mr. garamendi. >> clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 32 aye votes, 29 no votes. >> the amendment is agreed to. committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. conaway, 035, this amendment would exempt the d.o.d. from section 526, twenty-two 007 energy independence and security act. question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. conaway number 35. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon aye plxt smith votes no. mr. bartlett, mr. bartlett votes aye. mr. reyes, mr. reyes votes no. mr. thornberry votes aye. miss sanchez votes no. mr. jones, mr. jones votes aye. mr. mcintire votes no. mr. akin votes eye. mr. brady, mr. brady votes no. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. andrews votes no. mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. langgvin no. mr. lobiando votes no. mr. larson votes no. mr. turner votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. klein votes aye. miss bordio votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes aye. mr. courtney votes no. mr. franks, mr. franks vot

mr. 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 comm

mr. 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.

mr. 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. >

mr. garamendi. >> i think you, mr. chairman. i do have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass up the amendment. without objection. the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of those offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, this amendment deals with the question of a missile defense site on the east coast. at a time when we hear so much discussion in these halls and run the nation about the deficit and the need to address the deficit, the question arises why we would will want to initiate a program that would ultimately spend well over $5 billion on a program that at this point the u.s. military does not believe is necessary. general jacob e. in testament to the senate armed services committee, straight stated unequivocally that the missile defense is not necessary on the east coast. yet, the bill before us, would provide that by 2015, a missile presumably deal with iran. iran does not have an icbm. there is considerable question as to whether they would or

mr. 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

mr. garamendi, the gentleman from california, is recognized for a minute and a half. >> i yield my time to the ranking member. >> thank you. mr. turner, the amendment seeks to correct some of the deficiencies but it still leaves the authority for determining the type of oversight for high hazard operations to the nsa nnsa administrator. this would result in weaker standards and change long-standing oversight of these operations. again, i would urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. if you care about health and safety of those workers in those facilities, you should be voting for my amendment. and i yield back to the gentleman from california. >> the gentleman yields back? >> no. no, i don't. not yet. this issue is not one that has become new to this committee or to the nuclear labs. the issue of safety has been around for a long time and, in fact, the current situation which is burdensome and should be modified, and the chairman is correct about modifications. i'm not sure about the details that have been proposed but this is also a community issue. the issue of safety in the surroun

mr. 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 s

mr. 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

mr. garamendi. all those in favor will say i those opposed will say no the no's have it in the amendment is not agreed to. roll call has been requested. we will call the roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments? >> @ -- i have an amendment at the desk. >> will clark pass out the amendment? r1 147-are1 >> reading the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the chair recognized the gentle lady for the purpose of exploiting her proposal. >> this is a green-based strategy. -- ground-based strategy. there is a record of testing failure and it has had those two back-to-back failures just discussed. the u.s. has deployed 26 ground- based interceptors and alaska and four in california. there have been all eight kids at a 17 tries of this mess is a since 1997. the last two intercept flight tests and jim leyritz, 2010 and december 2010 failed. there has not been another successful ground based missile midcourse defense flight since december, 2008. in march of 2012, the p

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. garamendi, i know we've been joined by others, i yield to you -- mr. garamendi: why don't we work together here. before we pass the baton to our colleagues here, i think we all need to recognize the extraordinary work you have done over these many, many years on this issue and understand now how it affected your family and i dare say it affects every family in america. if it's one in four women are sometime in their life abused and threatened with violence, we're talking 40 million women. this is an extraordinarily serious problem. the legislation you helped write back in 1994 needs to be re-authorized and strengthened, not weakened. i'd like now to turn to sheila jackson lee, our colleague from texas, who deeply interested in this and spoke on this before. with your permission, ms. edwards, i'll let you conduct the rest of this meeting. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from california and applaud the gentlelady for her early, early involvement in leadership on this issue. it was advocates like herself that allowed members of the judiciary co

mr. 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

mr. 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 s

mr. garamendi. so many as in favor will say aye. so many as are opposed, no. the no's have it. he amendment is not agreed to. mr. chairman, mr. 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 th

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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