Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act of 2011

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 1.

I thank the Chair.

This amendment would reduce the operations and maintenance defense- wide account by $250 million, the same amount appropriated by section 8122 of the bill. Section 8122 appropriates another $250 million in FY12 for the Secretary of Defense to use for the Office of Economic Adjustment, or to transfer to the Secretary of Education to make grants to public schools located on military bases for construction, renovation and repairs.

I will just summarize what's happening here. We have some schools that are on military bases. Now, some of the schools on military bases are run by the Department of Defense. That's not what we're speaking about here. The schools that we're talking about here, LEAs, Local Education Agencies, run them. In the FY11 budget, we appropriated $250 million of defense money--this is in the Defense bill--to go to schools that are the responsibility of Local Education Agencies.

Now, some of these schools are in disrepair. They're in bad shape. Nobody's questioning that. Education budgets are tight everywhere around the country. Ask your own States. Ask your local school districts. But we cannot continue to divert money from the Department of Defense simply because that's where money is and few people question it. I'm sure the gentleman will stand up here and say, hey, these schools are in bad shape; they're on military bases; we've got to fix them, and the Local Education Agencies have said these schools are in disrepair. But why are we taking money that should be going to the military, to the troops, to other purposes, and diverting it to local education or local schools that are the responsibility of Local Education Agencies?

I have here one of the contracts for one of these schools that is being discussed here. It says: The permittee or his designee shall, at his own cost and expense, protect, preserve, maintain, repair and keep in good order and condition these schools.

This is a Local Education Agency, not the Department of Defense. That shouldn't be the responsibility of the Department of Defense, and we're bleeding off $250 million.

I'm sure the gentleman will stand up and say this is needed, this isn't going to be a continual thing, we've just got to bring these schools up to repair. They'll say that the Department of Defense has said that these schools are in disrepair. They are. Nobody is questioning that. The question is: Where should this money come from? And if we have this kind of money to throw around for defense, then we ought to be cutting more defense funding.

This funding, if there's a problem, it should go through the Local Education Agencies, or convince the Federal Department of Education through Impact Aid to send money to these schools, but not the Department of Defense. That has been the practice, unfortunately, around here for quite a while now.

We say, all right, what account can we take money from, for earmarks or whatever else, that few people will question? It's defense spending. We take that off for education or research or whatever else, and pretty soon we're diverting a lot of money that should go to the troops to other purposes.

Like I said, nobody's questioning that these schools are in bad repair. Newsweek ran an article on June 27 that said 39 percent of the schools run by the public systems on Army installations fell in the failing or poor category. I don't question that. Nobody does. What's at question here is another $250 million.

As I said, we appropriated in the FY11 budget $250 million. So apparently this is going to become a standard practice now? And then you start to get the prospect of Members of Congress starting to submit their local bases, saying, hey, the schools there are bad, and we get into the old earmarking game by letter, or phone marking, or whatever else, because it will be the spoils system all over again as to who gets the defense money to actually fix these schools. So this would simply say this money, $250 million that has been requested for this purpose, shall not be spent.

The gentleman may stand up and say, hey, this is generally taken from the Department of Defense, or from the operations and maintenance, and so that's not specific enough. Believe me, the Secretary of Defense, if they have the choice to fund the troops or the schools, will fund the troops because the schools are under the responsibility of the local education agency. The Department of Defense may submit a list and say these schools are in disrepair, but it's not the responsibility of the Department of Defense to fund these schools.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I should mention the gentleman from Washington mentioned that the Secretary of Defense said we have got to do something about these schools. I should note that this was not in the Defense request. If he thought something ought to be done, you would think that they would have put it in their request. They didn't. It wasn't in the authorization bill. There is a Department of Education program, a competitive program for this already. If we think that it should have more money, then it should.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 2.

This amendment is straightforward. It will simply reduce the amount appropriated to the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund by roughly $3.5 billion. We often hear in this body the Constitution grants the Congress the power of the purse, that the President's budget is not sacrosanct, and that Members should be able to guide Federal spending. I agree with that.

So I was quite surprised that the committee included in this bill an appropriation of $5 billion to the Overseas Contingency Operation Transfer Fund, but provided virtually no guidance on how it should be spent beyond requiring that any obligations be, quote, pursuant to the global war on terrorism. That's roughly 4 percent of the overall cost of the war spending portion of this bill.

