congress to provide emergency benefits to americans who are looking for work much as they did repeatedly at earlier stages of the recovery and during the previous administration. . it's a shame because these are folks that are out there looking for work and need assistance to pay their rent and to feed their families. and i think any economist can verify that that assistance has a direct and positive benefit for the economy, immediate benefit to the economy because that unemployment assistance, un employment insurance is assistance that immediately gets funneled back into the economy and creates jobs and drives growth. we continue to call on congress

to take action. >> he's asked supporters to call congress to pressure republicans. why hasn't the president picked up the phone and called speaker boehner and canned him what it would take? >> we don't report out the details of every conversation. the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4435. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, kindly ake the chair? the house is in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4435 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths and for for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rows tuesday, may 20, -- rose tuesday, may 20, 2014, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, had been disposed of. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, -- mr. garamendi: i ask unanimous withdraw my request that the amendment stand rejected by voice vote. the chair: without objection to the request. hearing none, the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: amendment number 5 house report 113-455

offered by mr. garamendi of california, as modified. the chair: is there objection to the request? without objection, the request for a record vote is withdrawn. amendment, as modified, is ejected. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in to amend titles 5 and 28, united states code, to require annual reports to congress on, and the maintenance of databases on, awards of fees and other expenses to prevailing parties in certain administrative proceedings and court cases to which the united 455 in the following order -- amendment number 1 by mr. blumenauer of oregon, amendment number 3 by ms. sanchez of california and amendment number 6 by mr. daines of montana. the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first electronic vote. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-455 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-455

offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 192. the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 print the in house report 113-445 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-445 -- house report 113-455 offered by ms. sanchez of california. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 294, the nays are 97, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by mr. daines on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloiment amendment number 6 144-455 n house report offered by mr. daines of montana. -- the chair: a sufficient number having risen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 222, the nays are 196, the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the entleman from california rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 4435 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4435 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20,

proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. adopting house resolution 590 and suspending the rules and passing 46r789 r. 4031. each electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 590 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 109, house resolution 590, providing for further consideration of the bill h.r. 4435 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for military activities of the department of defense and for ilitary construction, to describe military strength for such fiscal year, and for other purpose, and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4361 to inform the authorities of the federal government to require the production of certain business records, conduct electronic surveillance,

use track and trace devices and use other forms of information gathering for foreign intelligence, counterterrorism and criminal purposes and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 231, the nays are 1906789 the resolution

is acosmopolitanned -- 190. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. please, members, clear the isles, take seats. would the members please clear the well, please clear the aisles, take seats, take all .onversations off the floor

he house will come to order. the house will come to order. i'm going to ask that all present rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. the chair asks now that the house observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our nation, in iraq and afghanistan, and their families. and of all who serve in our armed forces and their amilies.

thank you. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4031 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4031, a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to provide for the removal of senior executive service employees of the department of veterans affairs for performance and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 390, the nays are 33. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may here after be considered to be the first sponsor of h.r. 1189, a bill originally introduced by

representative markey of massachusetts. for the purposes of adding co-sponsors and requesting we printing, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota ise? the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1209, an act to award a congressional gold medal to the world war ii members of the doolittle tokyo raiders for outstanding heroism, valor, skill and service to the united states in conducting the bombings of tokyo. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 590 and rule 1, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r.

4435. would the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, kindly ake the chair? the chair: the committee will be in order. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of the bill h.r. 4435, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize cal year tions for fiss 2015, for military activities of the department of defense, and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for what purpose does. the chair: whether the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-455, pursuant to house resolution 585, offered by the gentleman from montana, mr. danes, had been disposed of -- mr. daines, had been disposed of. no further amendment to the

bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in 460 a of house report 113- and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 590. each further amendment printed in part a of the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report. may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee of armed services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part a of the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divide and controlled by the chair and running backing -- divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member or

their designees, shall not be subject to amendment or demand or division of the question. it is now in order for amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-460 offered by mr. of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. kinlkinl thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would prohibit the department of defense from spending money on climate change policies forced upon them by the obama administration. we shouldn't be diverting our financial resources away from the primary missions of our

military and our national security in pursuit of an ideology. for example, earlier this year the president diverted crucial funding on rural sewer and water line grants to promote his climb change initiatives -- climate change initiatives. let's make it clear, i acknowledge a climate -- that climate change is occurring. the climate has always been changing. the question is whether or not given the global unrest from these rogue nations and our war on terrorism that -- whether we should be diverting our funds to support an ideology instead of maximizing our investments in national security. now, climate change alarmists contend that manmade co-2 is the cause of climate change. most people may not realize that 96% of all the co-2

emissions occur naturally. and america's co-2 emissions contributions to the global community is actually less than 1%, mr. chairman. but even with these facts, decarbizing america's economy is still a long-term goal of the climate alarmists. but to what end? if america totally stopped burning coal, i mean this, mr. chairman, if every coal-fired powerhouse, factory, school, institution, if every institution in america stopped burning coal today, we would reduce the emissions of co-2 around the world by .2%. within five years the co2 emissions would make up the difference while our entire

economy would have turned upside down. we would not have gained anything in america at considerable costs to our country. yesterday, secretary of state john kerry was quoted as saying, even if we make the necessary effort to address climate change and he said, supposing we are wrong, what's the worst that can happen? what's the worst that can happen? what about spending trillions of dollars, the loss of millions of jobs, more expensive electric bills and making our economy less competitive. people like this talk about these issues that there's no downside to costs of what they're advocating. mr. chairman, you and i know that's not the case. germany is switching back to coal-fired power and china and india are building coal-fired power plants every america. america is the only industrial

ayesation nation discouraging the use of coal. john maxwell said, he who thinks he leads and has no followers is merely a man taking a walk. the president should look around. he's alone on this issue. we shouldn't be diverting our military and defense funds by risking -- at risk, by diverting funds. if this administration truly wishes to address the problems 2 emissions, tasking and sierra club says deforestation is five, six times as a polluter than the combination of every

coal-fired powerhouse in america. five to six times worst. these tropical forests are being destroyed for heating, cooking and clean water. unfortunately the debate on this issue has been down to name calling. one of my colleagues who disagreed with the president on this issue irresponsible and republican science deniers and members of the flat earth society. al gore called people who question the climate scientists' policies, immoral. mr. chairman, you and i are old enough that bullying and name calling are childish tactics and don't have a place in this debate. let's stop the name calling. it's time for an adult

conversation. we should not sacrifice our economy and national security by diverting funds in pursuit of an i'd yol call crusade. - ideological crusade. >> mr. chairman, i seek recognition and the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i yield myself three minutes. the mckinley amendment provides that the department of defense may not make decisions based on science. imagine, the department of defense should not make decisions based on science. they should ignore that there may be a cost from climate change. this amendment waves a magic wand and dekoreas that it

impossible no cost at all and not -- they would recognize the damage caused by climate change. this is incredible. cause the quad renial review by -- quadrennial review called of ate change an accelerant instability or conflict that could have significant geopolitical impacts contributing to poverty and environmental degradation and the further weakening of fragile governments. the mckinley amendment tells d.o.d. to ignore these impacts. numerous national security experts with unimpeachable credentials have warned that it us. tens

retired three and four-star generals released a report calling for action to address this problem. when they see the facilities being overwhelmed by the increase in rising seas or storms that may destroy some of ur defense installations but according to this amendment, they can't look at that and can't make decisions based on the science that may come from these governments and other scientific agencies. well, i think that's science denial at its worse. to say that the defense department cannot recognize damage caused by climate change, looks like it is trying to overturn the laws of nature. so we would tie the hands of the defense department and tell them at even though we might have

exacerbated diseases that will and risk to human lives and have a negative impact and we have large rifpks to food security globally and regionally, if scientists tell us that we are not allowed to have our defense department pay any heed to it. well, mr. chairman, i'm not going to call anybody names, but i think this is a seriously flawed amendment and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. and i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: the catholic church still trying to live down condemning galileo that the sun

instead of the earth was the center of the universe. fortunately our president and the military is on the right side of science. our military is listening to the fact and acting on the fact of climate change that ensuring that its assets are capable of understanding more frequent and severe weather conditions, building resiliencey at the command and control centers, recognizing the effects that climate change is having on people and organizations around the world that may wish us harm. that's what this amendment would prevent the military from doing. they are reacting to the facts from these studies. climate change is a national security concern. it's a new form of stress on military readiness. the navy for example just last week identified 128 of installations that are going to be under water in the near

future if we don't take steps now to deal with it. it's a catalyst for instability and conflict from around the world as my friend from california suggested. the quadrennial defense review states that pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on government and societies and institutions from around the world and more demand for american troops as we deal with devastating by extreme weather events at home. we have volatile regions around the world that are going to be driven to desperation and resort to terrorist activity in response to the impacts of climate change and the resulting resource competition. this is what the military is telling us. climate change is a threat multiplier that will aggravate poverty and instability and social tensions.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. moran: for the sake of our military and we have to oppose this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman -- mr. waxman: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia will be postponed. mr. mckeon: pursuant to h.res. i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment number onsisted of 2, 3, 5, 12, 16,

32, 33, 60, 2, 23, and 147, , 100, 113 printed in part a of house reports number 113-460, offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from california and the gentleman from washington each will control 10 minutes. mr. mckeon: i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc which have been gone over by the majority and minority. i yield one minute to a member of the armed services committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. rigell. mr. rigell: i thank the gentleman for yielding. 1793, george washington said the

constitution vests the power of war on congress, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. in a letter to thomas jefferson, james madison wrote, the constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and prone to it. it is accordingly with steady care vested the question of war to the legislature. that is why it was right for president obama to announce in the rose garden that he would seek congressional authorization before taking any military action against syria. he said i long believe that our power is rooted not just in our military might but as our example of the government, by the people and for the people and that's why i made a second decision. i will seek authorization for the use of force from the united states peoples' representatives

in congress. it is deeply troubling to see strong bipartisan amendment that ensuring that the obama administration and future administrations adhere to the constitution and the grave matter of engaging u.s. forces in hostilities. thank you and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: claim time in opposition. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington mr. kilmer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kilmer: there are two key provisions that i offered. first provision ensures that navy employees like those at the puget sound naval shipyard can continue to get their overtime pay while working overseas. this supports our national security and ensures we are standing up for our civilian work force and allow nuclear engineers when they work in japan as they would when in the united states. without the authorization to pay

overtime mr. perry: son ell, we will lose to retain and attract qualified men and women to step upson serve. this includes our readiness and fairness to our military employees. i worked with representative forbes on this and would like to thank chairman issa for his corporation. this includes a provision that is aimed at saving taxpayer money and preventing needless delays and cost overruns that could harm our servicemen and women. working capital fund employees should not be furnish load due to a lack of appropriated funds. as a result, furloughing working capital fund employees would samb save no money. furloughing working capital fund employees would drive up costs and delay the availability of ships, planes that are critical to our national defense.

