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized to close. mr. visclosky: the gentleman indicated inquiry to my rhetorical question that i have to do is google, and i will discover the information that will lead to our knowledge that the president of the united states is considering giving away this very sensitive information. and it comes to mind when the gentleman suggests i should google it how many different encounters i've had with members of the public, i saw it on the internet, it must be true. for example, members of congress after serving one term received a full salary pension for the rest of their lives. members of congress receive free health care for the rest of their lives.

and members of congress for the last four years have received significant pay increases because they goingled it on the internet and -- googled it on the internet and so they secured very accurate information. perhaps we should go to facebook or linkedin or read it or maybe we should tweet each other. again, very serious concern, i would suggest my colleagues absolutely reject this amendment and would ask for their vote against it and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the question is offered by the gentleman from -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. schiff: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 73 printed in house report 113-170. the clerk will designate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 73 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. chairman, my amendment would prohibit funding the use of force pursuant to the authorization for use of military force or aumf, effective on december 3 is, 2014, when the last american combat troops will rotate out of afghanistan and the responsibility for security will have passed to the afghan people after more than 13 years of war in that country. new year's day, 2015, should not only bring about a new relationship between the united states and afghanistan, it should also mark the end of a conflict that was begun in our skies on that september morning and which was formalized days later when the congress passed the aumf.

that legislation provided the president with the authority to use, quote, force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines, planned, authorized or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states by such nations, organizations or persons. the 2001 aumf was never intended to authorize a war without end, and now it poorly defines those who pose a threat to our country. that authority and the funding that goes along with it should expire concurrent with the end of our combat role in afghanistan. in addition to this amendment, i've introduced bipartisan legislation, h.r. 2324, which sunsets the aumf the same date, december 31, 2014, and calls on the administration to work with congress together to determine what new authority, if any, should protect the country

after that time. the constitution gives the responsibility to congress to appropriate funds to pay for war. it was our most awesome responsibility and central to our military efforts overseas. we owe it to the men and women we send into combat to properly define and authorize their mission, and my amendment will effectively give congress the next 16 months to do so. in his recent speech at national defense university, president obama specifically called on congress to work on -- with him. quote, i look forward to engaging congress and the american people on efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the aumf's mandate, the president said. and i will not sign any laws designed to expand this mandate further. our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue, but this war, like all wars, must end. this amendment is a prudent first step towards meeting the president's challenge, a call we must embrace, not as republicans or democrats, but as members of congress sworn to

defend the constitution. i urge a yes vote and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in some ways i'm somewhat ympathetic to the hopes that underlie this amendment. i hope that terrorism has gone away by december 31, 2014. i hope that zawahiri and those responsible for 9/11 and those who authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attack or harbored them are -- them are all brought to justice within the next 16 months. mr. thornberry: i hope that other countries around the world no longer have to worry about terrorists hinding bombs inside their clothe -- hiding bombs inside their clothing

trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. and i hope that military and civilians who serve our nation all around the world and others in the private sector are no longer the target for suicide bombings and assassinations and the other sorts of things that we've seen since 9/11. but mr. chairman, what if my hopes don't come to pass? what if the world has something else in store? what if terrorism still exists by december 31, 2014? well, then it seems to me this amendment doesn't make a lot of sense, because this amendment says no matter what, not just in afghanistan, but anywhere around the worldary' not going to fund anything through the -- world we're not going to fund anything through the department of defense pursuant to that aumf. now, i got to say i have been and continue to be for updating that aumf to better reflect the

way that al qaeda has evolved ver the last decade or so. unfortunately, that has been resisted by administration, as the gentleman has pointed out. it is, of course, we all want this war against terrorists and other wars to end, but unfortunately the enemy gets a vote. so for us to unilaterally say because of the calendar we're done and, oh, maybe we'll pass some new authority but maybe not in order to protect this country, i think it's dangerous. it's short sided. it is -- it is shortsighted. it is putting the hopes above reality. i hope my colleagues reject this. we can do better in fighting terrorists in a variety of ways, but to bury our head in the sand and say it's going to

be done on a certain date is not the best way to protect our country. i think it forfeits our most responsibility under the constitution. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i want to yield to my colleague from indiana. before i do two quick points. no one is suggesting, of course, that terrorism is going to go away in 16 months or all of our problems will be over. what we're saying about this amendment is the authorization we passed that authorizes force against those who planned and authorized and committed the 9/11 attacks shouldn't be used to go after groups like al that back, which might -- al shabaab which might not be in existence in 9/11. unless we have a sunset, we will have an aumf that won't describe the conflict we're in. i yield to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in support of his amendment. the gentleman who is in opposition mentions -- the

