the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the recognition. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. what he is doing is locking in our strategic force levels and the fact is the armed services bill is not yet done as far as authorization and the gentleman is saying we should have 430 silos. the gentleman may be correct. maybe we need 425 silos, maybe 218 silos. but i don't think we should pre-judge that final figure until the authorization legislation is completed. certainly think again that it is limiting our options. i think any time we limit our defense options going forward, that i not good policy and therefore strongly object to the

gentleman's amendment. i would yield back my time. mr. daines: i appreciate the gentleman's comments. this is to ensure we don't have a decommissioning moving forward as we reason sile the appropriations and the ndaa. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from montana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york. page 33, line 32, strike 13. the chair: the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: this amendment would strike the legislative rider put

in the bill to prevent the department of defense from decommissioning nuclear missile silos. as you know the defense appropriations bill requires the administration to keep 50 soon-to-be empty silos on standby. the missiles in these silos will be eliminated under the new start arms control treaty and the -- and we hope to destroy the silos and save some money. this will keep them in warm stand lee forever. these empty silos will have to be counted against our launcher totals, meaning fewer permissible submarine based missiles because we have, instead, emp ty icbm silos. these islows have been targeted by the rugs for decades. while it's important to have a survivable nuclear the deterrent, these are the least survivable leg of our deterrent and empty silos deter no one.

we have 50 empty silos, 50 fewer submarine launch ballistic missiles and bombers. while it's true that as an offer with silos those in their state, they issue -- they didn't offer to keep them warm forever. is it any wonder that the most ar dent defenders of this provision are from montana, colorado, and wyoming? not the chairman of the armed forces committee or the ranking member of the armed services committee. they'd worked out a sunset at one point. micromanaging these issue is not in the best interest of our country. this amendment would change the status of 50 empty silos, my amendment, and only financial security determined they wanted to do. so it would not affect any silos with actual missiles in them and would not affect our deterrent.

therefore i would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment which would allow the president to remove those silos from warm standby at a time of his choosing when the military tells him it's appropriate to do so, and to avoid the cost of keeping open, empty silos without any functional useful vens to the national defense. i want to make a broader point about our broader nuclear strategy. i want to call attention to the obsolescence of the concept othey have nuclear triad. something that's been accepted as gospel for many years no longer makes sense. a nuclear arsenal is designed to serve as a deterrent to prevent anyone from considering attacking the united states. in order to deter attack any potential adversary needs to know we have enough hue nu clear weapons to survive the initial assault and we'll retaliate with overwhelming force. we have icbm's which are vulnerable to enemy strike. we have bombers which can be made less vulnerable and submarine missiles that are not vulnerable. the icbm's, because they're fixed targets need to be

launched immediately. and therefore are at the greatest risk of being launched by mistake or accident. there's almost no time to verify that a radar contact is actually a block of incoming missiles and not a flock of sea gulls. why do we need the icbm's which are not only vulnerable but dangerous, especially when it's use them or lose them, especially when we have subs and bombers? today we have saying the generals should have discretion to spend money on weapons that best protect the interests of the united states. they shouldn't be forced to waste taxpayer dollars to keep empty missile silos warm when they have limited utility and are not in our best interests. and they should not be used to keep empty silos warm when it means urn the treaty we could have 50 fewer real missiles as opposed to empty silos. i urbling my colleagues to adopt the amendment to restore to the president and the military the flexibility to determine if we

want to keep empty silos or real missiles. i yield back. i reserve. he chair: -- i will yield. mr. visclosky: i support the gentleman's amendment, he removes the limitation to allow us, if it is making sense, to reduce, convert, decommission or otherwise move to nondeployed status the silos. i don't suggest standing here on the floor today, what we should or should not do but we should allow the administration of this country those options. i appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. mr. nadler: reclaiming my time. i'm not suggesting what we should do other than leave the administration and the military the discretion. they may the side they'd rather have more submarine-based missiles rather than empty silos. they may not decide that. but that should be a decision for them. personally i'd rather have more missiles than empty silos or