i worked with representative cole on this provision. i ask support for this package and the underlying bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to a friend and colleague, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: the men and women in uniform who have -- who have volunteered to keep our country safe and protect our constitution should not see their own liberties violated. my amendment ensures that all service members, no matter their religion or rank or leadership, are afforded their constitutional rights to free exercise of religion. one of the driving factors behind recent violations of religious freedom in the military is simply bad rules. my amendment requires the pentagon to rewrite their rules on free exercise of religion,

both for the whole department of defense and particularly for the air force. i would like to thank chairman mckeon for supporting this amendment as well as mr. forbes and mr. fleming who are co-sponsors and, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> thank you. i yield one minute to the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. speaker. before you is a picture, a contemporary picture of the world war i monument in kansas city, missouri, the tallest most majestic of the world war i monuments. and today we're here in an unprecedented show of bipartisanship on this amendment. the world war i memphis act, this is a product of both sides of the aisle working together to do what is right to honor the memory of veterans who served long ago. i especially want to thank

congressman ted poe, representative holmes norton, the national park service and the entire missouri delegation for their work on this amendment. as you know, this summer marks the 100th anniversary of the start of world war i, the united states formally joined the war in april of 1917. during that time more than 4.7 million americans served and of those brave men and women, more than 116,000 soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice. it is our job as members of congress to honor their memory and show our appreciation to the veterans of that great war. this amendment would honor that service by redesignated persian park here in washington, d.c., as the national world war i memorial and will designate the liberty memorial as america's national world war i museum in kansas city, missouri. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you so much, mr.

chairman. i want to thank you, chairman mckeon, ranking member smith, and the armed services committee staff for your fine efforts in bringing this important measure to the floor for our military. i also want to take a moment to -- and this opportunity to highlight the importance of modeling and simulation and the role it plays in maintaining our military readiness while being of course most cost effective. mr. mica: last year in fact in the defense authorization act we put in language, report language, that highlighted modeling and simulation as a cost effective tool in maintaining a high level of readiness for our military. in response our armed services have followed suit in utilizing modeling and simulation effectively and continue to do so in current and future programs. while that report language does not appear in this bill, it is important that our military

continue utilizing this most cost effective tool for man power training. and as our nation faces future threats, it's also critical that we are able to meet those threats with a force that is more capable and more ready for the challenge. modeling and simulation enables our nation's fighting men and women to do so while decreasing costs during a time of budget uncertainty. mr. chairman, finally i would just like to ask that you join me in supporting this and utilizing this vital tool that helps tax -- save taxpayer dollars, assists our nation's heros in training for our defense. mr. mckeon: will the gentleman yield? mr. mica: yes. mr. mckeon: i want to assure my good friend from florida that i look forward to working with you to ensure that modeling and simulation remains an essential part in maintaining our military readiness. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. smith and staff. i look forward to working with the committee and you and others and ensuring that molding -- modeling and

simulation remains being utilized as a cost effective tool for our military readiness and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the ranking member and to chairman mckeon for this opportunity. i just want to highlight three amendments that have been accepted en bloc. one is the public release of sub stanltated reports of misconduct. these reports show substantiated misconduct from the highest ranking officials in the department of defense are only released when there is a leak or there are tips to reporters. it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the public knows when the department's highest level officials commit misconduct and shouldn't depend on leaks for accountability. the second amendment is a significant amendment for women-owned businesses in this

country. for 20 years now we have set a government-wide goal of 5%, for 20 years we have not met that 5%. this particular amendment takes away the extra obstacle that is imposed on women-owned businesses and not on others when sole source contracting is provided. and the third amendment provides for breast cancer research and interagency breast cancer and environmental research accord -- research. the coordinating committee has recognized intensifying the study of chemical and physical factors. this amendment urges that implementation. a 2009 study at walter reed medical center found that breast cancer rates among mill tary women are significantly higher. in fact -- military women are significantly higher. in fact, 20% to 40% higher than women in similar age groups. often this is also a problem at camp lejeune where we found that 85 men also were impacted by breast cancer because of

contaminated drinking water. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding time as well. mrs. ellmers: mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman mckeon for allowing me to come before you today to speak on the necessity of preserving pope air field's 440th airlift wing. i introduced an amendment because of the incredible support the 440th airlift wing provides to our military and the necessity of its mission in maintaining readiness. the department of defense repeat lid says that they need flexibility -- repeatedly says they need flexibility, certain tained time to complete missions and -- certainty and time to complete missions.

the pentagon isn't letting this happen. fort bragg is home to the airborne and special forces operations. of this contradicts this mission and even our president noted that we will be shifting more of our focus to special operations. i thank the chairman for his continued support to address this ongoing issue and look forward to working with the committee to address this very to tant issue and i yield the gentleman. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentlelady for her passionate, well-articulated argument supporting the 440th airlift wing which provides airlift to our nation's par troopers including -- paratroopers including the storied 82nd airborne. the 1,200 men and women who comprise the 440th wing do an incredible job each and every day. providing the airlift necessary to do their complex and challenging missions. this provision highlights the difficulty we face as the top

line budget has decreased and sequestration remains the law of the land. we've been forced to make choices as we consider the defense bill that were far from ideal. but attempted to balance competing interests in minute -- and minimized risk to the greatest extent possible. that being said, the budget simply doesn't provide sufficient funding. to meet the requirements identified in our nation's defense strategy. i'll continue to work with representative ellmers and others to preserve assets like the 440th airlift wing and most critically the true cause of our problem, sequestration. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, to talk about her very important amendment dealing with boko haram, as we all know, and the significant problem that needs to be addressed. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one

minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank both the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished chairman for their courtesies and as well my fellow co-sponsors of this amendment, congresswoman barbara lee from california, and congresswoman frederica which willson from -- wilson from florida. this is a crisis and a couple of weeks ago, and as you well know across america, we were stating these words, to find the girls, bring the girls back, #bringthegirlsback. now we come some weeks later and we recognize that boko haram has to be a priority for the world. this amendment causes this issue to be a priority listed in the defense department to determine the extent of the crimets against humanity committed by boko haram in nigeria. but as you can see, this is a larger issue. and now we face the idea of where these girls might be. so in essence, this amendment expands the opportunity for the united states to work with

clean battalions and rangers that we know are established in nigeria but also other resources around to both rescue the girls but to also deal with the emerging terrorism of boko haram. this is a crucial issue. and if anyone knows many of the stories, one that i know where a little girl was placed between two dead bodies. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. a little girl that i met today tells her story all the way from nigeria. where her father was killed, refusing to deny his faith, the brother was killed because they thought he might become a pastor and the little girl was placed between the two bodies. the killing is going on, 11. this amendment will focus our nation and allow and continue the resources to collaborate with nigeria and these other nations to bring the girls back to their families. it is a crisis, it is a crisis for the united states as it is for this entire region because

boko haram is a terrorist group and they must be brought to justice and the girls must be found. my amendment establishes that priority today and i ask my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from montana, mr. daines. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. daines: mr. chairman, if america is going to approach adversaries with a dove of peace in one hand, we must have a sword in the other. that is what president reagan used u.s. he military strength to hasten the demise of the soviet union. the nuclear tried a is our country's most lethal sword. it makes the world safer by deterring our rivals and reassuring our allies. the commander coin of montana's air force base expresses why nuclear deterrence works. it says, scaring the hell out of america's enemies since

1962. my amendment reaffirms support for the nuclear driad and the airmen and sailors who work this mission because there is no greater asset for peace than an unrivaled u.s. military. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you. i want to thank chairman and ranking member for including such an important amendment from congresswoman sheila jackson lee, congresswoman wilson and myself. i want to thank congresswoman jackson lee for her relentless effort, her relentless effort to make sure that we put the united states on record expressing first strong support for the people of nigeria, especially the parents and families of the girls abducted by boko haram. also in condemning these despicable crimes against humanity.

in the strongest way. since 2013, more than 4,400 men, women and children have been slaughtered by boko haram and we join in the international -- with the international community in saying bring our girls back. earlier this month congresswoman jackson lee, wilson, along with congressman honda, myself and 150 members, bipartisan, both sides of the aisle, wrote a letter calling for the united states to work with the u.n., the african union and the government of nigeria to find these girls and bring the perpetrators to justice. this amendment would give congress a clear understanding of the nature and extent of the crimes committed by this terrorist organization and help us bring an end to boko haram's reign of terror. girls should be able to pursue -- may i have an additional 10 seconds? the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: let me just conclude by saying that girls should be able to pursue their education and live free from the threats of slavery, kidnapping and violence.

this resolution in no uncertain terms says enough is enough. so thank you, congresswoman jackson lee, and congresswoman wilson, for making sure that once again we come together in a bipartisan way to insist that this terrorist organization is brought to justice and insists that we do everything we can do to bring our girls home. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i have no -- i'm sorry. i have no further speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i encourage our colleagues to support the en bloc amendments and yield back. the chair: the question is on amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report number 113-460 offered by mr. westmoreland of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i rise today to offer my amendment to ensure that the c-17 aircraft stays in flight and flies with the same reliability that it has provided in the past. i join my friend from mr. -- connecticut and make sure this program is substantiated and will continue in the best possible way. and right now, i would ask to

seek a colloquy with the chairman of the armed services committee, the gentleman from california. . chairman, the f-117 engine has successful performance and i believe it is important that we eep these successful tenets as we move forward in the next phase. while i support this, i believe it is important that we do know harm to the success of the program. and at this time, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the armed services committee. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate the gentleman's concerns. we agree we must assure the successful sustainment of this critical engine. i look forward to working with the gentleman as we move forward to conference with the senate on this bill to ensure we improve visibility and cost efficiency for the government as well as

keeping a successful model for engine sustainment and i yield back. mr. westmoreland: i thank the chairman for that. i now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment s withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 113-460 offered by mr. shimkus of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. shimkus: two decades u.s.