administration mentions the united states constitution. the fact is we have a constitutional responsibility. with the passage of more than a decade and a changing world -- and i agree with the gentleman. something else may be in store. we ought to revisit that issue. we ought to exercise our constitutional congressional prerogative and have a full debate. again, the gentleman is providing over a year and a half and it's such a serious issue. i think this congress can come to grips with that type of issue and resolve the future. so i strongly support what the gentleman is doing and appreciate his amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll just point out to my colleagues, this house has voted two years in a row to update the aumf, so it does better reflect the way that al qaeda has changed. we have included the exact language used by the obama

administration and the bush administration in court proceedings and just adopted that. the house has passed that. i don't remember how the particular gentleman voted. the house has passed it. the senate has not. we need to update the language to better reflect how it has changed. it's different than saying, we'll make this go away and hopefully in the meantime do something better. i think that's terribly risky. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i would only say to my colleague through the chair that this proves unless we have deadline we simply refuse to act. what the president has said in terms of any new authorization use force and this is something i agree wholeheartedly with the white house, he won't support a new authorization that is broader than the one that we seek to sunset and that i think is a problem with some of the drafts which the majority has

proposed. we don't want an expanded war. we do want an authorization that reflects the precise nature of the threat and that threat has changed since 9/11. it no longer comes as much from the core al qaeda which has been decimated. rather it comes from a group of franchises loosely affiliated organizations that sometimes is a product of convenience will associate with al qaeda for financing or legitimacy. but it is now a far-flung terrorist challenge and any authorization ought to reflect the changing nature of threat and with that i would reserve any balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from texas has 1 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. thornberry: bottom line, you have to read the amendment and the words in it. and the amendment says we can spend no money for any part of the department of defense pursuant to the aumf after december 31, 2014.

now, we can have a very interesting discussion about ow the aumf should be updated, about different authority that could take its place, but none of that is before us. what's before us is that it basically says no funding shall be used and essentially repeals the aumf. now, i realize the gentleman is trying to precipitate further debate, but the fact is that terrorism is not going away. this prohibits any u.s. military action not only in afghanistan but anywhere in the world that al qaeda or its affiliates may have traveled. this stops all of that, and my point is that is too dangerous a risk in a world where there are too many people still trying to find new innovative ways to attack us and kill as many americans as possible. we can't take that risk, and therefore i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the 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. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schiff: on that i would request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. it is purpose does -- now in order to consider amendment number 74 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. speier: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 74 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and each will osed

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: madam speaker, my amendment addresses the current issue that is undermining an already weakened system of justice in our military. any jag will tell you that it's impossible to effectively prosecute a case if the investigation was improperly handled. that is why the d.o.d. inspector general report released last week was so troubling. it uncovered that of the 501 investigations of sexual assault offenses they audited, all but 83 had some sort of deficiency. that means that less than 20% were completed without error. and 423456 cases, 11% -- and in 56 cases, 11% of the cases had, serious deficiencies. they also found weaknesses in collecting evidence. not developing leads, and photographing the scene. this in large part is a result of inadequate training on how to properly investigate these

complex cases. a february i.g. report found that criminal investigators want and need more training on conducting sexual assault investigations. for example, criminal investigators from the air force ld the i.g. they wanted more training on the psychology of interviewing victims and evidence collection. one investigator said he wanted -- would be, quote, in trouble, unquote, if he only relied on the training he received. that is why i am offering this amendment that will provide an funds nal $10 million in to train investigators on how to properly investigate sexual assault-related offenses. my amendment realigns funds from the operations and maintenance defensewide account and shifts $5 million from army operations and maintenance, $2.5 million to air force operation and maintenance, which are the accounts that pay for training investigators. ensuring that assaults are investigated properly is the first step for holding perpetrators accountable. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves.

