mr. garamendi: it's true. the comprehensive immigration reform bill being discussed brings into our economy those people that have the high skills, many of whom came here and got an education, but under the current law have to leave and go start their business in china, india, or somewhere else around the world. part of that comprehensive immigration reform would allow those men and women that would tissue that have taken their education, gotten their degree, the doctorate in education or electrical engineering or whatever, to stay in the united states, it turns out that in our state, california, the great engine of economic growth, some of it in southern california with the entertainment industry and the way in which it is now merging into the electronic industry and all the things that are ing on with google and the use of smart phones for disseminating content, movies and the like, and in the silicon valley, many of those startup companies are immigrants. in fact, in silicon valley, the majority of startups

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you. tonight, we want to talk about jobs in america. we want to talk about how we can rebuild the great american manufacturing sector and spend time about talking about the american economy and that is the infrastructure upon which that economy can grow and prosper. so there are many pieces to this puzzle about rebuilding the economic strength of this nation and much of it comes down to what we call the make it in america agenda to rebuild the great manufacturing sector of this nation. that's where the middle class found its strength and where the middle class grew following world war ii. unfortunately in the last 15 years or so, we have seen a decline from 20 million americans in manufacturing down to perhaps 11 million. in recent months, we have seen a resurgence in part due to some changes in law that we have put in place here that end tax breaks that american corporations receive when they send jobs overseas. really, foolish tax breaks. we ended many of those. we ha

mr. garamendi's statement. even not admiral steering has said he didn't need money for the study on the side. mr. turner's amendment is trying to make sure we keep us on track and doing a reasonable amount of time and i urge my colleagues. i yield that. >> mr. chairman. >> ms. sanchez for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, my 17 years on this committee i spent 15 years on the subcommittee that joseph this issue. i would just say that pictures in my opinion is much closer to what mr. garamendi is saying about mr. turner as saying that the real feasibility of the systems we have in alaska and california. to actually shoot something out of the air. we obviously are developing, working, researching, trying to get the system to work. as you know, many tests have not worked out. i truly believe to build the third system on the east coast is very premature will be in our best interest to continue to refine said that when we do build the systems again if we would in fact put a third sat on the east co

mr. garamendi is recognized for two minutes. >> a question of you, mr. chairman s. earmarked.to prohibit the release of prisoners to places other than the united states? the release or transfer of the prisoners to places other than the united states. and its territories and so forth. >> there is a separate provision and we've covered that. we have given the president the ability if he can transfer, meet certain criteria, he has applied for using it. >> some of these prisoners, those on hunger strike were scheduled to release some more in the, but have not yet been released. looking at the language you have here, i think it may prohibit a release to anywhere. >> while the gentleman yield quite >> section 1034, page 24. >> john, will you yield? there's two separate sections. the only section that focuses on here is the ban on transfer to the u.s. a separate section on transfer to other countries does not ban it, but places restrictions. you basically have to guarantee the country you send them to will make sure that the person never re-offense. secretary gates said that they gua

mr. garamendi: excuse me for interrupting, a combined sewer system, that's the storm water flows into the sewer and it's not disconnected from the sanitation, toilets and the like, is that correct? mr. ryan: you want to make sure that this stuff isn't getting mixed together and you want to make sure that it's separated and you want to make sure that it's up to date. and so these investments that are -- municipalities have to make, goes well above and beyond what a city like akron or a city like youngstown or cleveland or detroit or toledo hoo or milwaukee, all across the united states, let's make this investment. and you are talking about cities that have very high unemployment rates. let's get people trained up. we've got many solid union training programs out there that would put these people to work, get this economy moving, have state of the art transportation and infrastructure systems in the united states and inject some money into the economy that on the demand side, we have been since the supply-side 1980. deregulate wall street and every other sector you can deregulate and hope t

mr. v. -- garamendi. [inaudible conversations] without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment number 224. >> mr. chairman, in 1992, there was the last extensive study of the reason for a triad. and all of the elements about why we have a triad is suffering land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. that is long, long ago that that study was undertaken. since that time, there has been no comprehensive study of the utility of a triad. both the utility of having the three or how much of any one of the three elements would be useful in today's world. it's a long time since the soviet union has left this planet. pressure remains a significant issue as does china and perhaps we could add iran and north korea. but the triad is essentially a 30-year-old idea come a program we continue to support her. this amendment simply asks for a serious study of the tr

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. trust and verify. wow. in the new start treaty, trust and verify. but to get to the trust and verify, we have to begin the process, $70 million requested by the military to begin the process. i know the gentleman on the other side of this question has spent days and days working through this budget and the military plans years ahead and in order to carry out the new start treaty and see the reductions we need to make on our side as obligated by that treaty, we need to begin that planning process now. it's not a matter of throwing the weapons out or disposing of these weapons today. it's how we go about getting to that point. the $70 million is essential for that. we'll delay by one whole year the process of carrying out our treaty obligations. the -- russia is in the process of carrying out their treaty obligations and we should too. it's very simple, guys. it's about carrying out an obligation we have, it's about giving the military the money that they need today to carry -- to begin