oversight of the internet domain system has kept the global internet free and open. merely a clerical role of assigning and matching domain names. u.s. stewardship of these have prevented or restricting web sites. that all could change, mr. chairman, if the administration's intention to relinquish our oversight role to an undefined multistakeholder community is not carefully considered. this isn't a hypothetical concern, russia and china have tried to put domain name authority in the hands of the telecommunications union and while the administration says it won't accept a proposal that puts the internet in the hands of another government or government entity, there is no guarantee that won't happen after the initial transfer takes

place. but one thing is for sure. once our authority is gone, it's gone for good. some of my friends across the aisle will tell you that this chamber voted in support of a transition to a multistakeholder model in the past. i voted for that resolution because -- i still don't have an objection to the concept of a multistakeholder internet government, but that structure must be insulated from government influence. we know bad actors will try to interfere. that's why i'm offering this trust but verify amendment today. my amendment would simply require the g.a.o. review the proposals to replace our oversight. what's the harm, mr. chairman, in taking this slow, deliberate process and making sure we get this right? i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i would yield to my colleague from

ndiana for one minute. mr. rokita: i thank the gentleman from illinois and the gentlelady from tennessee for allowing me to help write this important amendment. the president's unilateral handoff of key internet functions to a multistakeholder community without the consent of congress lacks a clear plan for how and what that community would look like and what authority it would have. now we can debate later whether congress would actually ever give such consent, but for now we are offering this amendment because americans deserve to know that due diligence has occurred and that a clear plan exists for such matters. america has proven throughout history that we are freedom and we have an obligation to protect the internet. it is an unsurpassed vehicle for the free exchange of ideas. more than just freedom but about american interests. it is a single great economic

machine and perhaps ever and its full potential has yet to be realized. this is a shining example of american exceptionalism. it is not in our interests to relinquish without protecting american freedom and interests and against the interests of individuals in the world who can't appreciate such freedom and the blessing that this technology is. so pass this amendment. i urge my colleagues so we can give it the due diligence it deserves and most transparent administration should not want anything less when it comes to this issue. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: i seek recognition in order to oppose the amendment. mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the shimkus amendment. the amendment is identical to

h.r. 4342, the d.o.d. comm act of 2014. it would ash temporarily delay the transition of the united states' role in the management of the global internet domain system to the multistakeholder community. it does represent a drastic departure that members of this body have expressed for the multistakeholder model of internet governance. despite the house of representatives already voting unanimously three times in the past two years calling on the obama administration to commit to a global internet free from government control, the shimkus amendment sends the exact opposite message by raising doubts about the strength and credibility about the multistakeholder approach. ntia's recent announcement will complete our 16-year-long effort

to take it away from governments and into the private sector. this objective has been u.s. policy buy partisan through the clinton, bush and obama administrations and the rational for having a private u.s.-based nonprofit organization create nd 1998 to assume internet functions on behalf of the internet multistakeholder community. some of my colleagues raised the specter of russia or china taking over the internet as a reason for supporting this amendment. these threats are real, but claiming this amendment does anything to address them is false. in fact by creating an artificial delay in the transition plan produced, the shimkus amendment suggests government meddling in the multistakeholder process is

entirely appropriate. the reverse is true. authoritarian regimes are using u.s. stewardship of technical functions in the internet as evidence to move these functions to another governmental or intergovernmental entity like the united nations. this amendment furs plays into the hands of these anti-democratic nations by embodiening their efforts to seize control of the internet. o i would say to those who are supporting this amendment, they either show lack of understanding of what our government's role actually is or a lack of confidence in the multistakeholder model in its ability to resist governmental control. both serve to weaken our role in the global stage, not strengthen it. the best defense that we have against the governmental takeover of the domain name system is to empower our allies in the multistakeholder community. our diplomats who have fought

hard to preserve an internet free froo governmental controls tell us that having this transition is a critical continuation of our efforts to build upon the success of the multistakeholder model. ow is the time to continue our unwavering support of that model and i oppose the shimkus amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i would like to use as much time as i may consume. let me as i try to wait for a few more colleagues. i would ask my colleagues to find multistakeholder. they can't. the internet community says it's us. the international community, russias and the chinas say, it's us. all we are asking is for a general accounting office, the i.g., nonpartisan, to whatever the agreement comes to and say,

look at it. do some due diligence. make sure this is in our national interest. this is the most curious debate i have seen. they want to go slow. what's the arm harm of having additional eyes on this process? and so the real debate is define multistakeholder. no one can do that because they don't know what that is. the internet community says it's us and we are going to have control and all our net folks are going to drive this and it's going to be ok, while our friends or not friends of vladimir putin and china say this is a way in. i would rather make sure that when we relinquish it, we know what the agreement actually is and i are serve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. welch: i thank the the

gentleman from illinois. we are pretty proud of the internet and we want to keep it free and nongovernmental control. multistakeholder basically means all the stakeholders who have a stake in the internet are going to be at the table having a discussion about how we are going to resolve this situation. there is an apprehension that i don't think is well-founded that is reflected in this amendment. it is really about delaying the process of these ongoing negotiations that have to occur in a very complicated, global system which is called the internet. so the house has voted on this three times before. it's indicated its support through the clinton, bush and obama administrations. every one of those presidents shares the concern that all of us in this house have about maintaining a free and open internet. and we got to get on with the job. our view is that the shimkus

amendment would create confusion and delay and impede our ability to get to an end result that will make the internet more secure, more free and more open. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: the shimkus amendment would require the government accountability office to look at this agreement, to make sure it's in our national interests. the shimkus amendment would ask the government accountability office to look at this agreement to ensure it's in our national interests. that's what this amendment does. the world has significantly changed since our vote of last year. and for anyone to say it has not is not reading the paper. you've got russia, you've got china, you got iran, turkey all meddling and trying to get involved in the worldwide web.

we should not relinquish this unless it is in our national interests. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. welch: i requested a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in . rt a of house report 113-460 it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in art a of house report 113-460.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in art a of house report 113-460. it is now in order to consider -- of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i offer the amendment. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part a of house report 113-460 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the amendment that will enable us to eventually close the guantanamo bay prison. there are several compelling reasons to do this. first of all we have reached the point where we are now spending $2.7 million per inmate at guantanamo bay. to contrast that, an inmate at a supermax federal prison facility here in the u.s. costs roughly $78,000 a year. and this is only going to become more expensive as the temporary facility at guantanamo bay is forced to last longer and longer. so the cost alone is reason i believe to close it. but also we have the larger issue. president george w. bush wanted to close guantanamo bay. as did secretary gates, as did

senator mccain, many very conservative republicans came out in favor of closing guantanamo bay back in 2008. why? because the military told them that it was harming our ability to effectively fight al qaeda and affiliated forces. that the presence of guantanamo bay was recognized as an international eye sore that undermined u.s. credibility with our allies abroad as we tried to prosecute that fight. there is no need for guantanamo. so argument number one is all of the problems with it. argument number two is that there is no need for it. because what we could do with the 154 inmates who are in guantanamo bay, first of all, some number of them, i think it's roughly half, have been deemed not to be a threat to the united states. we just don't have anyplace to send them. so we can do foreign transfers which we're beginning to work on. but the rest of them that are a threat can be housed in supermax facilities in the united states of america.

now, we constantly hear the argument that we can't bring terrorists to the united states. and the way that argument is stated, it's like we're bringing them here and setting them free. we're not. we're going to lock them up and hold them. in fact, there was a recent ruling of the courts that made it clear those inmates would not be freed in the united states under any set of circumstances. and in addition to that, we have the ability in the united states of america to hold dangerous people. i will submit to you that if we didn't have that ability we would be in a whole lot of trouble regardless of the people at guantanamo bay. we currently house over 300 terrorists here in the u.s., including ramsey youcef, the blind sheik, and a number of others. we have been able to successfully hold terrorists in the united states. we also hold mass murderers and gang leaders and mobsters. we have the ability to safely hold these people in the united states of america. so there's no down side to doing this. and the upside is to finally do

what president george w. bush recognized back in 2007 and 2008 that we needed to do, to close down guantanamo bay because of the international perception that it goes against our values and because of the very fact that it does go against our values. to have people locked away in a prison that was originally set up under the hopes that somehow we would be able to avoid habeas corpus. well, the supreme court said, no, guantanamo bay is effectively under u.s. control, so habeas corpus applies anyway. so same amount of rights, same everything. it is simply an international eye sore that we keep open for no good reason. this bill has prohibitions on closing it. my amendment would put in place a plan to close guantanamo bay by the end of 2016 and enable the steps necessary to accomplish that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i'm like to claim the time -- i'd like to claim the time in opposition. i yield myself three minutes at this time.

two minutes at this time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the guantanamo facility is safe and the most appropriate location for detainees to be held. detainees at guantanamo are held there because they engaged in dangerous acts threatening the united states of america and its allies. some orchestrated and celebrated the murders of thousands of innocent americans and as in previous conflicts -- conflicts it's entirely appropriate to hold detainees until enemy forces are defeated. mr. owens: in this case it's -- mr. wenstrup: in this case it's al qaeda and their associates. the guantanamo facility is ideal for this purpose. it's secure and relatively distant from the united states, it's difficult to attack. i can promise you that the cubans have no interest in freeing the prisoners there. but there are people in this world that want to do that. we saw it at be a grab prison last year where -- be aue great britain prison last year -- abu ghraib prison last year. so guantanamo facilities -- facility is ideal for this

purpose and it provides humane conditions for the detainees. they have access to health care, recreational activities, cultural and religious materials. also members of the house of representatives routinely visit guantanamo and they've seen humane conditions in which dangerous detainees are held. based on these facts and the nature of the character of those held at guantanamo, the costs already incurred in accommodating them, there's no reason to move the guantanamo detainees to facilities in the united states. at this time i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: may i inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from ohio has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. smith: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader, is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, mr.

chairman. i thank the gentleman from ohio and want to also thank the chairman, the gentleman from california, in his leadership in bringing the ndaa bill to the floor. and i again want to absolute chairman mckeon on the -- salute chairman mckeon on the tremendous work that he has displayed here and all that he has done in support of the men and women in uniform of our country. so i do rise today, mr. chairman, in support of the national defense authorization ct for fiscal year 2015. mr. chairman, regrettably events of the past year have demonstrated that the forces that threaten america's national security, the and ity of our allies, seek to subject millions to a tyranny that violates the most basic of human rights are on the rise. a desperate dictator in syria has used chemical weapons, a strong man in venezuela is consolidating power and iran is inching closer to nuclear

weapons and funding terrorism. north korea continues to threaten america and our pacific allies and russia recently invaded ukraine. now is not the time for the united states to recede from the global arena. now is the time to lead. and to project the strength that has protected america's interests for over half a century. an america that leads is an america with military power that cannot be matched. because at all times we must be prepared to meet and confront challenges so that our homeland is protected, our allies are defended and our enemies are defeated. on a congressional delegation i led to asia last month, i saw firsthand just how important it is for america to be engaged on the world stage. while in japan, we tore the -- toured the aircraft carrier the u.s.s. george washington. while aboard the ship we met with its crew and heard

directly from its naval commanders that the u.s. needs to have a constant carrier presence in the region. america provides our allies with much-needed security and stability to a region that is threatened by a madman in north korea and has seen china become more provocative and aggressive with its neighbors, particularly in the south china sea. the presence of our aircraft carrier is a vital part of guaranteeing that security, which in turn guarantees america's security. one of the admirals even stated, quote, in the world we are going to be operating in, we simply must have the u.s.s. george washington. that is why i am so pleased that this bill begins to fund the refuel of the u.s.s. george washington. failing to do so would leave our allies in the region and throughout the world feeling vulnerable and emboldinned by our enemies.

