garamendi. mr. garamendi. mr. kofman votes aye. mr. critz, mr. critz votes no. mr. rooney votes aye. mr. ryan votes no. mr. plats votes aye. mr. rubbersberger votes no. mr. ridgel votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. gibson votes aye. miss sutton votes no. mrs. hartzler, votes aye. miss hannah boo is a votes no. dr. heck votes aye. miss hokele votes no. mr. schilling votes no. mr. runnion, votes aye. mr. scott, mr. scott votes aye. mr. griffin. mr. griffin. mr. griffin votes aye. mr. palazzo votes aye. mr. west votes eye. mrs. roby. mrs. roby votes eye. mr. brooks votes eye. mr. young votes aye. mr. garamendi. >> clerk will report the tally zbllt 36 aye votes, 25 no votes. >> the amendment is agreed to. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. forbes for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman i move to adopt the submity report on readiness as amended. >> the question is on the motion of the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed no. quorum being present the ayes have it. the m

garamendi. i'm grateful that you put it in the en bloc, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. is there any other discussion? >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> gentleman from arizona, mr. frank is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just very briefly, i noticed in the en bloc amendment, that there didn't seem to be the space-based interceptor language that we had been told would be in the en bloc. and we have a separate amendment prepared for that. i just wanted for clarification if i could yield to mr. turner to give me any perspective on that. >> could you repeat that? >> mr. franks, that's in a second en bloc package. >> it's a second one. forgive me. never mind, as the lady said. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> any other discussion? gentleman from new jersey, andrews is recognized. >> yes. i'd like the thank you and the chairman and ranking member sanchez for some help with an issue that i wanted to engage in a short colloquy with the subchairman com

garamendi votes aye. mr. critz rotes aye. mr. rooney votes aye. mr. ryan votes aye. mr. platts votes aye. mr. ruppersberger votes aye. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. gibson votes aye. ms. sutton votes aye. ms. hartzler votes a ye. mrs. hanabusa votes aye. dr. heck votes no. m.hochul votes aye. mr. schilling? mr. schilling votes aye. ms. speier votes aye. mr. runyon votes aye. mr. scott votes aye. mr. griffin votes aye. mr. palazzo votes no. mr. west votes no. mrs. roby votes aye. mr. brooks? mr. brooks votes aye. mr. young votes no. oh, mr. jones. mr. brady is recorded as no. >> aye. >> mr. brady votes aye. >> and ms. davis? >> ms. davis votes aye. mr. mcintyre votes aye. >> mr. chairman, i would like to change my vote to an aye. >> ms. sanchez votes aye. >> let's not change anymore until we find out the results. >> mr. rogers votes aye. anyone else wish to change. the clerk will report the tally. start over? >> at ayes are 41, the nos are 20. >> anybody else want to change? >> i ask that be i recorded as aye on the garamendi amendment. >> now on the amendment offered by mr.

garamendi. the clerk will call the roll. garamendi. the clerk will call the roll.aramendi. the clerk will call the roll. wal-mart [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, the nose or 32, the ayes or 36. >> the amendment are not agreed to. further proceedings offered by mr. andrews. number 128 shall now resume those proceedings. the question or a curse on him an offer by mr. andrews. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [inaudible conversations] >> how was mr. langevin recorded? >> mr. langevin is not recorded. mr. langevin records aye. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> the nose are 35. the aye are 26. >> said the amendment is not agreed to. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. kissel and number 177 shall not resume proceedings. question out occurs on the amendment offered by mr. said tree. the cle

garamendi for five minutes. >> some time ago mr. andrews suggested that we try to avoid presidential politics as we continue this work. that seems to be very difficult to achieve since comment after comment seems to go back to presidential politics. we got really important issues to deal with and we are continuing meyer miring ourselves down in presidential politics. secret deals. in fact, i believe the treaty was approved by the senate. the question there was not only one of the remaining nuclear weapons but their capability. it's been certified as required by law the nnsa and laboratories and others have certified that our nuclear stockpile is safe and secure and reliable. how much money you need to continue that in years out is worthy of a debate. it is not debatable unless some of us think we are more qualified than those nuclear physicists to make the determination that they are safe, secure and reliable. we can debate the amount of money and we should. but this is not about -- and we ought to leave presidential politics out of