I understand the funding could provide the Department of Defense with a little more flexibility as it moves ahead with operations in Afghanistan, while simultaneously withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. I am sympathetic to the need to properly fund the war in a way that requires us to budget for it.

But this $5 billion with very few strings attached could also be used for just about anything, including, as a bargaining chip, for negotiations with the Senate, according to the CQ Today article, which ran on June 14.

I would submit that it's an expensive bargaining chip, and it's a very risky gamble, in my view. The President recently announced his intent to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan, which I think he will make the case for in the months ahead. And the Department of Defense has some flexibility as we move ahead in the months ahead.

So I think it's fair to reduce the amount appropriated in this fund to roughly $1.5 billion. That amounts to 1 percent of the war-related costs of the bill instead of 4 percent. Oversees Contingency Operations Transfer Funds have been requested in the past by the Department of Defense. I understand that. I think we all understand that, to give the Department of Defense some flexibility.

What I am saying here is, $5 billion is a little too much flexibility here. Let's

regain our prerogative here to direct this money, to have the power of the purse and simply not allow that amount, $5 billion. That would simply reduce it to $1.5 billion.

According to CQ Today, the Army requested about $2 billion for transportation expenses in Afghanistan. The House panel said that funding need was overstated because the Army was assuming all supplies are flown into that country, when only about 20 percent arrive by air.

I commend the committee for carefully drilling down on the requests submitted by the services and identifying places where funding is unjustified and unneeded. However, instead of pulling back all the money in what could become a slush fund, we should do better. We should take steps to simply make sure that money that doesn't have to be spent is not spent.

That's what this amendment does. I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.

The amendment would reduce each of the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts by 1 percent, or roughly $730 million below the currently appropriated $73 billion provided in this measure.

Amendments of this sort have been offered to other Defense-related measures recently, though they have attempted to cut amounts far greater than what I am proposing. During one of these debates, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee made the point that ``if you are going to reduce the defense budget, there ought to be a good reason.'' I agree. And I submit that both the severity of the fiscal situation we face and the consequences of inaction are compelling reasons to reduce the defense budget along with everything else.

The Appropriations Committee started a positive trend when, during the consideration of appropriations for fiscal year 2011, it reduced the RDT&E accounts below the levels that have been funded in recent years.

I applaud the committee for taking a serious look at these and other accounts and for acting accordingly, but I think we need to do better. We're going to have to get used to cutting defense budgets here if we're going to get our fiscal situation in order.

The defense budget accounts for roughly half of the discretionary spending that is considered during the regular appropriations process during the year. According to the Domenici-Rivlin Commission ``Restoring America's Future,'' RDT&E budgets have increased from $49.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $80.2 billion in fiscal year 2010.

So you are seeing an amount of about 80 percent higher now than they were in just 2001. That is a 63 percent increase. I'm getting my math wrong here. That report also suggested reducing the RDT&E budget would ``impose greater discipline in research investments.''

In addition, Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center argues in an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine that the RDT&E budget should be reduced, saying that ``it would be safe to cut it, too, by 19 percent between fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2018. Such a reduction would yield $87 billion in savings while keeping the United States' level of military R&D far above any other country.''

I'm not attempting to or suggesting that we make cuts that deep in these accounts with this amendment. I recognize that they have already taken a sizeable hit in fiscal year 11. I also know that my colleagues will come to the floor and tout the values of these accounts. They'll talk about and highlight important successes we've achieved with weapons and other systems that wouldn't have been possible without these accounts. I recognize that.

But if we're all going to have to get used to voting for cuts in defense, cutting 1 percent of the $73 billion made available to RDT&E is far from Draconian and will not preclude any such future successes.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman mentioned that this defense budget is cut $7 billion below?

That's below the President's request, not below the budget----

I just appreciate that this is not the most ridiculous amendment. I'm glad that threshold was reached.

I thank the gentleman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the chairman and stand ready to work with the gentleman--and I commend him for the work that he's been doing over the years--to reach out to all regions of the country to bring the best and brightest into the military academies.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman was quite good at making the cases against this amendment, but I will have to reiterate some of the things. First of all, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill provides an additional $250 million to improve or replace inadequate schools located on Department of Defense bases that are operated by Local Education Authorities and the Department of Education. Most of these are run by the local authorities.

The Army has identified 80 Local Education Authority-operated schools

within the continental United States that are inadequate because of poor conditions or a lack of capacity to accommodate the number of students enrolled. Initial funding in the fiscal year 2011 bill will address approximately 13 of these schools.