in hundreds of other ways, today's bill will provide our military with the resources it needs to remain the greatest fighting force in the world and keep america as a leader on the world stage. since the time of the revolution, my home state of virginia has been a leader in contributing to our nation's security. in addition to the thousands of virginians who wear the uniform and those members of the military stationed in virginia, tens of thousands of virginians work in industries directly tied to supporting our armed forces and our national defense. and i am pleased that this bill recognizes their efforts. today let us stand together, pass this bill in a bipartisan fashion and show the world that we are committed to being an america that leads. again i want to thank the gentleman from california, chairman buck mckeon, for all of his hard work on this issue, all loy -- along with the members of the armed services

committee. i urge my colleagues in the house to support this important bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, we are told in opposition to this amendment that terrorists have no constitutional rights. that is like saying rapists or murderers have no constitutional rights. the accused rapist and accused murderers do have rights. until it is proven that they are guilty and then their rights are taken away from them. and the same must be true of accused terrorists. ever since magna carta we have denied the government to imprison people on mere accusation. that's tyranny. the government must prove the accusation in court. that was always a bedrock american value until we opened guantanamo. now we imprison people indefinitely without trial. this must stop. guantanamo should be closed and its inmates should be tried or released. our federal courts work,

they've repeatedly tried, convicted and sentenced terrorists to long prison terms. prosecuting terrorists on american soil is good. i urge our colleagues to support our amendments, to close the detention at guantanamo bay and indifficult knit detention and restore our national -- indefinite detention and restore our national honor. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: at this time i yield one minute to the gentlelady from indiana. the chair: the gentlewoman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose the amendment as well. transferring detainees to our homeland would require new construction or renovation of existing facilities in the u.s. current facilities at gitmo already accommodate the detainees, their guards, all associated medical, ecreational and legal needs. meanwhile, the dangers are also clear. moving detainees to the u.s. would make the facility housing them a terrorist target.

for example, in 2010 new york city estimated it would cost $200 million a year to provide security when it was proposed that some gitmo detainees be moved to new york for trial. in conclusion, there are no advantages of moving detainees to the u.s. there are clear disadvantages. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from indiana yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: how much time on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from ohio has a minute and a half. the gentleman from ohio will close -- has the right to close. mr. smith: i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: mr. speaker, guantanamo is a rallying cry for extremists around the world. until we transfer and try these detainees, it is hurting our national security. and gitmo is expensive. we're spending about $2.7 million per detainee per year at guantanamo compared to

$34,000 per inmate at a high-security federal prison in the united states. in fact, the pentagon is going to spend $435 million this year on operations and personnel costs for this facility. the reality is we have 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism that are currently incarcerated in 98 federal prisons with no escapes or attempts to free them. and when the authorization for the use of military force in afghanistan expires, we have no plans. what are we going to do with the prisoners of war? this amendment should be defeated. thank you. this amendment should be passed. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. wenstrup: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. fortenberry. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one inute. mr. thornberry: if the president

had a plan of exactly what he would do and how he would do it, including what the costs would be, where he would move them, what the costs of security would be wherever he would move them, i might support that. in all the time since the president has been in office he's not come up with a specific plan that's gotten the support of the american people or this congress even when democrats controlled both houses of congress, they were not able to pass a -- legislation to close guantanamo. so if he can put a plan together to -- that gets the support of the congress, support of the american people, i think that may be a step forward. but to say we're going to close way, along thehe way, you can tell us what you're going to do, that's putting the cart before the horse. the president needs to get the will of the american people, he hasn't done that. the american people are clear, they are uncomfortable with the detainees coming here. it's premature to close it and this amendment should be

rejected. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from washington's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is ecognized. >> i have heard members on both sides of the aisle speak out against this notion, they don't want these types of detainees coming to their states or territories. as in previous contexts, it's entirely appropriate and lawful to hold detainees until our enemy forces are defeated. mr. wenstrup: i have not seen that as if al qaeda son the run, i think it's toward us as we have seen so many actions taken toward them in recent tiesism ask for your support in defeating this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the squone the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i request a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from washington will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part a of house report 113-46 0. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to offer the amendment. the clerk: the derek -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. cloiment amendment number 11 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: this amendment would eliminate indefinite detention in the united states or its territories. anybody we captured who we suspected of terrorist activity would no longer be subject to

indefinite detention as is currently the thrasme reason is that our constitution works and we ought to value it and let the constitution work. we have gone through article 3 courts to try, convict and incarcerate terrorists for decades. because of the 2001 aumf, we still have on the books a law that would allow the president, any president now or in the future to indefinitely detain any person in the united states if they determine that that person is affiliated with al qaeda or affiliated forces. if they're acting in support of those organizations, they'd be subject to indefinite ditension and would not be aloud the due process rights in our constitution. that's an enormous amount of power to give the executive, to take someone and lock them up without due process. it's not necessary. this p president hasn't used the authority. president george w. bush didn't use it after about 2002 and then only in a couple of instances. it's not necessary. it is an enormous amount of power to grant the executive and

i believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country. indefinite liminate detention in the united states and this would would do that. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i claim time knopp sigs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for two minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. i have a great amount of respect for my colleague and friend but i strongly oppose this amendment. my friend talks about how we shouldn't limit the president's options with railroad to guantanamo but i don't think that we should be limiting our options in dealing with terrorists and i can't imagine anything more fundamental than taking away the option to question al qaeda terrorists bent on killing american sit zepps in whatever is the most effective way possible.

and consistent with the law to stop future attacks. in the fiscal year 2013 ndaa, we addressed any misconceptions about the detention authority provided by the authorization for use of military force. we included the following language in the conference report and i quote, nothing in the authorization for use of military force or the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained orest tablied by or under article 3 of the constitution to any person inside the united states who would be entitled to the availability of such writ tore such rights in the absence of such laws, end quote. the ndaa has changed nothing with regard to the laws of war, our values, or our traditions.

our supreme court has agreed that appropriate detention and interrogation of al qaeda terrorists is entirely lawful. it's false to imply that this is not the case or something not in line with our values. in fact our courts have gone well beyond the traditional attachment of rights to our enemies and extended the constitutional right of habeas corpus to foreign detainees held at guantanamo bay this amendment would be the first time we self-impose such a sweeping change to the conduct of war and our ability to gather intelligence. despite what any of us may want, al qaeda has not surrendered. far from it. the threat is evolving but unfortunately for all of us, it continues. we must oppose this amendment and preserve every lawful option in our arsenal. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: the language in the ndaa about preserving rights is

confusing. i think it's clear the president has the right, the power right now to indefinitely detain people. so arguing rights are detected -- are protected, they're not. the president has the power to detain indefinitely. habeas corpus is one right, it's not due process this law currently allows for due process to be ignored and the executive to indefinitely detain people. the other big problem with this is it goes on forever. we have at different points in our nation's history suspended habeas corpus new york the civil war and other times of extreme danger. but in this case, al qaeda and terrorism have been with us for a while, they'll be with us for a long time to come. so to grant the president the power to indefinitely detain people is a long-term issue and again it is not necessary. our article 3 courts have arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated hundreds of terrorists. it works. we don't need to give the president the power to throw out

portions of the constitution. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. -- >> this is the underwear bomber case. foreign terrorist flies into the u.s. in order to kill as many americans as possible. the bomb malfunction the terrorist is captured he's given immediately, under the amendment, immediately american constitutional rights including the right to remain silent. mr. thornberry: in fact the underwear bomber was questioned for about 50 minutes before the f.b.i. gave him his miranda rights and he quit talking. but meanwhile when he know he is has the right to remain silent he, quits talking, we have no idea how many more bombers there are, where they may be, or how we may be attacked again. actually this amendment goes

further than the obama administration want to because the administration admitted there are several dozen terrorists in guantanamo that cannot be tried in article 3 courts and are too dangerous to release. what happens to them under this amendment? if they can't be tried, they are released. especially if you put this amendment with the previous amendment, they come here to the united states, they can't be tried in article 3 courts because it reveals too much information, what do you do with them? that's part of the problem. we need this flexibility for indefinite detention. secondly the supreme court has held that this right of detention goes hand in hand with an authorization for the use of force. and i believe probably constitutionally the president has that authority when he has the authority to use military force, so trying to take it away not only limits the options, it

is impractical in this case. it is of course true that everybody detained has that right of habeas corpus to contest their detention in front of an article 3 court. as the gentleman said, even those foreigners held in guantanamo. but to say that everybody immediately goes into the court system, i think would be compromising our security. i reserve the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: first of all, guantanamo bay wouldn't apply in this case. none of the people being held at guantanamo were captured in the united states. this would have nothing to do with that. that's a vexing and difficult question. but this applies to people captured from this point forward in the united states. it would not apply to guantanamo bay inmates. i want to deal with the argument about intelligence. it's an argument that's been made repeatedly that doesn't make sense.

the notion that somehow under the normal law enforcement model you can't collect intelligence that would be a surprise to the f.b.i. it would be a surprise to every law enforcement agency in the united states of america who have been giving suspects miranda rights, investigating crimes and gathering intelligence for decades. just because you tell is someone they have the right to remain silent doesn't mean that they will. first of all. second of all, even you don't tell them, serve aware of the fact that they don't have to talk. we have used miranda successfully to gather intelligence in a variety of different ways repeatedly. you will not lose that fact you go through article 3 courts using miranda rights. again i want to emphasize, the idea what when you capture a terrorist that it never occurs to them that they don't have to give up information until you give them miranda rights doesn't make sense. number two, over and over and over again domestic law enforcement officials have been

able to give miranda rights and gather an enormous amount of intelligence. that's a red hering in this argument. again we come back to what the law does. the law gives the president of the united states the power to indefinitely detain people without due process. the republican party is always talking about freedom from government intrusion. they're concerned about all manner of different things. this is a law that gives the president the power to lock you up and take away your basic freedom without due process. it strikes me that nothing could be more fundamental to the basic freedoms from government intrusion we always hear about from the other side of the aisle than this issue. i urge republicans and democrats alike to support this amendment, take away the president's ability to lock people up indefinitely without due process. that is a gross, gross violation of individual rights that none of us in this country should stand for any longer. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: admittedly there are difficult issues involved in detention, particularly with this war against terrorist that we are involved. in but you've got to look at the bigger picture and part of that is how one is going to deal with these situations. we just debated an amendment where the argument was, close guantanamo. now we have an amendment at -- on the other hand that says, everybody that's here, including the people presumably that we would bring back from guantanamo when it was closed automatically and immediately goes to article 3 courts. so it's not my argument that some of the people in guantanamo cannot be tried in article 3 courts. that's what the administration tells us. so how does this fit together? it doesn't, without releasing very dangerous people out into society or into the world. secondly, when you -- when it's

clear that you have greater rights when you come to the united states, rather than if you attack us from some other place, the incentive is to come to the united states because that's where you're given the greater rights. that's the perverse incentive under this amendment. it would be a mistake. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. smith: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in part a of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> rise to offer amendment number 282. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part a of house

report 113-460 offered by mr. heck of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from washington, mr. heck, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. as a member of congress for the brand new 10th congressional district in washington state, i have the privilege to represent joint base lewis mccord which is the largest joint operating base in america. in the vicinity is interstate 5 . the most heavily traveled north-south freight corridor in our state. nearly 80% of the traffic to and from jblm relies on that interstate freeway. local travelers in neighboring cities have absolutely no other option except to use i-5 and when an incident occurs, trust me, they can accumulate for hours to recover it. around the country military installations like jblm are still adapting to base

realignment and short-term growth caused by troops passing through before being deployed. installation growth has had a significant effect on regional transportation, particularly when an installation is located in or near an urban area. even acknowledging the potential for drawdowns on military bases, those reductions would not nearly come close to alleviating the problem. not nearly. surrounding roads play an important role in preserving military readiness. our armed forces need to instantly deploy and we need functional roads in order to do that. if military personnel are caught in a jam and nobody moves, efficiency goes out the window. the domino effect of delays due to congestion then therefore literally impairs our national security. and this leaves not only military activities on bases stranded but also commerce in the congested area and when we don't have a reliable roadway,

economic activity halts. goods don't move, companies can't make money and it's a cascading inaction which effects our productivity -- affects our productivity. to be clear, the military is not to blame for this. bases have come up with innovative approaches to ease the pain, but the problem remains severe. and unavoidable without more investment. it is a band-aid over a wound that needs stitches. the only existing d.o.d. program that provides funding for public highway improvements is the defense access roads program. however, the d.a.r. program is limited by outdated and restrictive eligibility criteria and was designed when bases were only expected to be located in relatively underdeveloped areas which is clearly no longer the case. d.a.r. needs to be replaced d.o.d. program

to fund the transit services necessary to meet the military needs. i know being stuck in traffic is not something unknown to most americans. we are all too familiar with the horrible feeling of approaching an unexpected slow crawl on the road. but when this affects our military's ability to get to base, do the job and be ready for anything, that is when we can't just sit and wait for it to get better. we can and should do more. mr. chairman, i plan to withdraw my amendment, but i will soon introduce a bill that embodies its concept entitled the commute act and it will address these issues. and i hope beyond hope that i can look forward to working with the members and my colleagues on the armed services committee on this plan to meet this very important need. i yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from washington state. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized.