garamendi votes no. mr. coffman votes aye. mr. critz votes no. fwlchlt rooney votes no. mr. ryan votes no. mr. platts votes no. mr. ruppersberger votes no. mr. riggell votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. gibson votes no. ms. sutton votes no. mrs. hartzler votes aye. ms. hanabusa votes no. dr. heck votes aye. ms. hocl votes no. mr. schilling votes no. ms. speier votes no. mr. runyan votes no. mr. scott votes no. mr. griffin votes aye. mr. palazzo votes aye. mr. west votes aye. mrs. roby votes aye. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. young votes aye. mr. jones. mr. jones? >> how is mr. shuster recorded? >> mr. shuster is recorded as aye. mr. shuster votes no. >> clerk will record the tally. >> mr. chairman, the nos are 36, the ayes are 25. >>> and the amendment is not agreed to. >> if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry for the purpose of adopting a motion. >> i look to adopt the full committee provisions as amended. >> the question is on the motion from the gentleman from texas. if you're in favor, say aye. those opposed no. >

garamendi. mr. garamendi is correct when he says that there is no current or near-term threat from iran or north korea. we have to remember that. the current plans that we have, in particular with respect to russia, going back to what my colleague from ohio said, has nothing to do with the east coast. russia is worried about europe and adding missile defense in europe. they're not worried about our homeland and what we're doing here. i think to even suggested introduced that issue -- suggest and introduce that issue into this debate is both unfair and very personal. i do not think it is a necessary thing to do. there is not anything right now or in the near-term future to reach the east coast in that way. you and i can debate. we can think about, we can assume from a weekend strategy as as to what is going on with iran, but it is our military -- we can assume, we cannot strategizing as to what is going on with iran, but it is our military who suggest that we do not require in east-coast missile

garamendi, is recognized for five minutes. >> i only wish that the ranking member had been able to talk for ten or 15 minutes so i had time to read the entire amendment. i'm a fairly fast reader, but 46 pages. it appears to me that there is an inconsistency here. the general notion as i understand it of the amendment that i have been able to read quickly is that it is designed to assure that the nuclear stockpile is safe, secure and reliable. fair enough. a law has been on the books for a long time that requires the directors of the laboratories, nnsa to annually certify under some real serious penalties for them that the stockpile is safe, secure and reliable. they have adequate resources to maintain it. that's already in place. i'm not at all sure why this is necessary. i noticed a serious inconsistency in the bill itself. one of the major ways in which the safe, secure and reliability is to be achieved is with the utilization of the national ignition facility in lawrence livermore laboratories. it is there for that specific purpose and has other purposes, also. that was why it was bu

garamendi has an amendment. will the clerk, please, distribute the amendment. the without objection reading of the amendment will be dispense pd with. the chair recognizes mr. garamendi for two minutes to explain the amendment. >> gentleman's recognize to offer and explain his amendment. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. this issue deals with the civil liberties that all of us ought to be paying a great deal of attention to. in last year's ndaa, the question of the apprehension and detention or indefinite detention of persons within the united states became a critical issue. this amendment is an effort to try to clarify that language. and to make it clear that within the united states, a person cannot be held without access to an article 3 court. that's what it does. it's extraordinarily important issue of civil liberties, whether you are on the left or right or wherever else in between. we need to really make it very clear that the united states constitution is clear about access to court, and that this amendment is language that is being debated and discussed and

garamendi: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: the fact is 1.8 million people will not get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. they are going to be hungry, that's a fact. now the fact -- the rest of the fact is the application process has been supported by the federal government and by the legislation so that the states can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are qualified -- that are able to qualify for food stamps. that's gone in this bill. so the ability to reach out and to bring into those programs and beyond that -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time from my friend. i would say reaching out and bringing folks in the program who do not qualify for the program. the rules for the program are clear, mr. speaker. if you qualify for food stamps, i am the first one who wants you to have them. if you qualify for the snap program, under snap program rules, you should get food stamps. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: yes. mr. mcgovern: the government accountability office

garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take this one hour. we want to spend this hour discussing the piece of legislation that's extraordinarily important to every woman and every man, who lives within the united states. it's the violence against women's act, which is up for renewal and we be discussing that. we just heard an hour discussion on an extremely important matter. i do sit on the house armed services committee and i did sit 16 hours last week as we moved that bill out of committee. not every single person on that committee and every person in this house and in the senate cares deeply about this nation's security and providing the necessary support for the men and women who are currently in the military and those who have served in the past. there is no doubt about that, but there is, however, a very important debate under way about how we provide those services given the ability of this nation to find the money to pay for it. you heard the most remarkable debate this las