maybe save money but that's my personal preference. we should leave the decision to the administration. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does anyone claim time in opposition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. daines: this reduces or decommissions the silos or put them in a nondeployed status other than warm status. a warm silo is one that can be made fully operational with the reintroduction of a missile. let me remind those listening tonight, that is anybody who says, thank god we've never had to use our icbm's, i would argue they're used every day to ensure that we maintain peace and stability in the world. this section is modeled after language included in the house-passed ndaa to maximize readiness of the land-based leg of the nuclear triad. i rise in opposition to this amendment. the language in this section is essentially the same as the language included in the house-passed national defense

authorization act. this says it takes a silo down to nondeployed status, they must keep it warl. that means it must be kept in a state that will allow it to become fully operational if a missile is reintroduced this section would assure we maximize the readiness of the land-based leg of the nuclear triad and inhibit the administration from making unilateral cuts to our strategic deterrence. i urge a no vote on the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back. does anyone else seek 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote? mr. nadler: yes. the chair: purr student clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment of the gentleman will be postponed. the clerk will read.

the clerk: none of the funds may be obligated to e-3 airborne warning and controlled system aircraft. section 3184, none of the funds may be obligated to implement the arms trade treaty until the senate approved a resolution of ratification. section 8135, including transfer f funds, $139 million. section 8136. none of the funds may be used to transfer ah-64 attack helicopters from the army national guard to the active army. section 8137, including transfer of funds, $1 billion. section 8138. $50 million. section 8139. none of the funds may be used in contravention of section 1035 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. section 8140. none of the funds may be used to implement the changes to hair standards and grooming policies

for female member os they have armed forces. -- members of the armed forces. title 9, everseas deployment. personnel. $5,100,000. operation and maintenance. $51,868,000,000. procurement. $12,220,000,000 to remain available until september 30, 2016. national guard and reserve, $2 billion to remane available for obligation until september 30, 2017. other appropriations including transfer of funds, $1,450 million. general provisions. this title. section 9001. funds made available are in addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the department of defense for

fiscal year 2015. section 9002, including transfer of funds, upon the determination of the secretary that such action is necessary in the national interest, the secretary may transfer up to $4 billion between the appropriations or funds made available. section 9003. supervision and administrative costs. calls for design in construction associated with design of construction project may be obligated at the time a construction contract is awarded. section 9004. from the funds made available the secretary may purchase for use by military and civilian employees of the department in the u.s. central command area responsibility passenger motor vehicles up to a limit of $75,000 per vehicle. section 9005. $15 million. section 9006. funds available to the department for operation and may

not nantz may be used to provide supplies to coalition forces supporting military and stability operations in afghanistan. section 9007. none of the funds shall be obligated by the united states government for a purpose as follow los, to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of prosfriringd the permanent stationing of the united states armed forces in iraq. section 9008. none of the funds may be used in contravention of the following laws to implement the united nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. section 2340-a of title 18, united states code. section 9009, none of the funds may be obligated prior to the approval of a financial and activity plan by the afghanistan resources oversight council of the department. section 9010, funds made available may be used to purchase items having an investment unit cost of not more than $250,000.

section 9011. $150 million. section 9012, none of the funds under the heading operation and maintenance for payments under section 1233 of public law 110-81 for reimbursement to the government of pakistan may be made available unless the secretary certifies to the committees on appropriation that the government of pakistan is cooperating with the united states and counterterrorism -- in counterterrorism efforts. section 9013, none of the funds may be used with respect to of the contravention war powers resolution. 50 u.s.c. 1541. and to situation in syria where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances in contravention of the congressional requirements. section 9014, none of the funds for the afghanistan

infrastructure fund may be used to plan any project. section 9015, no more than 15% of the funds may be obligated until the secretary provides a detailed plan. sitele 10, additional general provisions. spending reduction account. section 10-001. the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the comm committee on appropriations s $0. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to

strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to recognize -- oh, i yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, for a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. mica: first of all, i want to commend you, mr. chairman, and also the ranking member and the defense appropriations subcommittee staff for your efforts in bringing this important measure to the floor for our military. mr. chairman, in working with you and your staff, i know firsthand of your dedication to our armed services and the importance you place on ensuring the readiness of our troops. as you well know, modeling and simulation top l tools are cost had been -- tools are cost-effective and -- components in ensuring our troops have the best training available. i thank the gentleman from new jersey for his support and also for the inclusion of specific language in the f.y. 2015 defense appropriations committee report, specifically

