Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5856, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is the Defense appropriations bill for 2013. It has been done with the cooperation of the Republicans and the Democrats on the subcommittee, the Democrats led by Norm Dicks. I would say that Norm and I have worked together for so many years in making sure that these Defense appropriations bills were strictly nonpolitical--no politics in Defense appropriations. And there should not be.

Our investment in our national defense should be based on what is the real threat to the United States and what does it take to protect against that threat and what does it take to protect the men and women who provide for that national defense.

I want to compliment Mr. Dicks for having worked together with each other so well, regardless of who was in the majority, for 35 years, Mr. Dicks. And I just want to recognize that this will be the last Defense appropriations bill that Mr. Dicks will preside over on the floor because he is seeking retirement at the end of the term.

This committee will miss Mr. Dicks, the House will miss Mr. Dicks, the Congress will miss Mr. Dicks, and I will say the country will miss his service to the United States of America for so many years. So Mr. Dicks, I extend to you my very, very best and my appreciation and thanks for your friendship and your spirit of cooperation over the many years.

The subcommittee held many hearings and many briefings on so many subjects that it took most of the year leading up to this date in order to do that. I will compliment the members of the subcommittee because they were very attentive. The subcommittee hearings and meetings were all very, very well attended. The members were very loyal and faithful to their assignments and to their responsibilities.

During these hearings, we heard one word that bothered me a lot, that was the word ``risk.'' As we got into the issue of the budget requests, we were told that this might bring about a certain risk, or a prudent risk, or an acceptable risk. We pursued the issue of what is an acceptable risk when it comes to national defense or what is a prudent risk. Let me explain briefly some of the things that we heard.

One, we were told that the United States is going to show much more presence in the Pacific area. I certainly agree with that. That is a very, very

important part of the world, and we have got to be present.

The other point was that, as we did our hearings, we were told that in the Mid East, in the Persian Gulf area, we need a buildup of naval forces in order to do the job that has to be done, especially as we watch what Iran is doing, what Iran is threatening to do, and the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz where much of the world's oil transports.

Well, these risks, we think, have been met. But on the Navy buildup, the budget request actually would reduce the naval capability, the number of assets that we have. So we differed with the budget request on that, and we added funding. And by the way, with the support of the Secretary of the Navy, we added funding for an additional DDG-51 destroyer.

In addition, the Secretary of the Navy was really determined to build a second Virginia-class submarine for 2014. And it was not in the budget, but he convinced us that it was important to do; and so besides the DDG-51, we provided the advance procurement to schedule that second Virginia-class submarine for 2014.

In addition, there are three cruisers that were about to be decommissioned; and for a lesser fee than decommissioning, we determined to keep those cruisers in business and keep them capable and keep them available for that naval buildup that our hearings told us the Navy felt that they really needed.

One other issue that I would like to raise is the Air Force--and we're not at war with the Air Force, by the way, but we have some differences. The Air Force determined to take away aviation assets from the Air National Guard in our States. And we heard from all of our Governors. We heard from all of our TAGS, the adjutant generals, that this would really be crippling to the mission of the Air National Guard and the National Guard if those assets were lost.

So we recommended to the Air Force, we provided $850 million to do what we call a ``pause,'' to let's get together and let's work with the States, let's work with the Governors, let's work with the adjutant generals to see what is the right thing to do here, and not deny the States the assets that they need, the aviation assets that they need.

There's so much more to this bill. The bill has been available online. The copies of the bill have been available. The lists of all of the issues have been isolated in press releases, so the actual contents of the bill have been available for weeks and so at this point I'm not going to go further into the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY12.007

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is an extremely important member of this subcommittee and also represents this subcommittee with the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to say to the House that we understand the importance of sequestration, and we've got to stop sequestration. It's just not good, especially for our national defense. This Congress, this committee has not ignored the issue.

Last year, last year alone, this committee recommended a bill that reduced fiscal year '12, fiscal year '13, a total of $39 billion, but we did it carefully. We did it by not just going across the board, cutting muscle out of our national defense. We took money that wasn't going to be spent anyway. We understand the importance of meeting deadlines on funding reductions.

We don't want sequestration. It is not good for the military, it is not good for the country, and it is not good for the economy.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is one of our subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very important member of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he has further speakers on the general debate.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to take a minute to thank the staff who have worked tirelessly on this bill, Mr. Dicks mentioned them earlier on. We have the responsibility to appropriate for the authorization of the Intelligence Committee and for the authorization legislation of the Armed Services Committee. You can imagine that that is quite a responsibility. The staffing is extremely important because our staff is limited in size to the combined numbers of staff on those two committees that we do appropriate for.