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague from pennsylvania i thought was making a wonderful argument in support of this legislation. in that you talked about the success of the forest legacy program. and it has been imminently successful. and you also talked about the demands on the program and that's true. many, many states want to implement this program. we also -- but you didn't mention the fact that many states don't have the resources to manage additional properties. to manage additional trusts. this would allow those states to make a decision, to -- it's a state decision, it's not a federal decision, not a decision by a private, non-profit qualified trust, this is a decision by the state to welcome into their program a private, nonprofit, qualified trust that does this kind of work that could then manage the trust without the state having to spend the money. the state maintains oversight and should something happen that the trust is unable to continue, it would then revert to the state. but this is a way o

mr. garamendi's justification. imarily, the admiral said he did not need money right now for the study on the site. mr. turner's amendment is trying to make sure we keep us on track and get this done in a timely and reasonable amount of time. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? ms. sanchez is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on this years committee, 15 years on the committee that deals with this issue. the truth inhat my opinion is much closer to what mr. garamendi is saying than what mr. turner saying with respect to the real feasibility situation in california who actually should something out of the air. we are developing, we are working, we are researching, we are trying to get this system to work. as you know, many of the tasks have not worked out the way we wanted them to with respect to the system. i truly believe that at this point to build a third system on the east coast is very premature. it would be in our best interest to continue to refine so that

mr. garamendi is recognized for two minutes. >> a question of you, mr. chairman, as to your mark. is there a chance to inhibit the release of prisoners to places other than the united states? the release or transfer it to places other than the united states. and it's territories and so forth. >> there is a separate provision, and we have covered that. we have given the president the ability to -- he can transfer if he meets certain criteria. >> i understand some of these prisoners, particularly those on hunger strike, were scheduled to release somewhere in the world, but they have not yet beenlooking at dealing with it have here, i think it may prohibit a release to anywhere. page 24? >> john, will you yield? i think i can clarify this. there are two separate sections. the only section this amendment focused is on here is the ban to transfer to the u.s. there is a separate section on the banned transferring to other countries. you basically have to guarantee that the country you are sending them to will make sure that the person never reoffend. secretary gates said look, that is a

mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: the yeas are 206. the nays are 219. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 41 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 41, offered by mr. marino of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded

mr. garamendi: mr. chairman, my colleagues from california and new york are sincere, and like i think all 435 of us, possess a deep sense of humidity and the necessity for -- humanity and the necessity for america to reach out in our bers -- best spirit to help those. this is reality. this is a picture that my wife took in eritrea a few years back. that's the american food for peace program. it is not broken. the american food for peace program is really about humanitarian, economic and national security. it's extremely important. my wife and i have spent many years and many days in the famine camps around the world. this is the statement of america. it's not a check and it's not cash and it's not a credit card or a debit card. it's a delivery of food. the food for peace program really does work. it's not broken. it is not broken at all. prepositioning food overseas does work. when the great flood occurred in pakistan just a couple of years ago, it was this program, the delivery of american food in sack

mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, thank you for opportunity to spend a few moments this evening talking about things that are on my mind, and i suspect on the mind of the american public. certainly a lot of news recently about collecting data on american citizens. having attended a conference this afternoon, i can tell you that i think the great majority of the 435 members of this house share the deep concern of the american public about our civil liberties perhaps being taken away from us in the process of data collection. i would expect that this house of representatives and the couple of our committees, the judiciary and the intelligence committee, will be spending time over the next few weeks going into this in great detail, trying to assess whether we all made a mistake when we voted for the various laws that have allowed the national security agency and the other agencies to collect data on all of our phone calls and more. i would hope that's the case. we need to know exactly what's happ

mr. garamendi and mr. gibson that affirms that nothing in the bill constitutes an authorization for the use of force in syria. any discussion on the amendments? the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. disturbed director for congresswoman gabrielle giffords, the national guard was placed on the border. all of the reports are that they were most effective in helping the border patrol intercept drug smugglers. i'm glad to see that the markup is going to address this issue. in my district, we represent 13% of the border, the southwest border. we also represent 38% of all drug cases and -- of all the drugs captured in this country. we need help, and the national guard in the past has provided it. i look forward to seeing them engaged to help with this. i want to thank the committee for accepting my report land was on this matter, i want to thank my colleague again for its support. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. -- gentlelady is recognized the gentleman is recognize

mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the ranking member and the chair for making my amendment an en bloc amendment. this amendment deals with the 50-plus billion dollars that we have spent on the afghan national security forces. an additional $7.7 billion is to be added this year. a 50% increase over last year. the $2.6 billion addition is for equipment with absolutely no justification, no idea what the equipment is. airplanes, no knowledge whether the afghan national security force could use it or not. the amendment simply says that money will not be available until and unless there is clarity as to where the money is going to be spent, how it's going to be spent, how the equipment will be purchased. we don't want to write a $2.6 billion blank check for additional craft and corruption in afghanistan. this amendment, the en bloc amendment, i thank the committee for making it possible. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from california, mr.