emphasizing the benefits of modeling and simulation. also, as the house considers this vital appropriations bill, i'd like to take this opportunity to share with you the, to share with you, the committee and my clears, the concerns i have. as you know, part of the continuation of the war fighter focus program was expected to be the teach program. it's my understanding that the teach program has been put on hold. it's also my understanding that the army will continue this program under a different name and format. it's my hope that the funds allocated are used to fulfill the requirements needed for this portion of the war fighter program. mr. chairman, again, i appreciate your support for this vital tool, simulation saves taxpayers dollars and assists in training our defense personnel and also its inclusion in the defense

appropriations bill. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate the gentleman bringing this important issue to my attention. a month or two ago you brought me together with some national leaders that are involved in modeling and simulation and it was a real education for me. so like you do i place a great importance -- so like you i do place great importance on ensuring op troose have the training available. i look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure our troops receive the training and equipment they need and that our nation's defense's needs are met in a fiscally responsible manner. mr. mica: i thank you. i yield back. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. any member seeking recognition? the gentleman from california. for what purpose do you rise? the clerk will report the amendment. specify which amendment.

the clerk will report the amendment, 95. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garamendi of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used on research, development, test or evaluation -- mr. garamendi: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order. the clerk: for the f.y. -- f-35 joint strike fighter, to modify it in a matter that provides for b-61 delivery capability until the date on which the report described under the heading cost sharing of forward deployed nuclear weapons in the report of the committee on appropriations of the house of representatives accompanying this act has been delivered to the congressional defense committees and such report includes, among other matters, the total anticipated cost to make the f-35 joint strike fighter nuclear-capable, the number of aircraft expected to have such capability and the

total number of tactscal b-61's expected to undergo the life extension program, including the total anticipated program cost, specific to tactical b-61's. the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i thank you very much, mr. chairman. earlier today i took up an issue -- took up this issue by attempting to strike the $15 million that is appropriated in this bill, for the initial phases of figuring out how to make the f-35 dual-capable, that is capable of handling both conventional as well as nuclear weapons. this is the opening of a very, very expensive process, probably well over somewhere between $10 billion and $20 billion will be spent on this entire program. the f-35 is our plane of the

future. it's extremely important for the defense of this nation. however, the issue of whether that plane should be dual-capable or not really revolves around the role that the f-35 dual-capable plane will play in the european theater. presently we are deploying in europe the b-61 bomb. hat bomb is now being life extended, rebuilt, for the purposes of doing what was done before. that is to sit there basically unused. it will be both a tactical as well as a strategic weapon. there is a major cost factor that will affect this budget and future budgets for years to come with this initial decision that we are now making. what this amendment does is to simply build off a portion of the bill that is already in place. it does call for a report. this amendment fences off the $15 million, says you can't use it until such time as the

details that i add to the existing language of the bill before us, and those details were read by the reader a moment ago. let me just quickly go through them. until the house of representatives has delivered the -- that is, until the military's delivered to the house of representatives defense committees a report, among other matters, the total anticipated cost of making the f-35 joint fighter nuclear-capable, next, the number of aircraft expected to have such capability, next, the total number of tactical b-61's expected to undergo the life extension program, including the total anticipated cost specific to the tactical b-61, this is critical information that we have. the language -- the language in the bill is ok, but it doesn't give us the specificity that we need to make the decision. and frankly i don't think we ought to start down this path

until we really have some better notion of where we are going with the expenses of this. we also know that the european community is at best am bive lent about what to do with -- ambivalent about what to do with this issue and they certainly are ambivalent about whether they're going to pay their share of the cost of the airplanes that they will eventually acquire that will have interest this dual capability. so big questions out there. this is attempting to gather the specific information that we should have to make a wise and informed decision in the future. with that i yield back to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from california yields. mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: i do. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i withdraw my reservations with the understanding that the gentleman from california will be withdrawing his amendment. mr. garamendi: well. reclaiming my time, sir. i would much prefer if you could say these are really wise