who seeks recognition on the gentlewoman from california's amendment? the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: madam speaker, i yield such time as my distinguished colleague will use. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: i claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: this is an issue that we can't sweep under the rug any longer. we have got to face it square on. the gentlelady's amendment helps do that. the subcommittee, when preparing this legislation, was extremely

concerned about the issue and we have included considerable -- and included considerable amounts of money to deal with xual predators and those who sexual assaults in the military -- those sexual assaults in the military. especially demanding that the military do a better job at enforcing the rules, the laws that protect the rights of those who are sexually abused. so i thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment and we do support the amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman. i got goosebumps that i actually have an amendment that my colleagues on the other side support and i thank the gentleman. i would like to yield as much time as my good colleague would use. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the

gentlewoman for yielding and the chairman's support. this targets an important part of the process while prosecuting the assault. as the congresswoman pointed out, they found this process lacking in terms of interviewing victims, investigating crime scenes and notifying the sexual assault response coordinator. the funding proposed -- would provide the means to include special training for tactics and techniques when investigating crimes of these natures and would join the chairman of the committee in thanking her for raising shoot and strongly support it. thank you for yieldsing. the chair: the gentlewoman from california continues. ms. speier: madam speaker, let me just say with closing, we all now recognize 26,000 cases a year of sexual assault and rape. this is not sexual harassment, i might point out. this is unwanted sexual contact. and of those cases, only 3,000 are actually reported. the fear of reporting, the fear

of reprisal is so great that very few of them, less than 20%, actually report them. and then when you report these cases, to have them improperly or inadequately investigated, that then results in a handful of actual court marshals and then even smaller, some 250 convictions out of some 3,000 that are reported, suggests that we have a lot of work to do. i thank my colleagues for the support and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. 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 ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 75 printed in ouse report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek

recognition? ms. speier: actually, madam speaker, the amendment we just took up, and it was my fault, was actually amendment number 75 -- no? o? all right. madam speaker, you have an -- i do have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 75 printed in house report 113-170 offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. since i began working on this issue of military sexual assault three years ago, i've had the opportunity to speak to over 100 courageous survivors of rape. with each of their experiences,

there is a unique nature to them. but many of these survivors that decided to report these crimes have had a very similar experience after they reported. they were retaliated against, and involuntarily separated from the military on the grounds of a personality or adjustment disorder. mental health diagnosis are grossly misused to administratively discharge or retaliate against survivors of sexual assault and other service members. since 2001, the military has discharged more than 31,000 grounds mbers on the that they were subject to a personality disorder. a g.a.o. investigation found that in 22% to 60% of the time personality disorders were either not diagnosed by a trained psychiatrist or psychologist or there was undue command influence. this pattern has become a potent lesson to service members that

are assaulted. report and get kicked out of the military with a personality disorder diagnosis. this designation amounts to a scarlet letter pinned where their medals should be. and follows them for the rest of their lives. these service members are revictimized every time they apply for a job and submit their d-214's. it also makes it virtually impossible to retain a security clearance. my amendment aims to address this clear pattern of retaliation against victims who report a crime of rape for sexual assault. the amendment provides funds to correct their service records and provide them with the benefits they have earned. my amendment realigns $65 million within the operations and maintenance defensewide account to dedicate these funds to identifying and correct the service records -- service members who were discharged from the members -- military, following reports of sexual assault.

this amendment requires the defense department to review all separations of individuals that made an unrestricted support of sexual assault and determined if they were discharged and on what grounds, including personality and adjustment disorders. my amendment will also direct the secretary of defense to correct their records of service, to right this wrong, and provide them with any compensation and services they weren't eligible to receive as a consequence of this error. this is the very least we can do for these brave survivors. it is the first step in addressing the systemic revictimization of courageous men and women who were brave enough to come forward. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. young: claim the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: again, madam speaker, this is a good amendment. those who are subblet to -- subject to sexual assaults, sexual attacks, and who have been separated from the military

on grounds of disorder need to ave their records corrected. if the information in the case indicates that should be done. sexual assault victims have already suffered a great deal. they deserve to have their military records accurately reflect their military service. and those victims who were improperly discharged on the grounts of a personality disorder -- gounledses -- grounds of a personality disorder deserve to have those records corrected. this bill already -- we do support the amendment. this bill already provides bstantial funding to provide these services and i notice a very distinguished gentleman rising. would you like me to yield? mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and want to

associate myself with his kind remarks and indicate my support for the amendment as well and appreciate very much the gentleman yielding and appreciate the gentlewoman for offering the amendment. mr. young: needless to say, we support this amendment. we have already robustly financed sexual assault programs . we fully fund the president's request for sexual assault prevention and response programs at the service level. and at the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response program office. and i would like to emphasize prevention. if we can prevent these sexual assaults, then the other roblems go away. we do it's important that

pay attention to prevention. in addition, our bill provides $25 million to the department and the services, including the guard and reserve, to implement a sexual assault special victims program, such as the air force special victims counsel program, to provide all victims with specially trained legal assistance throughout the investigation and prosecution process, fair play, and that's important. we also support a number of policy changes that we're including in the f.y. 2014 national defense authorization act. i think our bill goes a long way on this issue and this amendment goes even further and so we enthusiastically support it. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time.