garamendi for five minutes. >> i don't think i'll take five minutes here. while this number may have initiated in 2010, in the intervening time, several things have occurred. one is a very serious deficit problem that we have to address. and we only need to and must only spend that which is necessary. the nnsa has been very, very clear that what is necessary is the amount that was in this year's president's budget. the augmentation in a has been put forth here is not necessary. you can spend an unlimited amount of money on this. i wouldn't recommend it. i would recommend that we deal with the deficit in a prudent way. the amendment that's been put forth by the ramg ranking member member does that and meets the need as stated by the nnsa officials. i'd ask for support of her amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. no further -- mr. thornberry, the gentleman from texas, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. turner makes the essential point that is worth emphasizing, however, and that is the ratification of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty was dependent

garamendi. heard some of the same briefings, although we haven't been there for all of the briefings, unfortunately. yes, there would be an expense to this. but the alternative would be much more expensive. and we all know that iran is not capable today of this kind of threat, but i think we should all agree that they are working to achieve the capability of having nuclear weapons and having interballistic missiles. they have tested intercontinental ballistic missiles. they are buried in deep bunkers trying to develop enriched uranium, they say more medical isotopes, but i don't think anyone buys that. so there is a threat in the future given their clear intentions. so there would be a deterrence effect if we could successfully field a east coast site that would maybe have some deterrents. i don't know. but it would at least be an insurance policy protecting our largest population centers in the country from an iranian threat. the european phased detkabgtive approach is geared more for mid-range

garamendi for two minutes. >> we ought to very carefully read, which i hope all of us have done, the underlying base bill that this amendment would strike out. the base bill would augment american presence in afghanistan, put us in the middle of a civil war, and require that we take sides in that civil war, and protect endefinitely a corrupt government, mr. karzai's government. and significantly endanger american troops by giving us a completely new task of intervening and protecting indefinitely into the future. the karzai government. >> does the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? because -- you know, one of these issues we always have when people talk numbers is the confusion that it can lead with -- >> excuse me. >> my understanding -- >> i don't believe that i yielded. >> i'm sorry. i thought you did. >> i did not. >> does not include a troop increase. >> you'll have your own time and you've taken some of mine. the language that is in this base bill presents an enormous challenge for the united states to carry out, and forces the united states to intervene directly and co

garamendi asked for a roll call for.a roll call is ordered and we will call the roll call at the end of the chairman smart. chairman's mark echo i ask unanimous consent to call up and on blog package of amendments approved by the minority side. without objections so ordered. will the clerk sees pass out the amendments to be offered and block. with a reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. the amendment is comprised of an amendment by mr. -- regarding the inventory of contracts and services to require the special management attention being given to functions identified in and inventories closely associated to inherently governmental functions. the amendment strike section 82 of section 3155 which authorizes doe to participate in the management and operations of the company that receives the received the funding authorized by this section. the amendment by mrs. roby to require the secretary of the air force to report no later than sufficient of the president's fiscal year 2014 budget request to congress, how the

garamendy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm confused here about what the proponents are proposing here. a moment ago in the previous amendment they were argues with ought not have alternatives and now ar arguing we ought to have alternatives. so which way is it? are they going to argue both sides simply to promote the oil industry? i suppose that's what this is all about, and the previous debate they said we ought not be looking at alternatives. now they're looking at alternatives. the bottom line of this is that the pentagon in the last four years has said repeatedly that climate change is a major national security issue. affecting countries around the world. causing disruption in their food supplies, their agriculture, water supplies and the rest. and so this effort by the united states government over the last six years, five years now, to look at other ways of providing energy in a manner that reduces greenhouse gases seems to me to be fully in concert with what the pentagon, the department of defense has been repeatedl

garamendi: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: the fact is 1.8 million people will not get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. they are going to be hungry, that's a fact. now the fact -- the rest of the fact is the application process has been supported by the federal government and by the legislation so that the states can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are qualified -- that are able to qualify for food stamps. that's gone in this bill. so the ability to reach out and to bring into those programs and beyond that -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time from my friend. i would say reaching out and bringing folks in the program who do not qualify for the program. the rules for the program are clear, mr. speaker. if you qualify for food stamps, i am the first one who wants you to have them. if you qualify for the snap program, under snap program rules, you should get food stamps. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: yes. mr. mcgovern: the government accountability office

garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: i think i'll let this thing cool down a little bit, but the gentleman on the other side of this debate is quite wrong. there's no balance in this particular bill at all. there is no balance. the cuts are devastating. meals on wheels for seniors. medicare programs, medicaid programs for seniors, and if you take a look at the rest of the issues, school lunch programs, kids are going to go hungry. there's no balance. there is no tax proposal in this. there is no bat -- balance at all. i have one more problem that's not being resolved. the national flood insurance bill was part of this reconciliation and it has a gaping hole. as the corps of engineers has gone through the nation's levees and downgraded those levees, creating an enormous problem for agriculture for this nation and certainly in california where many of the levees have been downgraded, it's now impossible for farmers and the agricultural community to obtain loans to continue to produce and to enhance their agr