and information that we need and that we would add these to the bill somewhere along the process. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: well. i'm a strong supporter of the joint strike fighter and indeed the b-61, we are doing things to make sure that it is everything that we anticipated it should be. and i think the issue is worth discussing but it was my understanding that you were planning to withdraw your amendment. otherwise i will make a point of order. mr. garamendi: i think what i would prefer to do, sir, is to -- reclaiming my time. what i would prefer to do, sir, is to proceed and to continue the discussion. i think this is an important matter. with that -- i don't know how much time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. garamendi: perhaps i'll just wrap and then will take up

your point of order and see where that goes with it. this is an extremely important issue. it has to do with our relationships with nato, it has to do with cost-sharing from the nato community who will eventually acquire these planes. and it also has to do with the b-61 bomb which is an extraordinarily expensive program that may or may not fit into the future for nato or for evener us. so it's just -- even for -- for even us. so it's just an amendment that's designed to give us the information we need. with that i yield back the balance of my time and will take -- the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. does the gentleman from new jersey insist on his point of order? mr. frelinghuysen: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an -- in an appropriations bill, it therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, and i quote, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, end of

quotation. the amendment requires a new determination. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: any member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, of the subcommittee, with great respect i respectfully disagree with you. this does not change law. it simply writes into the law an extension of what is already in this bill. and that is -- it calls for a report. it also fences off a certain amount of money, in this case $15 million, that is really the beginning of a very expensive process. it fences it off until we have that information in the report from the pentagon. i think that's a wise thing to do. in fact, the appropriation bill in many, many respects changes laws. and i think we're all aware of

that. i'm also aware that i have yet to overcome a point of order. but there's always the first time when we could be hopeful that that might -- this might be the first. but i draw the attention of the chair, the ranking members and anybody else that cares to listen, be prepared to -- to spend somewhere between $15 billion and $20 billion if we go forward with both the b-61 and the retrofitting to the f-35, so that it will be kuhl-capable. capable of both con -- dual-capable. capable of both conventional and nuclear weapons. i think we should have a sense of the total cost and where our european allies want this to be. and i think they ought to also pay for it. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair's prepared to rule. the chair finds this amendment imposes new duties on the officials funded in the bill. the amendment therefore violates -- constitutes legislation in violation of

clause 2, rule 21. the point of order is sustained a understand the amendment is not in order -- sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cole of oklahoma. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide housing on a military installation to an alien as defined in section 101-a of the immigration and nationality ct, 8, united states code, 1101-a, who, one, is an unaccompanied minor and, two, is not a dependent of the member of the armed forces. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma and a member opposed each will control five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: i rise to raise a point of order against the gentleman's amendment and would reserve my right. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to be the first to acknowledge, mr. speaker, that this legislation may not indeed

be the appropriate place of which to address the issue raised in the amendment. but i do believe the amendment is an appropriate way to highlight a problem that simply must be addressed by the president and by the congress. in recent weeks there have been many news accounts reporting that we have had an explosion of unaccompanied juveniles coming and crossing our borders, largely from central america, from the countries of guatemala, honduras andal al salvador.nd this has overwhelmed facilities that we normally use and military facilities have now been used, pressed into service, to deal with this population. in full disclosure, one of those facilities happens to be in my district in oklahoma, the home of the field artillery. but other facilities have also been used at ventura, at lackland air force base in texas, in the state of washington and still others are being considered.

i'm concerned about this for three reasons. first, these military facilities are absolutely inappropriate places to house this particular population. they're not designed for that purpose, they're not equipped for it, they've gotten very little notification of it. it's simply the wrong place to put folks. you don't bring outsiders onto a military installation who have no business being there and in addition also their care takers. second, while much of the expense will be picked up by other various departments of government, it will inevitably cost some expense and inconvenience to the department of defense at a time when we have a very strained military budget. and lastly, while we're told that these facilities are going to be used only on a temporary emergency basis, there is indeed the risk that they could become permanent. something i think that would create a confusion of missions on military bases not to be avoided -- and ought to be avoided. we need to address the cause of the flow, not simply manage the flow better. and we shouldn't use military

facilities in that process. the administration says that this flow of unaccompanied juveniles, which by the way was 6,000 two years ago, is 66,000 now, and is projected to reach 120,000 to 150,000 within the next couple of years, is the result of a humanitarian crisis. i would submit it's actually the result of a policy failure where essentially we're incentivizing the flow of this population by not returning the unaccompanied juveniles to their companies of origins quickly the once they arrive in the united states -- quickly. once they arrive in the united states we try to find sponsors for them in this country and they stay here permanently. that's not what we do with mexican juveniles. if you're a 16-year-old illegal immigrant from mexico, we return you immediately. and we've had no similar spike in that particular population coming across the border. .