But I want to call special attention to, for example, the minority staff who worked directly with Mr. Dicks, Paul Juola and Becky Leggieri. Paul Juola actually worked in that capacity for the majority staff when we were the majority. In fact, when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I hired Paul. So you can see, this is a very nonpolitical subcommittee.

I would also like to recognize Brooke Boyer on the majority staff; Walter Hearne; Tom McLemore, who is the chief clerk of the majority staff; Jennifer Miller; Tim Prince; Adrienne Ramsay; Ann Reese; Megan Rosenbusch; Paul Terry; BG Wright; and Sherry Young. They are quite a team.

They are able to analyze the budget requests, the budget justifications, and keep the membership advised. So I want to thank them very much for the good work that they do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I'm reluctant to do that because I have the privilege of working with Ms. McCollum on other subcommittee and on the full committee, and she's always very sincere and very generous in the way she treats the issues that she's working with, but I just don't think that we want to eliminate military bands.

First, I must tell you that those who play in the band are trained as basic combat troops and they are called upon in a time of emergency. They are called upon to provide security for military headquarters, wherever it may be located. So I don't think that we want to do away with that capability.

Now, 91 percent of the money that goes to these military bands is to pay the members and their allowances--their uniform, their food--and I just don't think that we want to do that. Our military bands play for the President, play for military functions; but many communities in our country are constantly inviting military bands to come play patriotic programs in our hometowns, and this is good for our community. This lets us be part of our military. This doesn't put our military in a barracks someplace and keep them isolated from the general population, and I think the military should be part of our general population.

I just believe that this is not a good idea.

Ninety-one percent of this money will come out of the military personnel account, which pays for very important things like salaries, military expenses of feeding and caring for our military personnel. Why should we have our military isolated in the community? They should be part of our communities. It's an all-volunteer force, and this country needs a good shot of patriotism because we've had too much negativism coming at us from all different directions.

This is a positive country. This is a patriotic country. We ought to allow our military to show off their talents not only on the battlefield where they risk their lives, lose their lives, or are terribly injured.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, the amendment is subject to a point of order, but I am going to reserve the point of order to allow the gentleman to have his 5 minutes to explain what it is he wants to do.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2013 on May 22, 2012, House Report 112-489.

The adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee general purpose suballocation for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded, and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Much of the debate that I would have on this amendment would be very similar to the one I'd had earlier when the issue was of the military bans, so I won't repeat those again.

I would mention the fact that this amendment was defeated by this same House several times last year on the Defense appropriations bill. We have an interesting situation here, though, today. This amendment is very similar to language later on in the bill that is subject to a point of order. It has been skillfully rewritten so that this one is not subject to a point of order, but it is basically the same issue.

Now, understand the United States of America does not have the largest military in the world. We do have, by far, the best--but not the largest--and our military is all volunteer. Members of the military serve because they want to. Yet, as the all-volunteer force rotates and changes, members are leaving--they retire; their time is up; they get out; they have to constantly be replaced. There has to be a constant flow of recruits coming in as the older members leave. The military has been running recruiting programs for years and years and years and very, very successfully. They know a little bit about what it takes to encourage recruiting.

The amendment, itself, does more than just strike out the sports-- NASCAR--and all of these issues. It actually cuts $30 million more than is spent on these issues. I don't know why they won't take that extra $30 million. Anyway, we should not pass this amendment. It is, like I said, very similar to one that is already in the bill that is subject to a point of order.

I say let the military run the recruiting as they have done successfully for all of these years in order to maintain an all- volunteer force--a powerful message to the young Americans or the older Americans who want to serve. Men and women want to serve their country in the military, and these recruiting programs get their attention and direct them where they need to be directed. So I think this just isn't a good idea to pass this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman from California yield?

I am aware of the gentleman's deep interest and appreciate his flexibility in finding ways to address this issue. Like my good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks), I agree that we should work with our good friend, Mr. Farr, to ensure that

DOD is leveraging the security clearance research of the PERSEREC to improve the DOD security reinvestigation process.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, what he wants to do. But a lot of these sites, there is no disposition. We don't know what's going to happen to them.

Will they stay as owned by the Federal Government, will they go to communities? We don't know the answer to that. We don't know the disposition. But they do need cleaning up, and there is no doubt about that.

Here's my problem with this amendment. He takes the funds from the defense-wide readiness fund, the operations and maintenance fund, which provides for our readiness, which provides for training. It provides for our Special Forces; it provides for the support, safety and quality-of-life programs for our troops and their families, including programs to assist spouses of servicemembers with employment and job training, which is a key initiative of the First Lady.