Nearly 42,000 school-aged dependents of U.S. service personnel are enrolled in schools on DOD bases that are owned and operated by either LEAs or the U.S. Department of Education. The recommendation is based on former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's remarks to military spouses at a May 8, 2010, town hall meeting at Fort Riley, Kansas. The Secretary then called me as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee last year and said, Norm, we've got to do something about these schools. We have these young men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them worried about their children because some of these schools, if there was a hurricane, if there was an earthquake, if there was a lahar from Mount Rainier, these schools could go down.

I have walked out there and seen these schools at Joint Base Lewis- McChord. And one of the conditions, if you are going to get money here, is that you must take over the school. The local school districts are going to have to take them over from this point forward. So we will get out of the responsibility, but we have to bring these schools up to code and standards and rebuild most of them. This list was developed by the Army, and then the Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps also were involved.

The former Secretary indicated that his plan to improve schools requires congressional approval. Caring for the dependents of U.S. service personnel is a vital contributor to military quality of life and represents a prudent investment in our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Let me also say in the military construction bill there was $463 million for schools that are owned by the Department of Defense. Many of these schools are overseas, in other countries; and yet we are putting $463 million into those schools. At the same time, the gentleman from Arizona wants to deny the young people of our country schools that they could go into. There is one in Arizona. The gentleman is running for the other body. I think he would be concerned about the school in Arizona that may not get funded if this amendment passes. And I hope the people of Arizona remember it, because the people of Washington State will certainly remember it. This is a bad amendment. We should defeat it.

I will not yield.

I yield back the balance of my time.

They don't have any money. The Department of Education can't fund this because the new majority is taking a lot of the money out of the Department of Education that they would use for this purpose, and they don't have the money. That's why the Secretary called us and said--and this is Fort Riley, Kansas, one of your side, a school in the district of a Republican Member--and he said we've got to do something.

We didn't say we will do this on a partisan basis. We said, hey, these men and women in these Stryker brigades are over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them be worried about their children in these schools that could go down if we had an earthquake. And we have had all these natural disasters all over this country. And I just say to the gentleman this is the most ridiculous amendment I have heard of yet. And he has had some lulus. And I just hope we can defeat this amendment so the people of this country will know we care about our kids serving in the military and their families.

I think the gentleman from Illinois brings up a very important issue, and I too look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that classified data is protected from misuse and theft. Cybersecurity may be the most important defense issue that we face in the coming years. The Department of Defense itself is hit 250,000 times per hour, which is unbelievable, but it's true. And so we need to work on this, and I'm glad the gentleman has taken an interest in this important subject.

The allocation for the Defense bill has already been reduced

by $9 billion. Funding for the research and development title of the bill has been reduced from the 2011 level by nearly $2 billion. Further reductions risk harming critical technology development needed to keep current weapons relevant and needed to develop next generation weapons and technologies required to maintain the U.S. edge in military technologies.

The reduction would adversely affect many systems now in development, including the Joint Strike Fighter, where we certainly do not want to fall behind, advanced submarine development, the long-range strike program, missile defense program, further development of precision weapons systems and many others.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Nine billion below the President's request.

Last year we were $17 billion below last year, $9 billion this year. So we're making some serious cuts in this budget.

No. This one won't make the top 10.

We're working the list up, so I will share it with the gentleman down in the gym.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I will work with the gentlelady on DOD lung cancer research. We have $10.2 million in the budget this year, and money for other forms of cancer and treatment efforts, in light of the serious problems facing military members. This is a very serious problem, and I am glad that you have called it to our attention, and I look forward to working with you on this important issue.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The amendment would prohibit DOD from developing or manufacturing a newly designed flight suit

for members of the Armed Forces. In November of 2010, the Air Force awarded a $99.4 million contract over 7 years to research, develop, and manufacture the flight suit. The November award ended a nearly 3-year competitive bidding process.

The Air Force requires that the new flight suit must protect airmen from flames, all kinds of weather, chemical attacks or radiation, and high gravity that can cause air members to black out. So I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I rise in opposition to any amendment that seeks to delay the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Some in the majority continue to try to legislate this issue even though the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in December.

As of last month, more than 1 million U.S. servicemembers--roughly half of our Armed Forces--have been trained on the new law allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Our military leaders, lead by Admiral Mullen, have stated that they have

seen no adverse impact on the force and that training is going very well. The current expectation is that all members of the active and reserve military force will be trained by mid-August.