mr. smith: i just want to quickly agree with congressman heck. i used to represent the base. it is the worst traffic in the state of washington. the bazemore than doubled over the course of seven -- the base more than doubled over the course of seven, eight years. it is a severe quality of life issue for those living on the base and i'm sure this is the situation that is repieced around many bases across the country. so i strongly support its efforts. this is something that directly impacts our troops and their families. i thank him for his effort. mr. mckeon: would the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. heck: so -- mr. mckeon: would the gentleman yield? mr. heck: yes, sir. mr. mckeon: i likewise would be introduced in -- interested in working with you on this. i know camp pendleton, a mainly highway runs right through -- major highway runs right through camp pendleton and a lot of traffic and i was able with congressman smith to visit your base and i think that you

would find a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that would be willing to work with you on this bill. i hope to be able to. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. heck: as is characteristic to both of you, thank you for your graciousness and positive remarks. let me just conclude by saying that there are some estimates that the interstate 5 corridor around joint base, remember, i-5 extends from canada toity hanna, is the most congest -- toity wauna ti -- , is the most congested point. it is now in order to consider amendment number -- the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 14. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in part a of house report 113-460.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 offered by ms. jenkins of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. jenkins, and a member owesow polesed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from kansas. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. chairman. in 2008 congress passed legislation to suspend public-private competition that d.o.d., through the o.m.b. circular a-76, that moratorium remains in place today. in 2009 o.m.b. issued a memorandum which regulated the ove to insourcing at the d.o.d. today nearly half of the federal government owns and operates thousands of activities that are commercial

in nature. these functions are not inherent or unique to government, but rather they can be found in small and main street businesses across the nation. not only are these federal agencies duplicating private business, but many engage in unfair government competition with the private sector. my amendment seeks to place a moratorium on the insourcing of previously contracted activities within d.o.d. exceptions would be made, number one, if the activity was inherently governmental and thereby should never have been contracted in the first place, or, two, if d.o.d. would employ a reverse a-76 to itemize specific costs saved to the taxpayer should the d.o.d. be able to perform the commercial activity more efficiently for the taxpayer. according to o.m.b., the act of

conducting the a-76 competition alone can generate savings of 10% to 40% on average. that's just the average savings generated from simply going through the process. while the a-76 process is not perfect, it's the best opportunity we have for cost comparison. as an accountant i understand the importance of a cost comparison. this amendment is just the first step. studies also show that utilizing the a-76 public-private cost comparisons can save up to $27 billion per year, $27 billion per year saved. again, this is just by implementing the cost comparison tool. in 2011 the department of defense completed a report in response to section 325 of ndaa

for fiscal year 2010. which concluded with two major recommendations for congress. the first of which is to lift the suspension on a-76 competition. this a recommendation from d.o.d. this amendment will provide d.o.d. the flexibility to use the private sector for commercial activities and save valuable taxpayer money and i encourage a yes vote on this amendment, mr. chairman. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from kansas reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i rise this evening in strong opposition to this amendment. put simply, this amendment would cost taxpayers, would not be in the best interest of our military readiness, and is not supported by the department of defense. this amendment is extreme in

its intention, it overrides every other law in the books in terms of management of national defense work load by prohibiting the transfer of work load from the private sector to the public sector. mr. loebsack: for years now congress and the d.o.d. have established statutes, regulations and policies for determining the correct mix of the work force between military contractor and civilian. as co-chair of the deepow anders acal caucus, i'm deeply concerned that this amendment would put back in place a severely flawed system that would do significant damage to our organic industrial base. including our arsenals and depos at a time when it is critical that we maintain these facilities to maintain our troops. i proudly represent the rock island arsenal where thousands of highly skilled people work every day to equip our troops. our organic industrial base has time and again shown their critical importance to our men and women in uniform. when our troops on the ground needed improved armor on their

vehicles, it was the rock island arsenal that was able to rapidly produce and field that life-saving armor to protect our troops. and as a military parent, i'm personally thankful that the work force at rock island arsenal and in organic industrial base facilities across our country is there to equip our men and women in uniform. this amendment would starve our critical organic industrial base, sending it into a death spiral, undermining key elements of our national security infrastructure and reducing our ability to meet our national security strategy. in addition to the impact on military operations, this amendment would also not produce best value for the department of defense and our service men and women and again it is not wanted by our nation's military leaders. for these reasons i oppose this amendment, i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves his time. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i would reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. loebsack: mr. chairman, at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from georgia, if he's here, mr. scott. mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for how long? mr. loebsack: one minute. the chair: one minute. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition also to my colleague from kansas' amendment. our military has three work forces. we have the uniform, we have the civilian and we have the contractor. and all three are vital to national security of this country. the defense work force must be managed in what makes the most long-term sense for both the mission of national security and the taxpayer. this amendment would prohibit insourcing of contracted services, even when it makes sense for the taxpayer and would save money. but disrupting the department of defense's management practice, this amendment would impair military readiness. the department did not ask for this proposed change and they are against this amendment. i believe that this amendment is bad for the long-term security of the nation and i

would ask that you oppose this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i'd reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. i'd oebsack: mr. chairman, like to thank now at this point the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, for one minute. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i have enormous respect for my friend from kansas. we usually agree. but in this case we don't. i represent tinker air force base which has 15,000 federal civilian defense employees along with thousands of private floes working in -- employees working in contracting facilities on or around the base. usually they work together. but sometimes they compete for work. when they do, that work should go to whoever can do the work better and cheaper. this amendment overrides every other law in the book in terms of managing the defense work load by prohibiting the transfer of the work load from private to public sectors, even

when the public sector can do it better and cheaper. that in my view is inefficient. it's counterproductive. and ultimately it's unfair. we should allow the work to flow to those best able to complete it and we should rely on the services to actually make the decisions in this regard. so i urge the rejection of the amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: mr. chairman, opponents may argue that this is a burden to place on the d.o.d., when they are seeking to insource. but i believe that ensuring taxpayer dollars are well spent and that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money is hardly a burden. a formal documented process which shows the cost savings will make sure that this is fair for the small businesses who depend on these contracts to thrive. the american legion approves of this proposed amendment, they

stated and i quote, the practice of converting functions and services that have been performed by contractors with government employees limits the amount of contracts that can go to the private sector to stimulate and grow the veteran small business industrial base. when the government takes a couple of positions away from a small business, they are essentially crippling the small business of the -- business' ability to succeed in the private sector. these practices primarily affect small businesses as large contractors are rarely affected by insourcing policy because of their size and number of employees. r. chairman, i'd reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. >> i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. this chart for those with keen eyesight puts this in perspective. the blue is what we spend on the civilian defense work force.

the green over the last decade is what's been spent on military personnel. the yellow is on contract services and the white is the rest of it. the premise of this amendment is that the blue is too big. now look, there are times when competition, especially on acquisition is extremely helpful. there are also times where competition on sustainment or maintenance has a habit of unintentionally hurting our readiness, at least that was the result of the g.a.o. study in 2010. so the committee has wisely tried to strike a balance between those two. making sure that there is competition when it makes sense, all of which is to find -- is defined in title 10 of our code, which demands that a core work load be established of what our needs are and what is most cost effective. unfortunately the first line of the amendment which says that notwithstanding any other provision of law simply turns all of that on its head. this takes precedence over the entire code which i'm assuming is the reason deform o.d.

communicated the defense department does in the want this amendment. i obviously yield back what i don't have. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: my amendment is also supported by the tsra, the business coalition for fair competition and the american conservative union, mr. chairman, i wish to submit their statement as support for the record. the chair: without objection, so ord. ms. jenkins: in closing my amendment strikes the plans. if the service is inherently governmental it should not be contracted it. the american -- the government owes it to the american tax payer to get the most firt, vest value service available. we owe this to our war fighters to ensure they are getting the best possible service. this can't be assured without fair, competitive processes with a debt of more than $17 trillion, calls for reductions that will erode the end strength

of our military and a tag snant -- stagnant, private sector job market, we must find ways to reduce spending and boost job creation in our communities. this is an opportunity to vote for small bys, break up federal government mo knobly -- monopolies, ensure more efficient services, empower the war fighter and maintain funding for deform o.d. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the jerusalem from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the yows -- ayes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentlewoman from kansas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: is the gentleman offering an amendment?