the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. speier: madam speaker, thank you. and i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their unanimous support of this effort and this particular amendment. let me just close by saying, if the g.a.o. says 20% to 60% of these personality disorder designations are either done improperly or done with undue influence, certainly those who have been victimized deserve to be able to have that designation erased from their forms so that they're not in the position of then having to, in the civilian world, have to explain why they have this designation on their discharge papers and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 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 ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 84 printed in ouse report 113-170. it is now in order to consider amendment number 97 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam chair this amendment -- the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? >> yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 97 printed in house report 113-170, offered by mr. ray dell of florida.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 31 2, the gentleman from florida, mr. radel, and a member opposed each will kohl 10 minutes. mr. radel: this should remind the president he doesn't have the authority to unilaterally send our children to war. it was senator obama two in tevin told us, history has shown us time and time again however that military action is most successful when it was authorized and supported by the lennell slative branch. here we are again, senator obama and president obama are two very different people. and with the rhetoric heating up on syria and word that we will arm rebel factions, we must make a statement. what we are saying is, mr. president if you want to go to war, come through us. my heart goes out to the innocent families who have been up in this nd cut

-- caught up in this fierce civil war in syria but that's what it is a civil war. cannot be the police of the world. if you thought the situations in iraq and afghanistan were complicated, the situation in syria has history going back 1,000 years with deep and profound complexities. we cannot just go into syria and pick and choose who to arm. too many time we was seen that those we arm often turn their own weapons against us that we have provided. we do not have to use military force around the world to be a leader for democracy this amendment is about congress doing its job instead of fol throwing president's cloudy, unclear foreign policy. this is about the house of the people making decisioners in people, for our young men and women in the military serving our country today. thank you, madam chair. with that, i would like to reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. who seeks time on the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise?

mr. visclosky: i seek the additional 10 minutes on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 11 -- for 10 minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the time and appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment. i would point out in my opening remarks that i think that fundamental responsibility of this body is to be engaged. in these types of situations and make determinations relative to our constitutional responsibility, particularly in dangerous situations where it involves military action. syria, for example, is report to have had the fourth most sophisticated, integrated air defense system on planet earth and reports in the media indicate russia has kept the systems resupplied and up to date technologically. it's but one of many thing we was to consider as far as the safety and well being of those who are in our military forces as well as ultimately what our

national interests are. at this point, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. radel: i would yike oto -- i would like to yield one minute to mr. young of florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: first of all, i want to congratulate our colleague from florida for having a very successful first few months in congress. he's done a really good job and i'm really happen toy pi to rise in support of this amendment. it's a responsible approach to the critical national security issue. we appreciate the gentleman working closely with the committee to address this issue in a responsible manner that protects our national interests. so i say again, thank you for the initiative that you have offered here today. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves.

the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition and would make an additional observation on the gentleman's amendment. there are political and diplomatic issues of russia's relation swhip the islamic regime. altering this relationship over the long run may become an objective of u.s. foreign policy. maybe. maybe not. however, entering into an armed conflict with this in mind is a dainls step among many other dangerous steps and renews the prospect of a more openly hostile relationship with a couldn't that that overs had ended the cold war. certainly an additional reason why i appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. radel: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman in florida, mr. rooney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rooney: thank you, madam speaker, i want to thank my friend from florida, mr. radel, for bringing this amendment to the floor today. i would have liked to have seen something that went specifically to not arm sthoge-called rebels in syria but i think it's important that we also address this issue of the president of the united states and what his obligations are to this congress and to the american people under the war powers act. you know, the founding fathers didn't want one person to be able to take us to these wars in foreign lands. they wanted there to be debate, deliberation. have the president come and make the argument to the american people through their representation why something is so important, is such an important part of our national interest, that they would send our men and women into harm's way and potentially die for us in that land.