Last month, Secretary Gates indicated in an interview with the Associated Press that he sees no roadblocks to ending the ban on openly gay military service. Current Secretary Panetta said that he would work closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess whether the elements for certification in the law are met before approving the repeal.

Our servicemembers deserve the right to serve their country no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Currently, gay and lesbian servicemembers are forced to live under the constant threat of being forced out of the military because of the misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that seeks to delay implementation.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman.

I think we agree that it is vitally important to save money in the Joint Strike Fighter Program where it is possible to do so without negatively impacting performance or schedule. The Joint Program Office and the services which will use the Joint Strike Fighter are to be commended for any efforts to identify potential reductions in program costs. As an example, the Air Force is currently in the process of validating an earlier internal study of ejection seat options for its variant of the aircraft.

Would the chairman agree that if studies like this one make a sound business case that savings will result, then the Air Force's judgment about how its aircraft can be made more cost effectively equipped should be informed by that conclusion?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him on this and other matters in our oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am going to read this amendment: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract that allows the contractor to use amounts paid to the contractor under such contract to pay a tax to the Afghan Ministry of Finance.''

I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Washington State for being able to work so tirelessly to get this amendment perfected. It's very clear what her intent is, and we are prepared on our side to accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a very dangerous precedent for Congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of military chaplains.

We have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds. We have many faiths--in fact, the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't sanctify gay marriage. We have other faiths. The one that I happen to belong to--I am a member of a reformed Jewish faith--and there are many other Christian faiths, including the Episcopalian faith, which do sanction same-sex unions. Likewise, it's an important part of chaplain training that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, homosexual acts or extramarital heterosexual acts. That's a part of chaplaincy training as well. For Congress to interfere with the military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented.

With regard to this particular training program, I would like to ask my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), if I could just yield a moment to him, if he has read this particular training manual that he is seeking to defund here.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Has the gentleman from Kansas read the training manual that he is seeking to defund in this case?

So, reclaiming my time, I think that the straight answer is no. In fact, our ranking member and others have been unable to get that from the Navy Liaison's Office.

Again, I think it's an offense to the military to second-guess their training for chaplains. No doubt those documents could eventually come our way--and should, for oversight activities--but for us to somehow defund the training of chaplains to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes no sense.

Again, chaplains will be worried. For instance, Catholic chaplains will be worried to advise their followers that homosexuality is a sin if that is not included in the training. Those for whom homosexuality is not a sin will also likewise be worried about advising the troops. There will be a void, a huge void--to not train the spiritual advisors to members of our military about the implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I mean, why not try to not train any of the troops? I mean, again, whether you supported it or not, I think most of us believe that it was better that there was a training process than, let's say, a court has ordered--which has now happened absent a training process and instantaneous change.

With regard to the chaplaincy, to second-guess an internal military training document--again, which they have indicated that they will revise accordingly--is to show a huge lack of judgment of the men and women who run the military, an enormous lack of confidence in the institution of the chaplaincy, an offense to the chaplaincy of the military to somehow deign that Congress is expressing that they should not be trained regarding a major military policy, that they should somehow take the risk on their own, that they should worry about advising members of their faith with regard to, within their faith tradition, whether homosexuality is a sin or not, regarding members of their faith as to whether they can be married or not.

This is a diverse country religiously, and likewise the institution of our military reflects that diversity. And to somehow, again, second- guess a military training document that hasn't even been read by the prime sponsor of this amendment shows a tremendous lack of faith and is a very dangerous precedence for Congress in terms of interfering with the training procedures of the military.

We could, of course, as a body or as individual Members, go through every single training manual and find things we like, find things we don't like. But again, to micromanage the military to that extent, particularly in light of a policy change which has ramifications for the chaplaincy.

The chaplaincy is, by and large, where the rubber meets the road with regard to how individual members are being advised about their sexual orientation, about what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are immoral. And to somehow say that Congress will tell the chaplaincy not to train anybody on implementing this policy change leaves our soldiers in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Christian soldiers in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Jewish soldiers in a spiritual lurch, our Muslim soldiers in a spiritual lurch, all of those who take advantage of the good offices of the chaplaincy in the military, just as, of course, we have a chaplain in this fine institution, the United States Congress.