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. a lot of analogies come to mind, slippery slopes, camel's nose under the tent, syria is an extremely serious matter. and the role of the united states in the serious issue of syria needs to be fully vetted by the congress and the senate. we are debating, giving 10 minutes of time to this issue, plus perhaps another five minutes in the committee hearing to this matter of what is the role of the united states in the syrian issue. slippery slope. red lines. military aid. nonlethal aid. what does it all mean? where is the house foreign affairs committee on this matter? and how did this slip by the requirement of dual referencing? it did. we're here. 10 minutes. 10 minutes on a matter that could very easily suck the united states into another war in the united states. we need time. we need to debate this. we need to understand all the ramifications. the language in this particular section is really serious language. it's far more than has been stated on the floor. put it aside. understand

mr. garamendi of california. amendment number 41 by mr. marino of pennsylvania.ndment number 43 by mr. mcclintock of california. amendment number 44 by mr. gibson of new york. amendment number 45 by mrs. walorski of indiana. amendment number 46 by mr. courtney of connecticut. amendment number 47 by mr. kind of wisconsin. amendment number 48 by mr. carney of delaware. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 18 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 18, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is order

mr. garamendi request time. >> to speak in support of the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. the ranking member laid out a very sound argument for being prepared, for understanding the options that we will have to face and the choices that we will have to make to be ignorant is never wise, and we rely heavily upon the department of defense to provide us with information. in this case, about the challenges that we face as a committee and as representatives of the american people on the choices with regard to the military. so what the ranking member wants to do here is simply give the military the opportunity, the department of defense, the opportunity and responsibility to continue think through, to plan, and to prepare options for us to consider. i think that's wise. and i think the ranking member's amendment allows the department of defense to do that and to provide us with the information that we will ultimately need to make some very tough decisions in the question of how we use the taxpayers resources. so i support the ranking member

mr. garamendi? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much for the work that you and the men and women in the core do. it's extraordinarily important across the nation. i believe we have issues on the misery or some issues with the levee brakes. so the protection of the population from flooding is of utmost importance. it certainly is in my district and i represent 200 miles of the sacramento river valley including the river systems and the delta and california. for us here in the dias we have a responsibility we took for under $15 billion out of the budget for sequestration and asking you to do more. i don't think that's responsible for us to do such a thing, but we did it. hopefully we can replace that money and more. the earmark is an issue. we've had many discussions about that in this committee. and we really need to get at that. it's something that's very important. we have the responsibility. and we have forgone that responsibility by eliminating our ability to direct projects. and i would -- i think we all know tha

mr. garamendi: but it doesn't go far enough. unfortunately the rule doesn't allow for a full discussion and a full vote by the house on this important issue being brought to us by my colleague from california, ms. speier. we need to have that debate here. we need to really go outside the chain of command for the most important piece and that is the charging of the incident. beyond that the rules committee did pick up an issue that i put forward. the afghanistan national army going to receive $7.7 billion in this legislation. unfortunately $2.6 billion has been added to last year's money and there is no indication how that $2.6 billion will be spent. so the rules committee did adopt my amendment. it will be en bloc. that deals with can't spend that money until we find out how it's going to be spent. basic policy we apply to every military ack whichation in our own military. east coast missile defense site remains not to be debated on the floor. that's unfortunate. two and quarter million this year and more in the future. language

mr. garamendi is recognized. >> for the last 16 hours or so we've been doing we v -- doing very, very important work, generally spending well over $16 billion, maybe $100 billion if we were to account all the expenditures in afghanistan and related things that will happen not in our budget but the c.i.a. and state department and the rest. . basically we've refused to make decisions, the tough decisions about what money was actually available to us. and so we spent. i talk about $2.6 billion for the afghanistan air force which really doesn't exist, nuclear weapons here and there, anti-missile systems that don't work in places that are not needed, on and on and on. and then we come back to the last of this and say oh, my god, we've got sequestration, yes, we do. but we managed to build quite an empire of spending here. actually, well beyond what the administration wanted. and we didn't spend one moment talking about the war in afghanistan and the $80 billion scheduled to be spent there. you want $20 billion? why is it with 30,000 troops less in afghanistan this coming year we're going to spend as

garamendi of california. a similar amendment was not allowed debate last year and i want to particularly thank chairman sessions members of the rule committees, my good friend mr. nugent and the republican leadership of the house for allowing debate on the war to occur this year. it is the right thing to do and i appreciate that they take seriously the responsibilities of the thousands to debate issues of war and peace and the sending and keeping our service men and women in harm's way. however, i'm disappointed the debate will only last 10 minutes. that's the amount of time designated for the -- for this amendment. 10 minutes is not really enough time for a genuine debate on the war in afghanistan and what might next be required of our troops and how much staying in afghanistan will cost us. afghanistan has turned into the longest war in american history, other 12 years so far. and heaven only knows, mr. speaker, it has cost us dearly in both blood and treasure. those costs will haunt us for decades to come. as so many of our veterans have returned wounded in body, mind, and soul. 2,235 american military personnel have been killed in afghanistan. even more wi