what we're doing may appear to be humane to the juveniles in question, but it's not. we're disrupting the countries from which they come. 're changing their populations. second theerks young people don't just walk across mexico, they're transported by cartels, it's criminals, the same people that bring drug into our country, and they're making enormous amounts of money and we're strengthening them by incentivizing this. finally, the young people themselveses are at enormous risk during the process of transportation. they're being brought across the length of a country, mexico, in the company of very unsavory elements, and they're very much at risk. i think we need to stop using military facilities for this purpose and frankly to begin to return people to the country of origin. in my view that would stop the flow and remove the incentive to come. with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. does the gentleman from indiana

wish to insist on his point of order? the gentleman will be heard on is point of order. mr. visclosky: is it the gentleman's intent to withdraw this amendment? mr. cole: i suspect my friend will prevail with his point of respectfully ll withdraw my amendment. i will eventually find the appropriate vehicle for this amendment. mr. visclosky feather sp the gentleman will yield, i would suggest to the membership that i was not fully aware of the problems that existed -- mr. visclosky: i was not fully aware of the problems that existed. as a member of the subcommittee i appreciate that happening and

the fact that you have raised it on two significant occasions i think is going to impel the administration as well as our colleagues to find a solution to this very serious problem. so raising the point of order, i reserve that right but i appreciate what the swrelt is doing. > would the gentleman yield? mr. frelinghuysen: many of the reports on this situation points up the fact, at least on the east coast that many of these children are in -- they don't point out that they're in military installations. i want to commend the gentleman for pointing out that while they are well kept, looked after, in those installation, it's totally enappropriate that children be put in that situation. the department of health and human services and the administration needs to do a better job finding alternative

housing and receptions. thank you for yielding. mr. visclosky: i withdraw my point of order. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i withdraw the amendment. i appreciate what my colleagues had to say. the chair: without objection the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with any author or any doctor offerer or any of its principles if the offerer certifies pursuant to federal regulation that the offerer or any of its principals have been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining --

>> mr. chairman. i ask that the balance -- i ask unanimous consent that the balance of the reading be waived. the chair: the reading is dispensed. with the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes and a member opposed will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. grayson: this is identical by ther amendments approved voice vote in any appropriations bill in this congress. t would limit the parties that could be contracted with because of problems. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. >> if the gentleman would yield? mr. grayson: i yield. mr. visclosky: i find the amendment acceptable. i do believe it's largely duplicative of the general provision in section 110 that

is already found in the bill but again, i understand the gentleman's intent and would a i gree with it and do believe it's acceptable to the subcommittee. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. grayson: i reclaim my time and thank the ranking member for making that notation. we have compared that language to this language and we respectfully believe that this language is broader and covers more situations, more contract yoss -- contracts but i appreciate the ranking member pointing that out. i support the provision he cited. i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member wish to claim time in opposition? the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition?

who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: which one. mr. grayson: grayson number three. the chair: the clerk will report grayson number three. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by the staff may be used by a contractor to subvert or interfere with the integrity of

any crypt graphic standard proposed -- griptographic standard proposed or departmented. the chair: the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes this egentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: in the interest of brevity, i respectfully ask unanimous consent to have a point of order, if any, heard now in advance of my argument. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserved the point of order. mr. free hinge losen: -- mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing

law. the amendment requires a new determination, i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: the gentleman from florida wish to be heard? mr. grayson: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grayson: i'm willing to yield to the gentleman from new jersey if the gentleman will explain to me which part of the bill offends. i erit -- reiterate what i just said. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. mr. grayson: i did ask, i wanted to yield to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the chair will hear the amendment offered by the argument by each member. it is your time to make your argument. mr. grayson: i'm ask if the gentleman will provide additional information as pass -- as part of my argument. the chair: the chair has heard the argument in favor of the point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida if he wishes to make an argument. mr. grayson: i am offering to yield to the gentleman from new