in this case, we have assaad in s a dangerous dictator the mideast, on the other hand, twheff rebels who are infiltrated by al qaeda and other bad actors, same people we have been fighting over the last 10 years. so whose side are we on? sunni, shia, it's a civil war in the mideast. what's our national interest? ladies and gentlemen if you can't answer that -- answer that question if you're not absolutely sure, the president needs to make us sure through the war powers act and through authorization which this amendment requires, then you cannot support sending our men and women or getting involved in syria or even sending weapons to the so-called rebels over there support the radel amendment, make the president make the case for syria, come to congress and let the people decide. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. radel: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i yield such time as he may consume to my good friend. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. >> i thank the secret for this important amendment. mr. welch: everyone's heart breaks for the syrian people. over 100,000 people are getting slaughtered by the leader of their government, it's unconscionable. but the question for us is what can we practically do and whatever it is that we do do does congress have a say in the yes or no of military actions? i thank the gentleman for this amendment because there's two questions hoar. one is, the policy itself. the use of military force. arming the rebels. is that a wise policy? will it make things better or make it worse? the second question is whatever the policy is, is it the responsibility of those of us who have been elected to

epresent americans, and we all do, is it our responsibility as members of congress to be accountable in making that enormously important and consequential decision about whether we send -- we make a decision that has the potential to send our troop into combat? let me talk briefly about the policy. the military situation there is chaotic. the rebels are united loosely in an effort to bring down assaad. but distinguishing between, quote, the good rebels and the bad rebels is impossible. in fact, we're read regular ports right now, we're read regular ports right now of how disputes with ng fellow rebels, are settling them by beheading them. that's literally what's happening. so the notion that we can have a micromanaged approach and pick the good guys and arm them and not have any reasonable, actually, inevitable

expectation that the arms will get into bad hands, i think is naive. general dempsey testified, he's a hardheaded thinker about mill tear matter and he laid out clearly if we want to arm the rebels, that's going to be $500 million or it could be into the billions. we wanted to stand off attacks, which supposely -- supposedly will be surgical. that could be in the billion dollar a month range. if we want a no-fly zone, it will take hundreds of ships and aircraft to implement that, over a billion dollars a month. that's a consequential decision we can't stumble into. the second question, madam speaker is the congressional responsibility to act. one of the frustrations that i think americans have with all of us is the sense that we're not accountability. and you know what? if we allow an action to be taken that has the potential to send troop into combat and we haven't actually stood up

voted yes or no, then they are right. we have a job to do under the constitution. and this amendment is really saying to all of us here in congress, on both sides of the aisle that if the moment comes where that decision is going to be made by the president, he has to return to us for approval, and we have to stand and make our decision. that constitutional responsibility, what is more important? we all talk about how much we admire the troops for their willingness to sacrifice and all of us do but you know what, all americans admire the troops. 435 americans in this chamber have the responsibility to make certain that when we take advantage of the willingness of these young men and women to serve and sacrifice, including give up their life, we are the ones who must make the decisions about the policy and our responsibility, all of us,

is to make certain that whatever policy it is we're asking them to pursue be worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. that has to be done at the beginning. once our troops are in the field, yes we have to support them. and then once they're in the field, we find ourselves conflicted about having a discussion about how it is they got there. you know what? they got there because we sent them there. sometimes we do it self-consciously, sometimes we stumble into it. that's not right. 435 of us in this house are united by a common responsibility to the soldiers and sailors that serve and to the citizens that we represent. so i thank you and i see this as an opportunity for members of this house, both sides of the aisle who share a common admiration for the people who serve in the military and a common sense of duty to the people we represent that we

have to be accountable for any policy that has the potential to send our soldier into combat. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from florida is rk niced. mr. radel: how much time do we have? the chair: the gentleman from florida has 6 1/2 minutes left. mr. radel: thank you. i'd like to thank the secret from vermont as well. it's times like these as we debate things like this that we realize the heavyweight we carry on our shoulders. we are talking about people's lives and this reasserts the fact that this is the people's house and we want to have a say in our foreign policy. i'd like to thank the gentleman from vermont. at this point, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding and for this important amendment. madam chair, not only should there be no american troops

sent to syria, there should be no american weapons sent to syria. several weeks ago, a catholic priest was murdered in northern syria. who killed him? the very people that we're considering arming. what was he guilty of? serving the poor. we have no business shipping weapons to those who would raid convents and kill innocent civilians. madam chair, there are now 100,000 people dead from this conflict. what began as a hopeful exercise of civic engagement by the syrian people against the brutal assaad regime has now become a wanton slaughter. we don't know who is who among the syrian rebel movement no one there is safe. and no happy projections of democratic ideals will make this better. we do not have control over the syrian battle space. meshes must not be complicit in this killing field. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from yield back the balance of my time yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognize.

mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition and from my perspective it would also make it clear that we're talking about at this point is the use of military force. there is no question that there is a significant, tragic humanitarian crisis taking place. it is estimated that about 6.8 million people are in need of various types of humanitarian assistance in syria itself. there are about 4.25 million people displaced within that country. we have 1.78 million syrians displaced to neighboring countries. 486,972 as of latest count are refugees in jordan. 607,908 are refugees in lebanon. 12,789 are refugees in turkey.