As much as I agree that this needs to be done, we do not want to take it out of the defense operations and maintenance, which is our defense- wide operations and maintenance funding.

I oppose the amendment. While I would like to help him in some other way to accomplish this, not from this fund that is so important. Readiness is readiness is readiness; and our troops have to be trained, they have to be equipped, they have to be ready, and I oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for the question, and I say absolutely yes. I would very much like to do this, because I believe we need to do what it is you want to do.

But I just can't support taking it from an account that provides for readiness of our troops.

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

I'm happy that I'm finally given an opportunity to be supportive of an amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Kucinich, because so often I have to oppose his amendments.

This bill already includes $10 million for the program. He's concerned that the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Subcommittee did not include an additional $5 million. And I understand that. And that's okay. But medical research on Gulf War Illness, or whatever it is, is important. What we learned from this program could help us in other programs on diseases coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. We're seeing, if you get a chance to visit at Walter Reed Bethesda Hospital, some very strange bacteria and viruses and mold and funguses that are coming from places that we never expected to see. But we're seeing them now.

So this research program could help another research program to deal with these deadly diseases that are affecting our troops in large numbers. And so while we've already done $10 million in this bill, I'm going to agree with Mr. Kucinich and agree to his amendment to add the additional money.

I will yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I thank Mr. Kucinich for offering the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

This issue is extremely important to all of us. At every one--well, almost every one--of our hearings, we insisted on getting good answers from the military as to what they could do, what would they

do, what did they plan to do to prevent the suicides. We have supported so many programs and added the additional money that Mr. Dicks has talked about.

We have also funded money for the Yellow Ribbon Foundation, which is actually to help servicemen and -women return to society to avoid their desire to commit suicide.

Just putting money here is not going to solve the problem. It's going to take a lot of work on the part the military, on the part of the social workers who deal with these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines coming out of the services. Just money is not going to solve this problem. It is a bigger issue than money. But we have provided a lot of money, and we continue to keep pressure on the military organizations to do everything they can.

I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment for much of the same arguments I used earlier by taking the money out of O&M defense-wide accounts, which is where we provide for our readiness. And we just cannot continue to take money out of this fund and use it as a slush fund. Readiness, we have got to maintain. We can't take a chance on not being ready in the event a situation develops.

Now, on the issue of cyber, there's no doubt that this is a growing threat. It's even a larger threat than most people realize today. And members of this committee understand that threat because we have spent a lot of time dealing with cyber. But there are other places in this bill where the gentleman could offer his amendment that would, I think, apply better.

If we're dealing with a nonmilitary cyber program, it should be done through the Homeland Security bill, and they do have money in that bill. If it has to do with the FBI's law enforcement work on cyber, it should be in the Commerce-State-Justice bill where there is money there for that.

I'm afraid this gets a little close to being an earmark that is not an earmark. For example, there are those in the media suggesting that Members are increasing program amounts just so that that program would favor something in their own district. This gets very close because of a particular laboratory in Mr. Hanna's district. I'm not opposed to his supporting his laboratory, but I think it does get to the point that maybe this is a program increase that could be directed to a specific district or a specific project.

We've already funded a lot in cyber, and we will continue to fund cyber. Every year it grows, we grow with it. But we can't do this at the expense of our defense-wide Operation and Maintenance accounts that provide for our readiness.

I'm not going to produce a bill or support a bill that cuts into the readiness of our Nation, the ability to defend our Nation. We're not going to do it. The cyber accounts have their own place in the legislation, and they are being taken care of properly.

So I'm opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, has discussed this with us at length for quite some time. This is an immediate problem and a growing problem and one that we have to face up to.

We do not oppose this amendment. We agree with the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense bill.

I first want to thank Chairman Young for his very generous comments about my service on the Defense Subcommittee. And he is absolutely right, we have always, no matter who was chairman or which party was in control, we've always, on a bipartisan basis, worked to take care of the needs of our troops to make sure that we were properly funded in equipment and to do it on the basis of what was right and what was necessary. I appreciate his leadership of this subcommittee, and I wish him well as we finish up this year.

This bill continues the Defense Subcommittee's long tradition, as I mentioned, of bipartisanship and finding common ground as members work together, under Mr. Young's leadership, to provide for the Department of Defense. I'm pleased to report that the subcommittee has again crafted a bill that places national security and the needs of U.S. servicemembers above partisan politics.