>> yes, an amendment -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in part a of house report 114-460 offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: my amendment is very simple. the united states should not be spending money to disarm ourselves to dramatically cut our strategic nuclear deterrent under the new start treaty if the other party to the treaty is not trustworthy. at the moment the russian federation is clearly not trustworthy. let me remind us all of russia's current record on observing treaties and agreements. in 1994, russia, ukraine, united kingdom and the united states signed the budapest memorandum this agreement included a commitment to, quote, respect the independence and sovereignty

and existing borders of ukraine, unquote. but this agreement did not keep putin from invading ukrainian territory. strike one. in january, the "new york times" revealed that the russian federation was cheating on another treaty, the intermediate range nuclear forces treat, or i.n.f. treaty. according to the story our state department has been raising the issue with the russians for about a year now with no response. strike two. in 2007, president putin anouned he was suspending russian participation in the conventional forces in europe treaty this came after years of russian violations of the c.f.e. treaty. strike three. is the russian government trustworthy? the answer is clearly no. the question for us tonight under my amendment is whether it makes sense for us to spend money on reducing our nuclear deterrent when the other party to the new start treaty is not

trustworthy. if you trust putin and the russian government, then vote against this amendment. but if you, like me, don't want to put our national security in the hands of a serial treaty violator, please vote for this amendment. we should not be spending money implementing the new start treaty which reduces our nuclear forces unless and until russia makes it clear that they are a responsible actor and will abide by the agreements they make. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: first of all on the trust issue, you wouldn't have to negotiate with people we trust. unfortunately, we have to negotiate with people we don't trust. ronald reagan always said trust

but verify, i think that's wrong, just verify. obviously russia has proven itself untrustworthy but they have consistently reduced nuclear weapons arsenal as a result of treaties first negotiated by ronald reagan and many others. they have also worked cooperatively with us to contain nuclear material, which has been enormously important, it would be a huge terrorist threat if they were ever to get their hands on nuclear material and outside of the united states the former soviet union is now the place where you have that nuclear material. having some measure of cooperation with them to contain and reduce that material is enormously important. that's the goal of the treaty. it's not a meefert whether or not you trust putin or trust russia. i don't trust many people just in general and i certainly don't trust them. the question is is the treaty an effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons russia has and to contain and control the fissile material they have is

that in our best interests? it is. and we should negotiate that. certainly what putin is doing in the ukraine is reprehensible and violates all manner of treaties and i support the president and other's efforts to condemn and sanction them as a result but to walk away from an effort to contain nuclear weapons, i don't believe is in the u.s.'s best interests. not a matter of whether or not you trust russia, it's a matter of what's in our best interest? i believe it's in our best interest to continue to try to contain the amount of nuclear fissile material that is available out there in the world, start is one way to do that walking away from this because we don't trust putin and we don't is not sound policy. i urge opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to respond to my colleague by saying there's a flaw in the treaty in my opinion in that it initially called for reductions in u.s. nuclear forces and allowed russia to

increase its nuclear forces. so that right there i think is a problem. but when you have serial violations by the russia federation invading ukraine, in violation of the 1994 budapest memorandum, the i.n.f. treaty, the c.f.e. treaty, they are not a reliable partner in these treaties. and so to reduce our forces, how can that be in our interests when the other party to the treaty is not someone who is performing on these other treaties? and there could be questions on whether they're even fully complying with the new start treaty. when it come toths i.n.f. treaty, i would ask to be entered into the record without objection an article from "the new york times" dated january 29 of this year, detailing some of their violations of the i.n.f.

treaty. the chair: request will be covered under general leave. mr. lamborn: thank you. at this point i want to yield one minute to my colleague from wruth, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i am pleased to join my friend from colorado on this particular issue. when off partner which is russia, who is already engaged in a cyberattack against estonea, they have invadeden -- against estonia, they have invaded the two northern provinces of georgia and they have done everything we know about in the ukraine right now and in addition have violated the existing i.n.f. treaty and we can talk about that classified material because it was yetted on the -- quoted on the front page of the "new york times." they have violated that. it is in the best interests of the united states to wait until we have a more profitable, reliable partner before launching into another endeavor. with that, i can actually support this amendment.

i think it's well timed, well placed, and i will yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. spl smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself one and a half minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: for everybody's information, you can't reveal classified information etch if it's in the paper because then you're confirming it so you're not supposed to do that. second of all if you don't like the stark treaty, that's one thing. a bipartisan group of senators con fired the treaty and passed it. that's a separate debate. if you're trying to reopen that, that's something the senate already determined. it's not a matter of russia being trustworthy. i don't think of them as a partner. i think of them as a reality that we have to deal with. in the one area where they have been fairly consistently, again, starting with the treaties negotiated under ronald reagan is they have reduced their nuclear forces and worked with

us to contain their fissile material after the breakup of the soviet union. this has reduced the amount of nuclear weapons in the world which is a positive step. so again, it's yes, what they're doing in the ukraine, we ought to oppose that. but when it comes to trying to contain nuclear material for the pr text of both of our countries and the world, that's not something that i think we should walk away from. i'm sure there are other opportunities, other ways that we can punish russia for their misdeeds that would make a great deal more sense. this hurts us. it does not help us. again, i urge opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamb born: how much time ve maining in the chair: the gentleman from colorado has one minute remaining. the gentleman from washington has a minute and a half remaining. mr. lamborn: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: he has the right to close, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close.

mr. smith: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i can't see how it would be in our interest to keep complying with a treaty when the other party to that treaty is not in compliance with so many other things it's supposed to be doing this amendment merely call farce halt in the spending of compliance until such time as they come into compliance with all of these other treaties. we're talking about reducing our nuclear forces that is a guarantee against the main and only existential threat against the united states. a devastating nuclear attack, god forbid. but why in the world would we want to give up further nuclear forces when the party that is supposed to be working with us on this is not reliable? i do not understand that. i would ask adoption of this

amendment and mr. chairman, at this point, i yield back. the chair: the secret yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself the plns of my time. the stark treaty if they don't like that treaty that's a separate debate. that's not the purpose of where we're at here in the house. with regards to, you know, violating treaties, on this treaty, the russians are in compliance with it. there's been no evidence brought forward that they're not. this is the treaty we're talking about. if they violated other treaties, we can talk about that and deal with that. i would also point out, they're not alone. the u.s. abroghate antiballistic missile treaty we had sign twhed soviet union because we thought it was in our own interests. there are different reasons for doing those things but again, let me just emphasize the point if we have an agreement with russia that enables us to better control nuclear weapons, i think thing.good don't trust them, you know, don't think of them as a partner, whatever evil things

you want to say about russia, that's fine. but let's not do things that are contrary to our own best interests. there are other ways to punish russia for those treaties they have violated, for the horrible things they are doing in the ukraine, walking away from the treaty undermines our interests. that's why a bipartisan group of united states senatored voted for and put into law the stark treaty because it is in the united states' best interests. as much as i am opposed to what russia is doing in many areas and agree with the gentleman othat, this is the wrong way to deal with those challenges. i urge dofplgs i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington. >> request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 1123-460.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in part a of house report 113-460 offered by mr. schiff of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 90, the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: when congress passed the authorization for military force just days after 9/11, it provided the president with a broad authority to strike against those who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001 or harbored them. that no longer encompasses the military that we are taking in the ongoing fight against terrorism. it has been used to sanction targeted strikes against groups and militants with literal

relation to the individuals that planned, authorized and perpetrated the attacks on 9/11. article 1, section 8 of the constitution invests congress with the power to declare war. it is our most awesome responsibility and essential to our efforts of success overseas. we owe it to the men and women to properly define and authorize their mission. this amendment would not and iately repeal the 2001 consider what authorities are needed to protect the nation. a narrow reorganization may be necessary. but let's be clear even in the absence of an aumf the administration would retain the necessary authority to respond to threats from al qaeda. in a hearing this morning, general counsel for the

department of defense testified the aumf isn't the only authority the president has to use force. the president has authority to use military force as needed to defend the nation against armed attacks and imminent threats. over the course of the last year, there has been a growing recognition of the outdated nature of the current aumf. in syria, for example, one of the most violent organizations on the ground, grew out of al qaeda in iraq. originally part of the al qaeda brand, they have when ex-communicated from al qaeda and there has been intense fighting. that raises the question against whether action would be covered by the current aumf and if it's not do we want to be in a situation where they are able to

choose which groups are subject to use of force and which are not. that is not something we want to delegate to our enemies. debate on ring the the bill, there was strong support on both sides of the aisle for bringing our actions into conformity with the law. since then, the legally precarious nature of our military actions under the aumf has only become more pronounced. this amendment will force congress and the administration to do something about it. i reserve. the chair: the alreserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thornberry: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. thornberry: as the gentleman indicates, he offered this amendment last year and it

failed and i believe it should fail again. as the gentleman knows, i believe very strongly that the aumf should be updated. in fact this house has voted twice to update it, but then the senate failed to take any action whatsoever and i don't think there is any reason to believe that there is any more likely prospect of the senate acting now than before. so what this amendment would do, it would be to repeal the aumf against terrorists without anything, anything at all to replace it. and frankly without any prospect of having anything to replace it, at least in this congress. and so we would be left with no authority to take action against terrorists bent on killing americans. and i can't help but note, madam chair, they just opened the 9/11 museum in new york in the last few days. have we forgotten so quickly about what this aumf is all

about? one other factor, the president has made comments about engaging congress on this issue, but he has exercised no leadership whatsoever in doing so. what does the president propose if he proposes an update to the aumf? we have no idea. unfortunately, that lack of leadership is all too common for this administration. meanwhile what is happening in the world? well, terrorism is growing and it's getting more dangerous. i note there was a "new york times" story just three days ago where the new director of the f.b.i. said before he got access to the latest information he underestimated the terrorist threat, quote, i didn't have anywhere near the appreciation i more nto this job how difficult. they are stronger and i appreciated.

the obama administration wants us to believe that terrorism is done. we got them on the run. everybody's going to live happily ever after. but that sort of wishful thinking is not only unrealistic, it's dangerous. as a matter of fact, richard haas, the president of the council of foreign relations has written that american foreign policy is in troubling disarray. david brooks wrote in the "new york times," all around the piece of fabric is framed. and a part of that disarray and fraying is the wishful thinking we can wish terrorism and other problems away and go along and the world is not going to bother us. in other words, short-term political messaging is taking press dens over longer term strategic interests. so repealing the curnt authority that helps the military protect

us against terrorism without something to take its place is exactly that kind of wishful thinking. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the congresswoman from california, barbara lee. ms. lee: let me thank congressman schiff for offering this amendment. as this body knows, i have been offering an amendment to repeal the authorization to use military force for many, many years. congressman schiff, this is such an important, a very important amendment, which is critical to stopping this endless war. unfortunately, the rules committee refused to allow by bipartisan amendment taken from my bill, the war authorization review to even be considered. for those who were not here on that day three days after 9/11, let me read from that short sentence, one sentence mind you that passed the house with just

one hour of debate with 420 ayes and one no. the president can use appropriate force against those organizations or nations that he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001. i voted against this resolution, of course it was the most difficult vote of my career, but i knew then what i know now, it was too broad and open-ended. the republican leadership has allowed 10 minutes to debate this serious authorization. supporting this amendment would be an important step to ensuring that the president does not -- additional 30 seconds. the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lee: thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman from california has one minute remaining. the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining.

mr. thornberry: i reserve the balance of my time to close. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made in opposition. the first is if the sunset goes into effect, there will be no authority to take action against our enemies. that ignores the president's authority under article 2 which is a constrained view authority. though not shared by this president and not shared by president bush and not shared by any president i think in u.s. history. this is not an effort to legislate away the threats that we face, it cannot be done but to compel congress and the administration to bring it into conformity with the laws passed by congress and restore our responsibility as a body with the power to declare war and to define the scope of any conflict. without a sunset, i am convinced that a year from now, we will be exactly where we are today,

continuing to rely on increasing legally unreliable aumf. and i have confidence that spurred on by the necessity of acting and not requiring that we act tomorrow. we give a deadline from a year from enactment. congress will step up to its responsibility. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of the time. the gentleman argues that we don't need these authorities that there are other authorities. either they are important or not. article 1, section 1 makes a difference in what the president can do to defend the country or superfluous. obviously there are different views about how far far a president's power under article 2 goes.