joining me tonight is congressman john garamendy of california. this is playing out all over the country. the governors are making the ruthless cuts or turning to the people. what's going to happen? >> california is going to come back. california will do what it has to do to get back on track. education is fundamental. a bunch of investors are building new companies. they are looking for opportunities. they want people to work in their shops and businesses. the governor is correct. we need a balanced approach. you cannot do it with cuts. you're going to have to raise tax revenue. his plan is out there. it's the plan we'll have to pursue. >> do you think the people of california will go down this road with a quarter percent sales tax. if you make over $250,000 a year it will be 3% with a sunset on it. >> the 3% comes if you're over a million per person. for a family it's much higher. the point is we have to do this. we have to move this state forward. that means you have to make these investments and the fundamental ingredients of economic growth.

garamendi: this amendment simply overturns that. it was a federal court order that approved the settlement, a settlement between the water users, the water users and also the environmental groups. to do this amendment is simply going to once again ignite a major water war that is totally unnecessary. it is going to be difficult to restore the river but it can be done but is going to take time and money and we should do it. this is one of the two largest rivers in the state of california. it's a river that had in the past before the reservoirs were built and before the river was died up, an extraordinary run of salmon. it will never return to what it once was but can return to a viable river. to take action at this hour of the night on a amendment that is only going to be heard between half a dozen of us on the floor seems to be quite wrong. we have to oppose this amendment and ought to allow things to go forward. i would remind those who are supporting this that this is going to be a major blowup in the u.s. senate. i know we don't

garamendi: thank you so much. ms. speier: i think at this point we have covered all the issues we wanted to cover during this special order tonight and i wanted to leave my colleagues with this message. again, this was quoted in "usa today," stigroup analysts declared, energy independence in the united states is not a pipe dream. the u.s. is already the world's fastest-growing oil and natural gas producer, countying the output, north america is the new middle east. we have a lot of new things happening in the oil and gas industry. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren is recognized as the designee of the majrt leader. mr. hultgren: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, while, it is with mixed feelings that i come to this body tonight and many of my colleagues will join me to remember someone who had had a huge impact, not only on this city and this nation, but on our world, a gentleman who had a very person

garamendi: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend from calirnia. mr. garamendi: the fact is 1.8 million people will not get the supplemental food that they get from food stamps. they are going to be hungry, that's a fact. nothe fact -- the rest of the fact is the application process has been supported by the federal government and by the legislation so that the states can reach out to those people that are hungry and that are qualified -- that are able to qualify for food stamps. that's gone in this bill. so the ability to ach out and to bring into those programs and beyond that -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time from my friend. i would say reaching out and bringing folks in the program who do not qualify for the program. the rules for the program are clear, mr. speaker. if you qualify for food stamps, i am the first one who wants you to have them. if you qualify for the snap program, under snap program rules, you should get food stamps. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: yes. mr. mcgovern: the government accountability office says

flowers of the garden in full bloom, come these carleton varney fragrances 2 jelly perfume every13 in garamendi'ss and beautifully packaged and when i designed a bottle i wanted it to look like a perfume bottle on the ladies dressing table+ these are my cufflinks. that is embossed on the front of this beautiful square bottle. >>host: i love that! >>guest: out wanted it to a perfect bottle of the highest level and when you of perfume from france you do not think of sitting big sprays in the roomba you think of them being very simple fragrances, the beautiful gardenia which is a fragile and it is a wonderful flower use as a boutonniere and i love to see gardenias floating in water and when i opened the greenbrier pool casino we had the entire pool filled with floating gardenias. it perfumed the space. what i want to say about these fragrances particularly aisle and rose are the frangipani, you can fragranced a room by putting a small bottle on a desk or in your home, because it unnatural fragrances and it is not overwhelming and will not knock you downome of these concocted fragrances pet remind me

garamendi: i yield to the gentleman. mr. fattah: the constitution may be an inconvenient thing but it is the basis of all of our laws. this is an appropriations bill. this amendment, no matter the result, is not going to be in this bill and this bill has the president's signature. this is the beginning of a whole set of amendments having nothing to do with how much money we are going to spend but various political passions. most, if not all of them, are going to be stripped from this bill and we are going to debate these things that are not going to be part of the bill as it finally becomes the law of the land. so i'm going to using all of this time. i thank my col for their comments. but the truth of the matter is, this is an appropriations bill and these matters will get settled in some other way and i thank the gentlelady for offering an amendment. it does violate the constution's -- constitution's separation of power. and thank you, and i yield back the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the bala