jersey if he'll identify any part of this amendment that offends the relevant rule. the chair: if you have no argument to be heard at this time, the chair is prepared to rule. mr. grayson: i think it's clear that there's no part of this amendment that offends part of this rule. i yielded to the gentleman who raised the point of order. if there's no part of this amendment that can be identified as offending the relevant rule, it does not offend the relevant rule. it doesn't legislate. i invite any member of the body who can identify any part of this amendment that constitutes legislation on the relevant rule. since no one can, it follows that the point of order must be overruled. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair prepares to rule. the chair finds that the eafment

violates the constitution and the amendment is not in orered. mr. grayson: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to transfer or release to the republic of yemen or any part of yemen a detainee who was held or detained or otherwise in the custody of the department of defense on or after union 24, 2009, at the united states naval station, guantanamo bay, cuba. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentlewoman from indiana, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from indiana. mrs. walorski: the recent he release of the taliban five was a potent reminder to the

american people and congress of the risk involved in detainee transfer decisions. the rising rate of terrorism re-engagement and the continuing threat posed by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula have prompted me to introduce this amendment again this year. one of president obama's first acts in office was to sign an executive order to close the facility in guantanamo. however the president himself suspended all detainee transfers from gitmo to yemen on january 5, 010. this decision was made in the aftermath of the 2009 christmas day bombing attempt which was the first attack on the u.s. by al qaeda since 9/11. the would-be bomber was radicalized and trained in yemen. white house press secretary gibbs said any additional transfers to yemen are not a good idea. in may of last year, the president changed his mind, lifting the moratorium on transfers to yemen and reviewing transfers on a case-by-case basis. up fortunately, the numb of former gitmo detainees who re-engage in terrorism has risen since 2002.

in december, 2007, the first report addressing gitmo re-engagement declared the rate to be about 7%. as of march of this year, the re-engagement rate is 29%. the majority of these individuals remain at large. this information, which is the best, most reliable data we have, comes from the director of national intelligence. the march d.n.i. reports notes that transfers to countries with ongoing conflicts and internal stabilities as well as active recruitment by insurgent and terrorist orny sages poses a particular problem. finally the intel community has noted a lag of time, about 1/2 years, between living -- leaving gitmo and the first identified re-engagement reports. therefore estimated pis hist torical estimated and confirmed rates may be lower than confirmed rates. they should make sure the process is further examined and improved before proceeding with additional transfers. meanwhile, the security situation in yes, ma'am season fragile and has gone from bad to

worse. according to a 2012 oversight and investigation report on detainee re-engagement, the united states faced a persistent challenge in making certain that countries receiving transferred gitmo detainees have the capacity and willingness to handle them in a way that sufficiently recognizes the dangers involved. despite the commendable efforts of yemeni president, numerous international organizations such as the u.n. and world bank have noted that the fragile environment in yemen, unfortunately the country's progress is still at risk of being undermine by al qaeda. yemen was recently ranked the sixth most failed state by the fund for peace, worse than afghanistan or iraq and the third most worsened state over the last five years. it's no surprise that jailbreaks are a notorious problem in yemen. furthermore, press reports have characterized yes, ma'amny prisons as overcrowded radicalization factories. to give one example, the yemeni -- the yemeni citizen escaped

from prison in 2003 and 2006 after his recapture. he was not recaptured after his second escape and remains at large. in he the most recent example they mount an assault on the prison's main prison, freeing 20. the u.s. embassy has been closed sin may and remains closed today due to kidnappings and attacks on american citizens. yemen's brampling of al qaeda, aqap, was founded by former gitmo detainees. experts declared aqap declared them to be the most effective al qaeda affiliate and think biggest danger to america. aqap has orchestrated numerous high profile terrorist attacks inside the arabian peninsula. it's tried on numerous occasions to strike the u.s. homeland, typically through air travel.