but article 1 section 8 means something and for congress to authorize the use of military force means something. and i would say the last thing need to get involved in court after we repealed the aumf with nothing to take its place. the gentleman argues that we aren't going to do anything unless we make a deadline. but we have had deadlines before hat we have not exactly met. and unfortunately, repealing something this serious without something to take its place is a dangerous game, i think, to play. the evolution of al qaeda is a very serious issue. we should be having a conversation about how to update the authorization of the use of military force. but we still have to protect the country while we're having that discussion. and unfortunately this puts the cart before the horse deciding to repeal before we know what

will be used to replace it. this amendment is not about afghanistan, yemen, somalia or anywhere else, this amendment is about us. this is about protecting americans and whether the president and the military have the authority that the constitution allows us to give them to protect the country. we should not abandon that lightly. the world is still dangerous. the terrorists are still coming for us. we need to keep this in place unless and until there is more updated aumf to replace it. i oppose the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. schiff: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will

be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in art a of house report 113-460. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in part a of house report 113-460 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: we all agree that nonpartisan oversight promotes greater efficiency and effect i haveness in government, especially in monitoring government spending. this amendment provides every member with an opportunity to promote this efficiency and effectiveness through increased

transparency. the amendment would simply require the congressional budget office to update each year their report on the projected costs of the united states nuclear forces over the 10-year budget window this report initially was required in the last re-authorization as a one-time look at spending on nuclear forces. it was released last december and has proven to be incredibly valuable for members, staff and civil society organizations. i'm sure it was referenced by many people on the committee as the bill before us was crafted. the c.b.o.'s report provided an unbiased and more realistic forecast of spending. it found that the administration's own estimates of costs for our nuclear weapons over the next decade were understated by nearly $150 billion. with tight budgets, we can't afford to rely on partial or inadequate information let alone such a significant disparity.

if the united states -- the united states is likely committing at some level to refurbishing the nuclear tried a we all deserve to know the long-term costs to make the strategic effective decisions and to appreciate any tradeoffs that might be required. despite everyone's best intention, these projects have a history of egregious cost overruns. no one is better suited to help congress monitor these projected costs they change and fluctuate than the congressional budget office. the amendment provides congress with information we need to make difficult decisions. we're scheduled to spend between one-half and 2/3 of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years for our nuclear forces and related programs. this spending, adjusted for inflation, is higher than we spent at the height of the cold war. but we can and should debate the merits of that spending. there should be no objection from anyone about knowing how

much the projects will cost. it will be valuable if you want to increase the programs, it will be valuable if you want to decrease them. it will be valuable if you just want to fund the existing programs. this amendment focuses on increased transparency and oversightism urge my colleagues to adopt it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. the blumenauer amendment is a continuation of the gentleman's efforts to suggest we the nation can't afford the nuclear deterrence requirements, which are the obama administration's requirements base opped the president's personal promises. the gentleman, knot withstanding the sthrifes president, our military leadership or the civilian leadership wants to cut

our nuclear forces. he earlier tried to put the body at odds with the national guard o cut nuclear funding. mr. rogers: he wants to cut the program despite the expanding programs of china, russia, japan, north korea and others. 's as if he missed putin's unplanned nuclear exercise weeks ago and his questionable implementation of the treaty. perhaps the gentleman should have heard secretary hagel's testimony before the armed services committee this march when he said, quote, most everybody agrees that ourable to possess nuclear weapons and the capability that's brought us, that it has brought us has probably done more to deter aggression, nuclear deterrence and the start of the world war iii than any one thing, close

quote. or chairman dempsey's testimony when he was asked if, despite the disarmament echo chamber in this town the debate about nuclear posture in our triad is over. he said, quote, for the record, i can speak for myself and the joint chiefs and say you are correct, close quote. but here we are again today and again this year with a new effort to disarm the nuclear deterrent. it looks harmless. has the gentleman asked the c.b.o. if they can do this report? i did. they don't have the resources to do teleport. is the gentleman aware of the current annual reports we receive in we have the obama administration submit a report detailing these costs, we get it every year. we have the g.a.o. report, each and every year. these are hundreds of thousands of man hours to produce and at great expense each and every year. yet let's add a third report, the gentleman says.

why? because maybe this report will tell us something different than the other two reports? what are they all shown us? they've shown us that by any reasonable and informed estimate, we are spending less than 5 noveget defense budget on our forces. it's a historic law low. we will spend approximately $6 trillion on defense spending -- spending over the next 10 years. we will spend over $30 trillion including the whole federal government. how much on our lieu nu clear forces? according to these reports, probably $300 billion. i'm happy to debate the gentleman on the merits of our nuclear forces. what i'm not prepared to accept is wasteful, unnecessary annual reports just so the nuclear disarmament crowd can throw around another argument against the wall in hopes of maybe something will finally stick that supports this position that we should be union latrill rally reducing nuclear force -- unilaterally reducing nuclear forces. i urge defeat of this amendment and a return to common sense.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields. plaintiff rogers: i have no further speakers, i yield. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: two and a half minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i too am happy to have a debate on the level of our nuclear spending. that's not what this amendment says. the amendment says we ought to have a report every year from the c.b.o. that shows what the accurate projections will be for the next 10 years. the gentleman didn't dispute what i said, that the report that the committee requested last year showed that it is underestimated by $150 billion. why don't you want the american people to know good information

every year? i'm mystified by this if you want to increase nuclear spending, you should know the facts. if you want to decrease nuclear spending, you deserve to have the facts. if you just want to fund what we've got, you need to have the facts. the c.b.o. showed that the obama administration's plan for maintaining and upgrading the nuclear arsenal is likely to cost some 66% more over the next decade than senior pentagon officials have predicted. virtually every major project under national nuclear security administration's oversight is behind schedule and over budget. i'm sorry if the facts are inconvenient for the gentleman. but he should know that if he supports the nuclear program. there will be a day of reckoning. there's no excuse not to have

the best information available. this would simply make sure that we're requesting it from the c.b.o. and when we are talking about sums of this order of magnitude, to pretend that the c.b.o. can't do this analysis is silly. of course they can. and there's no reason they shouldn't do it. and if we approve this amendment, it's more likely that we will have it. i respectfully request that this amendment be approved whether you want to cut nuclear weapons, reduce nuclear weapons, or just fund what we've got. and i look forward to the day that we have a robust debate on the floor of the house about what course we should take. but in the meantime, there's no excuse not to have good information. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. blumenauer: on that, i respectfully request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, pursuant to h.res. 590, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number two, consisting of amendments number 4, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 140, 81, 97, 105, 122,

143, 144, 146, 148, and 161. printed in part a of house report 113-64 -- 460 offered by r. mckeon of california. pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the ntleman from california, mr.

swalwell, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: i urge me committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to commend the armed services committee for their hard work. there's a lot going on and you guys deserve a lot of credit. i wanted to take the opportunity to highlight an aircraft that's a vital component of our national security and particularly of our navy and that's the e-2-d hawkeye, the navy's carrier-based early warning and battle management command and control system. it provides theater air missile defense, synthesizing information for multiple onboard

and offboard sensors, making complex decisions and disseminating information to joint forces. our ability to take an aircraft carrier and move it anywhere in the world and project power from there is critical to our national security. mr. desantis: this aircraft protects our assets and our forces. i want to say that i think it's vitally important that our fleet is equipped with these and i think there's no better person that i know in this body to speak to the importance of the aircraft than my colleague from oklahoma, jim bridenstine, also a commander in the navy reserve and is a former e-2 pilot himself. i will yield as much time as me he may consume to my friend from oklahoma to discuss the importance of this aircraft. mr. bridenstine: i thank the gentleman from florida, my good iend from florida who is

championing a cause that is near and dear to my heart a platform i've spent many hours in i flew combat off an aircraft carrier in the persian gulf and the north arabian sea, flew combat in afghanistan, flew combat in iraq. i can tell you that the missions we did, airborne battle space, command and control of the assets that provide close air support to our troops on the ground was critically important to the mission in both theaters. i can tell you that we did air intercept control in in order to have, you know, dominance of the skies. we provided airborne early warning. it's not without reason that the e-2 hawkeye is the first aircraft that comes off the aircraft carrier when we launch a mission and it's the laft aircraft to come back. we're the first ones to the fight and last ones home. it's also not without reason that when the e-2 gets airborne, when the rest of the air wing son the deck and the ship is steaming across the ocean, the hawkeye is always working.

because we are that airborne early warning asset that can provide threat recognition to the carrier battle group. the hawkeye is a critical node in america's force structure. i would say that i was also involved in generating requirementers in next generation hawkeye, the e-2-d. and congress has recognized the value of the e-2-d by providing the navy with multiyear procurement authority. multiyear procurement drives down costs by enabling block buys, improving supplier surety and stabilizing production lines. as my friend from florida knows the navy requested four of these for the fiscal year 2015 budget request, is which is one less than anticipated. i would like to thank the chairman of the committee for being willing to work with us on ensuring that we can get another e-2-d hawkeye and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition, though i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. swalwell: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from washington. >> i rise today to express support for strong buy american provisions within the department of defense pro furement policy. i would like to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith to discuss our shared goal to promote increased procurement of omestically manufactured solar devices for use by the department of defense. the buy american act is especially important when it comes to supporting nacent

industries and buy american policies can assist manufacturing capability with regard to renewable energy. currently the department of defense is required to comply with buy american act provisions of energy produced from solar panels if they are located on government property and the electricity is used for use by the department. recently we have witnessed a development of large-scale solar installations that are not located on government property, though the electricity produced is still exclusively used by the department of defense. i support a minor language change that would require d.o.d.'s pro qurement process to comply with the buy american act for electricity that is exclusively used by the department of defense or is generated from solar devices located on government property. this small change is worthy of

support. the congressional budget office has scored this proposal as costing $2 million over a 10-year budget and my amendment was not made in order because of this score. i understand c.b.o. rules, but i strongly smith that this not only strengthens our energy independence but also strengthens our industrial base. i hope you will work with me to advance this important issue. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. keeb mr. mckeon: i thank the gentlewoman for her work and i appreciate her efforts to advance u.s. manufacturing and our industrial base and i thank her again for her hard work on this issue and look forward to working with you as we move forward on this. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

california reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. swalwell: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the chair: for two minutes. mr. kildee: thank you to my friend for yielding. i would like to address two amendments that i offered that are included in the en bloc amendment. one deals with expanding financial resource and tools for service members and one funds an independent study to improve wounded warrior care. for too long, unscrupulous lenders have targeted veterans that could have long-term negative impacts on their family's financial security. inadequate financial understanding on the part of these financial products can lead to financial difficulties for service members.

many service members require security clearances to perform their duties and loss of a clearance can have enormous impact on combat readiness. this would allocate $10 million to expand financial literacy resources for incoming service members to ensure that they are not unfairly targeted by predatory lenders. the other amendment that is included is an important one to fund an independent study to improve wounded warrior care. while the d.o.d. is still confronting significant challenges and issues regarding its care and transition of wounded warriors and while improvements have been made, it's obvious that wounded warriors are still failing to receive the care that they need and that they deserve. caring for these individuals who have served honorably should and

i know always will be one of our most solemn duties. for this reason, a review, a comprehensive review, independent comprehensive review and study of this type should be awarded to an entity that is free of any current obligations, 20% of its receive news in the last several years should not have come from contracts from the d.o.d. or the v.a., ensuring independence. it's really important that we take a close look of how we are providing services to these service members and this independent study would do so. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, r. mckeon is recognized. mr. mckeon: i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell is recognized. mr. swalwell: i yield one minute

to ms. sanchez of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. sanchez: i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 4435, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015. it facilitates the transfer of a portion of the us air force norwalk defense fuel supply point also known as the norwalk tank farm to the city of norwalk and allow 15 acres to be designated for public purposes and transferred to city hands. city officials have worked tirelessly for over a decade and this amendment is a reflection of the compromise reached by the us air force and the city of norwalk. my amendment is of significant importance for my district. once this land is transferred, this currently brighted property will mean real opportunity for the city of norwalk and the surrounding communities.