So, again, this is a change that perhaps many members of the chaplaincy were not in favor of--some were; it depends on their faith position, their own political opinions--but they need to be trained in accordance with military protocols, and this amendment would gut that. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Given the ongoing budget negotiations, we need to explore all options for reducing wasteful spending, and I think we have an easy one in front of us in this amendment.

Before we ask the American people to accept painful cuts or accept tax increases, we have an opportunity here to get defense spending under control in a way that does not jeopardize or harm our national security. If we're serious about deficit reduction, we need to do something about the defense budget, and we can do it in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security. My amendment would do that.

By reducing some of the 80,000 troops in Europe where they're no longer needed, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars. So what my amendment would do very simply is reduce the total number of troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000, which is more than enough to continue to support our ongoing operations in Libya and Iraq and our responsibilities to NATO for those Members who support them. For those who don't, this is not a proxy for those battles. We don't want to cut the troop levels so low we can't support those operations.

It will allow the DOD to save money by closing those bases that are no longer needed. By pulling 50,000 troops out of Western Europe and closing bases, we can save money, reduce our redundant military force, and CBO has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million.

On top of the savings produced by reducing our troop level, my amendment would allow us to station troops in the U.S., instead of Europe, where it's 10 to 20 percent less expensive. It would allow the Pentagon to close bases across Europe that, frankly, are relics of World War II and the Cold War.

The U.S. taxpayer didn't sign up to indefinitely defend our wealthy Western European allies from a nonexistent

threat. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. On top of that, they're often unpopular with the local people of the countries they are located in.

Our European allies are some of the richest countries in the world, so why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for too long. Today, our European allies spend an average of about 2 percent of GDP on defense, while America spends 4 to 5 percent. That means the average American spends $2,500 on defense; the average European, $500 on defense.

Now, if Europe feels they are under a military threat, first of all, I would like to hear whom it's from. It's not clear who's about to attack France or Germany. But if Europe does feel they're under a threat, they can afford to spend more on defense, and we can be confident that we can spend less on their defense. We cannot afford to subsidize the defense of France and Germany from an unknown and unidentified threat.

This amendment does not signal a weakening in our commitment to NATO. With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across the globe into theaters of operation. We retain sufficient presence in Europe with 30,000 troops for our joint training responsibilities under NATO. There is simply no need to have nearly 100,000 troops.

It's time to rethink our defense spending. We're not under threat by the Nazis. We're not under threat by the Soviets. Terrorism is a real threat. It's an amorphous threat that's not bound by nations or states, and, in fact, it does not have its main nexus in Western Europe. Maintaining bases in Europe is simply not a sane or rational response to this threat, nor is it fiscally responsible.

Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's time for a change of policy. In his recent book, he wrote: ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad in 2001, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed in Germany to fend off an invitation by a Soviet Union that no longer existed.''

These cuts proposed in my amendment are part of the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project. The Sustainable Defense Task Force brought together defense experts from across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense recommendations for saving taxpayers' money without jeopardizing our national defense, and that's exactly what this is, common sense.

At a time when we must seriously consider cuts to wasteful government spending, we should not continue to subsidize the defense of wealthy European nations against a nonexistent Nazi threat, a nonexistent Soviet threat. Let's get serious here. We can start by reducing our military presence in Europe, which will save the American people hundreds of millions of dollars while protecting our national security interests.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I am pleased that my colleagues, Representatives Nadler and Woolsey, are joining me in offering an amendment that make it the policy of the United States to withdraw all members of the United States Armed Forces and military contractors from Iraq by the end of this year.

More importantly, this amendment also clarifies that this timeline cannot be changed unless it is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate or unless authorized by an act of Congress.

We must ensure that 45,000 United States troops who remain in Iraq, and our military contractors, leave Iraq at the end of this year, as is stated in our Nation's Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.

This is of concern because this week the President and some of his advisers are considering just how many troops they can leave behind. Senators and others are publicizing their opinions. Senator McCain of Arizona has suggested 10,000 to 13,000 troops remain to serve for support in intelligence arenas, as air support, and as a peacekeeping force. Others may eventually call for even more to remain. At the same time, the Government of Iraq is feeling pressured on multiple sides to either ask us to stay or to ensure our departure. As one of the original founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, along with Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, our position has been clear all along--we opposed the war and the occupation from the start, and we have worked day in and day out to end it.