161,014 are refugees in iraq. and 92,367 in egypt. it's one reason why today it's estimated that about 814 -- $814 million of u.s. humanitarian aid has been expended for good purposes. that's certainly not what we are talking about here today. and certainly would want to make sure our colleagues understand that as well and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. radel: thank you, madam chair. this is excellent bipartisan discussion. whereas this country tends to be a little war-weary these days. but we see where the united states can have a role, most especially when it comes to these humanitarian aid with our allies in the region and how exactly we can help. but once again, our colleagues on the other aisle have highlighted just how deeply profound these complexities are in syria. we're not only confused when it

comes to who the rebels are. i don't even know if they're good or bad anymore. we just simply don't know what rebel factions are playing a part in this. you've got hezbollah, you've got al qaeda, you've got the state players in this. and we know we have sensitive relationships with russia, with china, who also potentially, at least diplomatically, are involved in this and again i just want to commend our colleagues here, this excellent discussion. at this point i would like to yield the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, as much time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. mrs. bachmann: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding as well. i feel very strongly about this issue, madam speaker. i believe without a shadow of a doubt this is one of the most insane policies that borders on madness. for the united states to give unding, training and arms most likely to al qaeda in syria

doesn't make any sense. can we realize what it is we're talking about right now? this is islamic jihad which has declared war on the united states and declared war on our ally israel. and we're now in a position, when we're authorizing arming, training and funding for allies of al qaeda and al qaeda themselves in syria. this is absolute madness. because you see, madam speaker, the decision to arm the syrian rebels by the obama administration just this week will likely have catastrophic consequences for our united states national security and the national security of our ally israel. the syrian rebels that the president wants to arm consist mostly of al qaeda members that we've spent the last decade fighting a war against. and have we forgotten the

thousands of americans that were killed on september 11 and the horrific twin towers attack and here in this city at the pentagon? we lost over 3,000 americans that day. are we forgetting who we fought in iraq and in afghanistan? it's my opinion, madam speaker, that this is insanity, to aid those who have taken the lives of americans with impunity and continue to do so. just take note. the leader of al qaeda is an individual named zawahiri. zawahiri called on muslims from around the world to make their way to syria and support the rebels and in fact become the rebels who are seeking to overthrow assad. we don't have a great track record, madam speaker, of putting arms into the hands of terrorists. take a look at the fast and furious program in mexico. and the terrorists who received arms from the united states. take a look at benghazi and the tens of thousands of weapons

that went into the hands of al qaeda after benghazi. and now we're intentionally going to make a decision to send money, training and arms to al qaeda? how about a referendum with the american people? i think this would be more than a 90% issue. don't do it. and that's why we're standing here today. don't do it. the top spiritual leader of the muslim brotherhood is a man named karadawi. he has been outlawed from the united states because he's a terrorist. also he was outlawed from egypt because he's a terrorist. he has called for jihad in syria and he has said, quote, every muslim trained to fight and capable of doing that must make himself available. so you have the head of al qaeda and the head of the terrorist organization the muslim brotherhood both calling on islamic jihadists to go to syria to fight and be the rebels. and we're going to arm them?