analysts evaluate that the aqa spmbings the al qaeda group most capable of carrying out sophisticated attacks against the west esm with cannot risk trusting one of the world east most dangerous places with its most dangerous terrorists. the fundamental question is how much risk should we take with our nation's security. this helps ensure our homeland remains safe from attack. i urge my colleagues to to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance. the -- does the gentleman from indiana rise to claim time in opposition? . mr. visclosky: i rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. i believe we need to set conditions to close the detention facility at guantanamo. this includes retaining the option to transfer detainees from this facility elsewhere. it is in the united states national security interest to do so. guantanamo has become a rallying cry.

it serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increases the will of our enemies to fight while decreasing the will of others to work with america. part of the rationale for establishing guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced idea that the facility would be beyond the law. a proposition rejected by the supreme court. as a result, continued operation of this facility creates an impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that the united states selectively observes the rule of law. there's no reason that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at guantanamo after more than one decade. working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or

terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in federal prison. not one has escaped custody and i strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentlelady from indiana. ms. walorski: mr. chairman, can i inquire as to the balance of my time? the chair: the gentlelady from indiana has 30 seconds. ms. walorski: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and i strongly support her amendment. what was particularly golf balling in the -- gauling in the guantanamo transfer -- galling in the guantanamo transfer of these detainees is the tan been a were able to choose the people they wanted released and then the picture we saw of them being greeted in qatar by their terrorist brothers was enough to make you sick. so i'm strongly supportive of her amendment. i'm glad we've renewed this commitment to make sure these people are not released

anywhere. and yield back the balance of my time. and thank the gentlewoman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would he its rate, we are a nation of laws -- i would reiterate, we are a nation of laws. i would reiterate my objection and withdraw the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment -- mr. visclosky: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from indiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. he clerk: -- >> my amendment provides that no funds under this act can be used for afghan -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. thank you. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nolan of minnesota.

at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the afghanistan infrastructure fund. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from minnesota and a me owe -- member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, for the hard work that they've done in putting this appropriation bill together. mr. chairman, members of the house, there's a bipartisan group of us that have been meeting on a regular basis with the inspector general for afghanistan and iraq. he has some over 200 investigators trying to determine where the funds have gone for this afghanistan infrastructure fund. and to hear the story, it breaks your heart. of the last $100 billion that have been spent on afghan infrastructure, they can't find where most of that money went.

why? well, for several reasons. one is that afghanistan is largely a cash economy. so if you want to do a probably in any of the remote areas, you have to show up with a truck load full of cash. secondly, it's now certified as the most corrupt nation in the world. it's the number one narco state in the world, supplying more heroin than the rest of the world combined. and as the u.s. troops withdraw , there is no way to audit these funds, there's no way to inspect these funds, it's an absolute unmitigated prescription for unparalleled fraud. and it's got to stop and today and tonight is the time to put an end to it and that's why i'm offering my amendment here, to stop any funds from going to this afghan reconstruction fund.

mr. visclosky: i appreciate the point the gentleman is raising and would associate myself with his remarks and do believe it would be acceptable to the committee. mr. nolan: thank you very much. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. nolan: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. anyone claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from minnesota. mr. nolan: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. miller of michigan. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section 10002, none

of the funds made available by this act may be used to divest, retire, transfer or place in storage or prepare to divest, retire, transfer or place in storage any a-10 aircraft or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve component associated with such aircraft. the chair: pursuant who house resolution 628, the gentlewoman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. miller: mr. chairman, thank you. and i offer this amendment because i stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the troops on the ground. anyone of which will tell you that the -- any one of which will tell you that the workhorse champion in iraq and afghanistan will be the a-10. it has been proven to be ideally suited for its millings, -- its mission, it's legal at, it's incredit blble -- lethal, it's incredibly effective. the air force wants to save money about but they don't have

an adequate follow-on at in this time. with what's happening in iraq and middle east, eliminating the a-10's is the wrong move. the army chief of staff said that the a-10 is the best close air support aircraft and i agree and most importantly so do our brave men and women on the ground. the a-10's were authorized in both the house and senate armed services committee and i urge my colleagues to continue their support and vote yes on this amendment and at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, the co-sponsor of this amendment, mr. barber. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. barber: thank you, congresswoman miller, and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer this important bipartisan amendment with my colleague from michigan and the support of colleagues from illinois, from georgia, arizona, missouri and hawaii. our amendment would keep and protect the a-10 thunder bolt and keep it flying so it can continue to provide support to our troops who are on the