We believe that ending the occupation of Iraq means withdrawing all troops--and we mean all troops--and all military contractors out of Iraq. It would be unacceptable to have troops remaining in Iraq after December 31, 2011, unless of course there was a treaty or an act of Congress. Leaving troops would hurt U.S. national security interests by adding credence to insurgents' narrative about the U.S. being a permanent occupying force. America's interests in Iraq and the region will be best served by eliminating our military presence and making greater use of our Nation's assets, including diplomacy, reconciliation, commerce, development assistance, and humanitarian aid. And we have already said in policy that there shall be no permanent military bases in Iraq.

Iraqis must be responsible for the security of Iraq, which they have demonstrated more and more as we have been pulling out of their country. The American people have no interest in extending our presence in Iraq, and they are looking to Congress to ensure that we bring our troops home and focus the savings on the challenges facing our Nation today.

Furthermore, we need to ensure that if any security commitment is required, that such commitment be established by a treaty or an act of Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I join my esteemed colleague Ms. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois in offering an amendment that hits at the heart of the issue of fiscal responsibility.

This amendment would freeze Department of Defense programs at fiscal

year 2011 levels unless the financial statements of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2011 are ready to be audited in 6 months from the date of enactment. However, this amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve and National Guard personnel accounts as well as the Defense Health Program account from this potential funding freeze. It also contains a waiver for any potential harm to national security or combat forces.

In these financial times, which are very difficult as we all know, more and more people are learning of the importance of keeping to a budget and of being able to track where every single penny goes of their paychecks, if they have paychecks. For too many Americans right now, survival boils down to appropriately spending and saving every dollar and every cent that they have and budgeting what little money they have left.

Sadly, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have documented that the Defense Department cannot tell the American taxpayers how their money is being spent. That really is quite shocking. We cannot wait any longer for the books to be audited. This requirement first came down in 1990, and over the years, this requirement that they keep the books that can be checked over has been pushed back to 2017. Already the Department of Defense has stated that they need an extension.

How many times do we turn our backs on agencies in their spending money without being able to account for it? How many more stories of expensive ashtrays and overpriced hammers do we need to have before we begin to deal with this in an effective way?

The bloated Pentagon budget, filled with waste, fraud and abuse, must be able to be audited. The American people expect to know where our defense dollars are going. They pay for this Defense Department, and they expect Congress to be the watchdog of these agencies. In fact, I believe that it is critical that the Department of Defense not only be ready for an audit but be able to actually pass an audit.

Today, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, be fiscally responsible and hold the Pentagon accountable to get its financial books in order. We require that of the business sector, of the private sector. We require that of our own family budgets. Why in the world don't we require that of the Pentagon where so many of our hard-earned tax dollars are being spent? We should freeze their spending, freeze their budget, until we know what they're doing with their money. An audit is a very reasonable request, and I hope that the other side understands that this really is in the spirit of fiscal responsibility and in helping to ensure that the Pentagon's books are in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentlemen, both, for their attention to this important issue. And I want to continue to work with them as we move this bill forward in the hopes that we can bring a swift end and successful end to this tragedy.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just not sure how this amendment accomplishes what the gentleman says since it prohibits enforcement of a section of a fiscal year 2006 bill, which only applied to that fiscal year. So I'm not opposed to the amendment; I just don't believe it does anything.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would tell him that I do agree that assessing and correcting infrastructure problems at the Nation's strategic seaports, which are an integral part of our national defense readiness, is of vital importance.

Mr. Chairman, I also believe these ports to be critical to our defense, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Alaska to consider the appropriate measures and funding to address the infrastructure needs of our strategic seaports.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree with the gentleman that it is important that the military academies bring in the best young people from across the country, and the committee will work with him toward this objective.

Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree with him that we should consider all options for cost savings. Should the Air Force present the committee with a study that indicates potential cost savings in the ejection seat without compromising the F-35's performance or schedule, we will certainly look hard at that.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The gentleman from Colorado offered a similar amendment to the 2012 national defense authorization bill earlier this year, and it failed by a vote of 96-323. He offered a similar amendment during consideration of H.R. 1 earlier this year, which failed by a vote of 74-351. The setting of our military end strengths is not something that should be done lightly. In fact, this is the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. They are responsible for setting military personnel end strengths, and the levels that would be set by this amendment are significantly below those in the House- passed 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

For that and many other reasons, I am opposed to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to say, Madam Chairman, that the gentlewoman has worked long and hard to write this amendment in such a way to be acceptable to the Parliamentarian, and I am very happy to accept her amendment and ask for its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.