this property is located next to an elementary school and child care learning center. once the land has been cleaned and the park is built, children will have somewhere safe to go after school and on weekends. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and i yield back. the chair: gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, is recognized. mr. mckeon: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, reserves. the gentleman from california mr. swalwell is recognized. mr. swalwell: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: the ability for our service members to reach their capabilities, i submitted an amendment that would give them to accept grant funding from nonprofits for scientific

research that supports the core mission of these labs. after discussion with the committee staff, rather than offering this amendment tonight, i look forward to working with chairman rogers of the strategic forces subcommittee and chairman mckeon and ranking member smith of the armed services committee to find an acceptable solution on this issue and before i yield to mr. rogers, i want to thank mr. mckeon for his service and time. it has been an honor to get to know him and with that, i yield my remaining time to the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i agree with the importance of the national labs and i look forward to working with you to find ways to strengthen their capabilities. i expect we will ensure that nonprofits have access to our national laboratories. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i appreciate all the staff time on this. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from new mexico yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell is recognized. mr. swalwell: i yield one minute to the the gentleman from from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nolan: my amendment is construction in afghanistan over $500,000 unless the u.s. government can conduct proper oversight. most of which are outside the area in which our personnel can travel and operate safely and ll go unaccepted and unaudited. $60 bill of $100 billion are

completely are completely unaccounted for. the blue area shows where our military and civilian personnel were allowed to travel and operate safely in the year 2009. the blue area in the second chart shows how the safe areas have been reduced. moreover since traditional banking services do not exist in these nonsafe areas, contracts are financed with truck loads of cash. perfect prescription for fraud, waste and abuse. time to stop it and our soldiers deserve better. i urge adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon is recognized. mr. mckeon: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell is recognized. mr. swalwell: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: i earn courage my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, en bloc amendments are agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 26 will not be offered. the chair understands that amendment number 27 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in 3-460. of house report 11 for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? > i have an amendment at the

desk. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in part a of house report 113-460, offered by mr. hastings of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 90, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself two minutes. . our nuclear weapons production programs played a pivotal role and helped in world war ii and helped end the cold war. but these programs created a large amount of radioactive nuclear waste and the federal government has a legal esponsibility to clean up this waste. this amendment restores a portion of the proposed reduction for the department of energy's environmental management program, which is tasked with cleaning up the nuclear defense waste at

different sites. one of the defense nuclear waste site is facing a cut over $100 million. even in times of tight budget constraints, federal government must meet existing legal obligations to clean up the defense nuclear waste. existing legal obligations of the federal government, like cleanup of the nuclear waste sites must be met before funding optional activities regardless of how valuable those other activities may be. by adding $20 million for the dens environmental management program, a small portion of the overall cut, this amendment helps to ensure that cleanup can move forward safely, efficiently and in a timely manner. it would help ensure that the operations office can complete the successful and nearly complete river corridor closure project and meet cleanup

commitments. the river i'm talking that this river corridor project is the columbia river which is the main waterway through central washington. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. for what purpose does the ?entleman from california mr. swalwell: i rise to claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. swalwell: i would yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. swalwell: i rise in opposition to the hastings amendment and while i understand and appreciate the gentleman from washington's interests in environmental cleanup, i'm afraid it does so at the expense of research. initial confinement fusion is critical to our national security and keeps our nuclear weapons safe and ready at a time

of growing threats across the globe and this amendment does not just target research at the facility which is in my district which includes livermore, california, it tries to cut the whole budget. it ropes in the facility in new mexico and the omega laser at the university of rochester in new york. budgets right now are tight and all members would welcome the chance to add money to priorities they believe in but it's a mistake to fund such priorities by shortchanging critical science that helps us in our national security mission as well as meet our future energy needs. this science keeps us safe. it will eventually revolutionize how we think and produce energy and can't let ourselves fall behind or cede leadership to other nations who are making progress including france, russia and china.

i ask all members to reject this amendment. and i yield to my colleague from washington. . i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: if the gentleman wants to close, i'll finish debate on this amendment. mr. swalwell: i ask to yield two minutes to the gentlelady, ms. bonn meche. -- ms. bonamici. i'm prepared to yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: i want to say, ma tam chair, that the environmental management program is a result of our war efforts

going back to the second world war. as i mentioned in my opening statement, we won the second world war pause of this activity and won the cold war largely because of this activity. but developing nuclear weapons creates a tremendous amount of waste and that's the responsibility of the federal government. i mentioned hanniford and mentioned one of the projects at hanniford. i want to remind my colleagues of how much nuclear waste is stored underground at hanniford. 6 million gallons of radioactive/hazardous waste is stored understood ground on the upper plateau at hanniford. if you were to quantify how much 56 felons would be, it would fill up over 20 house chambers. this amendment does not address particularly that program but i want to remind my colleagues that cleaning up this waste is a massive, massive undertaking.

it must be done simply because of what the programs did initially by ending the war. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam chair, pursuant to h.res. 590, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number three consisting of amendments numbered 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 55, 9, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,

139, and 130, 133, 141, printed in part a of house report 113-460, offered by mr. mckeon of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 590, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: madam chair, i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by the majority and the minority. at this time i yield three minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of my amendment to h.r. 4335, f.y.

2015 ndaa to renew a one-year ban on though ba ma administration from using any department of defense funds to implement ea this united nations arms trade treaty. this is identical to the version of my amendment enacted into law in the 2014 ndaa and reflects the twhoifl american people in opposition to this misguided and dangerous treaty. renewing this ban is timely and necessary. in january, the obama administration unexaptedly offered a new arms export control policy which hasn't been changed since 19956789 the policy clearly seeks to implement ea a.t.t., it's based on the most dangerous part of the treaty, the international human rights law, international humanitarian law standard that can be readily taken advantage of by bad oklahoma cityors to harm our allies the obama administration has been so brazen about this in a speech to

csis the assistant secretary of state thomas countryman stated, we're already implementing the treaty. in that same speech he stated, we don't have to change any laws to implement ea treaty. that's not uh up to him and not up to the administration to decide. it's up to the senate to provide advice and consent on the treaty and up to the house and president -- to the house and senate to pass laws. this is deeply disrespectful to the senate and house. i urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of the second amendment and vote in support of this amendment to renew the annual ban on funding the ample t.t. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves, the ntleman from washington --

>> i still have some time? should i go ahead? the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman two minutes. >> i rise to d pleasure kelly: i rise in opposition to the pending sale of amphibious assault vehicles to russia. zoos often have signs saying don't feed the bears because it's just common sense. similarly, i'd like to say now, perblesly don't feed the russian bear. but with the sale of these advanced warships, france isn't just feeding the russian bear, it's serving up fine dining on a ilver plate. just one of these class warship has the capacity to carry 16 helicopters, up to 700 soldiers, four landing craft, 60 armored

vehicles and 13 tanks and has the advanced communications capabilities that make it capable of operating as a command and control vessel. france wants to send russia two of them. one of them is named after the naval base that russia has just annexed from ukraine. these will allow russia to expand its presence in the region. but don't take my word for it. admiral -- the admarl the former head of russia's navy boasted that russia would have won its war in georgia -- against georgia in 2008 in scrust 40 minutes instead of 26 hours if it had just had these ships back then. it makes no sense for france to provide these warships to russia when it's ock -- when it's occupying georgia and massing troops on ukraine's border. france's support of russia's navy is unbecoming of a close

naval ally and it has to stop. i urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this commonsense amendment for the sake of our allies and friends in europe. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from sweash recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam chair. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady, ms. bonamici. the chair: the yom is recognized. ms. bonamici: i rise in support of the en bloc amendment including the amendment i offered with mr. walden of oregon to call attention to an important issue facing the army national guard. soldiers join the national guard to serve their country. often they choose the national forward because they want to balance service with civilian careers or post-secondary education. the army's tuition assistance program is a valuable benefit for soldiers who want to pursue opportunities for professional growth or attend college while offduty.

in january of 2014, the army changed its tuition assistance program and now all soldiers must wait one full year after initial training before becoming eligible for tuition assistance. this change affects all soldiers but it may disproportionately harm those in the national guard. nonprior service soldiers in the national guard, some of whom attend college full time, will have to wait at least a year and perhaps much longer depending on the availability of training courses before they get help paying for their education. the bona meecha-walden amendment asks the secretary of the army to evaluate how this one size fits all change to tuition assistance could affect citizen soldiers enrolled in education programs. liledtoik thank chairman mckeon, ranking member smith and their staffs for helping to protect education benefits and ensure a trong citizen soldier force. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from

oregon yields back the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: madam chair, first of all, i want to thank chairman mckeon for his service on this committee and in this body. as a colleague. frankly on behalf of my wife penny and i, as military parents, thank you for your service to those who serve. i want to thank you for allowing me to discuss my amendment and having it as part of this en bloc which will institute a preliminary mental health assessment for all incoming recruits. a recent stuppedy found nearly one in five soldiers enter the various enter with a mental disorder and nearly half of those who attempt suicide attempted suicide the first time before enrolling.

this small but consequential change to current law will bring mental health to parity with physical health in intrns screenings. an evalue wailings will serve as baseline to identify changes including traumatic brain injury throughout an individual's military career. protecting individual privacy was take intoon utmost consideration. while it's not a cure all it will be a significant step in further understooding -- understanding a well documented gap that exists among various bramplings and will assist with mental wellness of our service members and veterans. it's garnered over 35 bipartisan co-sponsors and the support of over 40 major military veterans and i would like to thank those who support this legislation and worked with me and my staff to put this together. thank you, mr. chairman. i ask for your support as we pass this important piece of legislation. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is ecognized. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i want to thank rules committee chairman pete sessions for making this rule in order and i want to thank mr. mckeon for his service and for making this part of the en bloc package. we would like to see the names of the 74 soldiers lost aboard e u.s.s. frankie evans added to the vietnam war memorial. after participating in combat off the coast of vietnam, it was deployed for the operation training exercise in the south china sea. on the morning of june 3, 1969, it was training with an

australian navy carrier when the two ships collided. the melbourne ripped the american destroyer in two, the bow sank in seconds, 74 sailors perished. though they were in the south china sea, their names have been excluded from the vietnam memorial because it was outside the designated combat zone which determines inclusion on the wall. though they didn't die this direct combat, they were instrumental in advancing objectives in vietnam and participated in the conflict just days before the collision. i thank the chairman for allowing this amendment which would encourage the addition of their names to the wall. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the chair: the gentleman from chigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i want to thank