and we're going to train them? and we're going to provide material support to them? not my vote. madam speaker, former president morsi, who was formerly the head of the muslim brotherhood, which was outlawed under mubarak in egypt, he supported the call from hard-line egyptian clerics who called for egyptians to go fight jihad in syria. so you see, there's a common thread here. all the wrong guys on the wrong team are all calling for jihadists to go to syria and fight. it was reported that over 2,500 ejimmings -- ejinxes have already gone to syria to -- egyptians have already gone to syria to fight jihad. pakistan taliban fighters have left pakistan to join the fight in syria and they're working with al qaeda affiliated groups in syria. on monday, al qaeda's iraq affiliated attack on the abu ghraib prison helped 500 inmates escape. most of whom were part of senior

positions in al qaeda. these prisoners included trained fighters and ideological extremists who were expected to travel to syria to join the fight with the rebels. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would be happy to yield the gentlewoman some time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half remaining. you have one minute and a half remaining. mr. visclosky: i would be happy to yield the entire time to the gentlelady. mrs. bachmann: thank you, miami. i -- thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my friend. these prisoners include trained fighters and ideological extremists who are expected to travel to syria to join the fight with the rebels. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the top military officer in the united states, martin dempsey, has warned us, intervening in syria could assist islamist extremists helping them gain access to chemical weapons and biological

weapons and further erode united states military readiness already suffering from sharp defense budget cuts. he has said that using forces -- others in is no less than an act -- force is no less than an act of war. and he said some of the military options in syria may not be feasible without compromising u.s. security everywhere. he made reference to the chaos in iraq. after the fall of saddam hussein , in libya after gadaff -- gaddafi, he warned of the unintended consequences if he fell after having a viable opposition and said we could ininadvertently unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control. this is a hub for jihadist activity. the american taxpayer has no obligation, and in fact i say this body must protect the american taxpayer from being involved in arming al qaeda in syria. we must defeat this amendment

today and -- or we must defeat this effort and that's why i'm in support of this today. again, we have the major general from the israeli military intelligence and he said that right before our eyes, the center of global jihad is developing. let's not do it. i agree with him. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 98 printed in house report 113-170. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. massa: i have an -- mr. massie: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 98 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. massie of

kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. mr. massie: there's been some misunderstanding about my -- what my amendment does. i welcome the opportunity to clarify the intention of the amendment. i realize that members of the house have different views about the current u.s. relationship with the egyptian government. and egyptian military. this amendment is not designed to affect the current military-to-military relationship with egypt. it is not intended to prevent u.s. participation in the millity national forward observer mission in the sinai, in other words, the peace keeping mission. it is not intended to curtail the activities of the office of military cooperation, it is not intended to prevent u.s. military exercises with the egyptian military. and it is certainly not intended to prevent u.s. marines from providing security at our

diplomatic facilities in egypt. my amendment is quite simple. it's intended to prevent the u.s. military from engaging in offensive operations in egypt and to prevent the defense department from providing sistance to egyptian paramilitary or terrorist groups. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i am so pleased to hear my friend from kentucky further discuss the intent, the true intent, of what his amendment does and respectfully i recognize that in order for the amendment to be made in order, that it has to be written broadly. because it was written broadly, there were concerns expressed by a number of people on both sides of the aisle about what an amendment written this way might

do that would negatively effect a lot of the things that we presently do and have been doing for a long time in egypt. mr. womack: and i can speak personally to it because it was right after 9/11, while commanding an infantry battalion in arkansas with the arkansas national guard, that i was called to doubt dut -- called to duty to lead a task force of infantry soldiers and other personnel of over 500 men and women to the sinai in egypt to become the u.s. battalion so that other forces of the 18th airborne corps could go prosecute missions elsewhere in support of the war on terror. the gun slingers of arkansas distinguished themselves by going to the sinai in egypt on very short notice and executed that mission, the u.s. battalion in the south sinai peninsula, that does the observe and report mission consistent with all of the the pro coals that were established with the treat --

protocols that were established with the treaty of peace in 1979. in fact, our unit was there during the 20th anniversary of the m.f.o. and since that time, other state national guard units have followed this mission and have been doing it consistently, oregon and oklahoma and others, until, because of sequestration, the active component has accepted responsibility for that mission once again. so we've had a lot of our men and women across the country into the sinai to do the mission of the m.f.o. on top of that our country has had a number of exercises called bright star which is, if not the largest, one of the largest military training exercises that takes place on a biannual basis. it didn't happen in 2011 because of unrest in egypt, but my understanding is that bright star has certainly -- is certainly going to occur again.