ground. last month i introduced in the house armed services committee an amendment that received an overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of keeping the a-10 flying for f.y. 2015. this amendment passed also with overwhelming support in the house -- on the house floor. it is now a part of the house version of the national defense authorization act and i might add of the one that is going to be coming out of the senate. now the house i believe must ensure once again that the a-10 is protected because it protects our troops. our troops deserve the best close air support we can provide and fleece better close air support than the a-10. when i talked to soldiers who come home from iraq and afghanistan, who work in my district, they have said over and over again, keep the a-10 flying. i was in afghanistan two months ago and marines and army personnel on the ground said, when you go back to the congress, keep the a-10 flying. it's the best close air support

we can have. there is no other fixed-wing aircraft that is as proficient as the a-10 in operating in rugged environments while providing the most effective close air support available. with no other aircraft available and capable of taking its place, with our men and women still in combat, we simply cannot allow the a-10 to be grounded. we also cannot afford to lose the knowledge and expertise of the pilots that fly this aircraft like those who are stationed in my home district. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it as we did in the national defense authorization act, for our national security, and for our men and women on the ground. mrs. miller: mr. chairman, i would yield at this time 30 seconds to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from jnl is recognized for 30 seconds. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this amendment, to preserve the a-10. this most effective, cost-efficient aircraft that we have for the missions that we're engaged in right now. our men and women who are out

there in harm's way, they deserve to have this aircraft flying above them, protecting them. mr. scott: our enemies run in fear from it and quite honestly i think it's the best money we can spend in protecting our troops while they're on the ground. the a-10 is the most effective aircraft for close air support. we need it for the missions we're in now, we're going to need it for the missions tomorrow and with that i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. miller: mr. chairman, at this time i would yield one minute to the gentleman from utah who has very personal experience with the ability of the a-10. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. >> i'd like to thank the gentlelady for giving me one minute to speak on this. i was an air force pilot for 14 years. mr. stewart: i flew and exercised with the a-10's all the time. i also flew for seven years with b-1. we were tasked with this mission of close air support. i'm not here because i have these in my district, i'm here because i realize what an invaluable resource this is. close air support is an incredibly delicate and unfor

giving mission. if you hit the wrong bridge, people will forgive you. if you frag your own troops you, will never forgive yourself. it's best done by an aircraft that's low and slow, that has superb communications, superb visibility. there's nothing that is as good as the a-10 is in this mission. i know that from my own experience. that is why i rise and stand in support of this very important amendment. and thank you for that time. and with that i yield back. mrs. miller: mr. chairman. i would urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting our troops, in supporting this amendment and i would say before you vote yo or no, speak to those who have actually fought in combat on the ground in the battle zones of iraq and afghanistan and i am very confident that the message that you will hear from them will be the same message that all of us have gotten and that is to keep the a-10 flying. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan yields back. does anyone rise to claim opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim

opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: let me stipulate at the outset that the a-10 thunderbolt is a tremendous aircraft. week of heard it from somebody who piloted one -- we've heard it from someone who piloted one and we're listening to our colleagues from the respective states that have a-10's and they can testify as i'm sure others can as to their value. but close air support is also provided actually 0% by other aircraft -- 80% by other aircraft and that's been true since 2008. the air force itself has recommended the retirement of the entire fleet. it's not going to happen overnight. it's going to happen by 2019. at some point in time it's going to happen. because this is not about saving billions of dollars, this is about saving billions of dollars, nearly $4 billion. and the money that we will save will allow us to procure the next generation of aircraft.

so i understand the desire to keep an aircraft that's been doing incredible work for 30 or 40 years, but it's time we look to the future, make that investment and i'm pleased to yield to the ranking member, mr. visclosky. advice i have i appreciate the chair -- mr. visclosky: i appreciate the chairman yielding and would add my comments that the a-10 is a wonderful aircraft. the b-17 flying for the rest was a wonderful aircraft -- fortress was a wonderful aircraft. it was replaced. the warrior was indispensable during vietnam, it's being replaced. the a-10 is being replaced over a protracted period of time, in the interim other aircraft are going to take its place until the f-35 is prepared to do its mission. the chief of staff of the air force flew the