so, it is our hope, and as i said, i'm glad that my friend from kentucky has further clarified the intent of his amendment, that it is not designed to effect the multinational force in observers, nor is it designed to effect the training exercises that would happen with a bright star operation, nor does it effect what goes on with the office of military cooperation or the defensed a shea program or, as he has indicated, our marine security to outposts in that region. so, again, i am very, very pleased that -- and we can breathe a bit of a sigh of relief that there is no intent in here at all to abandon, madam speaker, the treaty of peace that was famously signed in 1979, and everybody has the vivid reminder of that picture with jimmy carter in the middle and anwar sadat signing over that peace treaty. and with that i'll reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is ecognized. mr. massie: i appreciate the words of the gentleman from arkansas and i appreciate his service to our country. in the mission of keeping the peace, we couldn't the two chair novepb supreme down soifl the armed forces, egypt has been led by five different men in the past two and a half years and five of them in two and a half years. only one of them democratically elected. i would say this is not a stable environment. some of my constituents have oncerns that we don't escalate military activity in the region but my good friend is correct in the intention of the bill, of the amendment that i have offered, my amendment again is intended to prevent the u.s. military from engaging in offensive operations in egypt and prevent the defense department from providing

assistance to the egyptian paramilitary or terrorist groups. it's not intended to prevent the peacekeeping missions or the current military missions there or most of all protecting our embassies and we want to make sure we allow the service of our good marine controversy in egypt. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is ecognized. >> i would love to yield to the gentlelady from texas. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. granger: one reason we have a relationship with egypt is the israel-ejifment peace treaty we feel helped forge

peace between egypt and israel a peace that's been held for over 30 years. our military to military relationship has been a key component in keeping that peace. since the signing of the treaty, the egyptian military has been a reliable partner and ally throughout all the changes and turmoil, the egyptian military has uphold our security arrangement, including the peace treaty. they've also maintained priority access for u.s. ships through the suez canal and aloud u.s. military planes to use their air space. we cannot underestimate the importance of this. furthermore, since july 3, the egyptian military has successfully closed nearly 80% of the tunnels used to smuggle goods and arm into the gaza strip. this is a part, an important part, of our partnership and how we've worked together. the relationship between the united states and egypt has never been more critical than

it is now. this amendment could jeopardize our ability to help egypt and israel secure the sinai. if the intent were other than has been explained just a few minutes ago, it could harm our efforts to secure the libyan board we are egypt, which is used to smuggle weapons to be used against israel. it's vital to the u.s. national security that we maintain our long standing relationship with the egyptian military. i'm not going to oppose his amendment as long as the intent is not to interfere with this 30-year partnership and relationship. u.s. and israeli security are simply too important to put at risk. i appreciate the time and the effort. thank you very much. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. to the k: i yield

gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: appreciate the gentleman yielding. the question i have is, there has been a lot of talk, it is not the intent of the amendment to interfere with any cooperation we have today with egyptians, it is not our intent not to be involved in the sinai but the amendment reads no funds, and then goes on, to fund military operations in egypt. if i am an advisor, a member of the uniformed services, how is the intent met under the particular restrictions of the amendment? that would be my question. mr. womack: reclaiming my time, madam chair, i don't want to put words in the mouth of the author of the amendment but i would yield to the gentleman to further clarify. s willingness to make sure

that we make the appropriate adjustments to this amendment in conference. i yield to the gentleman such time as he may consume. mr. massie: to allay your concerns, and the concern os they have gentlelady who spoke, the intentions are the intentions that have been mentioned here and the veshage aloud in the amendment process was very difficult to con -- and the verbiage that was allowed in the amendment rocess was very difficult to scribe, we want to go to conference and ameliorate the anguage. mr. visclosky: i would want to make sure we t to on't damage what's going on.

mr. womack: at this time, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. womack: i'm happy to yield the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas has one minute remaining. plell womack: i yield the gentleman 45 seconds. mr. frelinghuysen: it's in our interest that a strong, stable, moderate, and truly democratic egypt is in the best interest of both our countries. we've had a 30-year relationship and those interests would be damaged if we decide to in any way disengage from egypt and its people in their quest for a true democksoir reduce current levels of support for the

egyptian military. this is the country of 80 million people, a cornerstone of peace in the mideast despite its recent troubles. and we need to make sure that we keep the egyptians close to us as a strong ally and work with their military operations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. womack: i do appreciate my friend from kentucky for further clarifying the intept of his amendment. it's something i believe we can work with, as long as we can mac the proper adjustments once bewe can get to conference. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the house report 113-170 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 67 by mr. kilmer of washington, amendment number 69 by mr. nadler of new york, amendment number 70 by mr. nadler of new york, amendment number 73 by mr. schiff of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. -- the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 67 printed in house report 113-170, offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer, on which further pr seed wrgs postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voys vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 67 printed in house report 113-170 offered by mr. kilmer of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 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.]