I strongly support the priorities set in this bill. The bill supports our troops. It includes funding for the third consecutive year to replace inadequate schools owned by local educational authorities and the Department of Education that are located on military installations.

It includes $40 million above the request for Impact Aid.

It includes $125 million above the request for traumatic brain injury and psychological health, as well as an additional $20 million above the request for suicide prevention and outreach.

And the bill has a total of $1.2 billion in Defense Health Program research and development, $545 million above the request.

The bill continues the committee's longstanding support for peer- reviewed breast cancer research, peer-reviewed prostate cancer research, vision research, spinal cord research, and many other medical research initiatives.

The bill supports the Guard and Reserve. It includes funding to pause force structure reductions and aircraft retirements proposed by the Air Force that would affect Air Guard and Reserve units across the country.

And the bill contains $2 billion for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account.

The bill supports today's equipment needs and develops tomorrow's technology. It supports Secretary Panetta's strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific region by including robust funding for shipbuilding and the Patriot missile defense system.

The bill supports DOD's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance needs by providing the resources for Global Hawk UAVs.

The bill addresses the Navy's strike fighter shortfall by funding F- 18 Hornets and providing advance procurement for F-18G electronic attack aircraft.

The bill provides for ground equipment such as the Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and HMMWV modernization. This funding provides for Army equipment needs, including the Guard and Reserve, and helps maintain a stable industrial base.

The bill includes $250 million for the Rapid Innovation Fund that will continue the committee's efforts, started in 2011, to promote innovative research and defense technologies among small businesses; and the bill includes funding above the request for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense activities, including $680 million for Iron Dome.

The bill funds operations in Afghanistan consistent with the President's plan to wind down our presence as agreed to in the Lisbon Accord of 2010 and this year's NATO summit in Chicago.

The bill also includes important restrictions on DOD activities. The bill prohibits permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or Afghanistan and prohibits U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources. The bill prohibits the torture of detainees. The bill prohibits training foreign military forces if these forces are known to commit gross violations of human rights. And the bill limits reimbursements to Pakistan until the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies that Pakistan is working cooperatively with the U.S. against terrorist activity.

While I support the funding level and priorities included in this bill, I must also express my objection, not to Mr. Young, but to the majority decision to renege on the bipartisan agreement reached less than a year ago in the Budget Control Act. I believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation; and in the near term, it introduces uncertainty in our appropriations process that imperils our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner.

Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a considerable amount of time in the appropriations process if we simply returned to the agreement reached last year in August, the $1.047 trillion allocation level for this year, a level which even the Republican other body leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up.

Despite this reservation, I want to congratulate Chairman Young for producing a bill that meets the most pressing needs of the Department of Defense, and for doing so in the best tradition of the Appropriations Committee.

And I must say that I feel we have one of the best staffs on the whole Hill. And I know Paul and Tom have worked together when Paul was the clerk and Tom was representing Mr. Young as the ranking member. And the cooperation of all the staff members has been extraordinary, and they've worked very hard to prepare this bill for the floor, and I want to congratulate them on their good efforts.

Also, I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his efforts to restore regular order. I think it's outstanding that we have had this bill in a subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, now brought to the floor under an open rule. This is the way this committee should operate, and I appreciate his efforts to provide that leadership.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee and a member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Kaptur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He and I were in the same class together and enjoyed many spirited debates on national security issues. I consider him to be a good friend and someone who cares a great deal about these issues.

We have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. Is the chairman going to close?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to discuss the costs of the security clearance process.

To my good friend from California, I appreciate the attention that you bring to this issue. It seems that this is a commonsense thing that the Department can do to save millions of dollars with no negative impact to the security clearance process. Requiring DOD security reinvestigators to use the Automated Continuing Evaluation System, ACES, tool will preserve national security despite the tight budget constraints that the DOD is facing.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment seeks to add more funding to purchase equipment vital to the disaster mission of the Air National Guard.

Recently, forest fires have been devastating Colorado, and the Air National Guard has been fighting alongside the Forest Service. The Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, or MAFFS, provides emergency capability to supplement existing commercial tanker support on wildland fires. This system aids the Forest Service. When all other air tankers are activated but further assistance is needed, the Forest Service can request help from the Air Force's MAFFS unit, who can be ready in a few hours notice with this modular system.

When the Air National Guard adds the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System to their C-130 aircraft, they are adding another capability to their aircraft. Creating a dual-mission aircraft without major modifications to an existing piece of equipment is efficient and cost effective.

Quite frankly, we need to get new C-130Js for the Guard. I hope that we can do that. That's been a problem we've had with OMB over the scoring on this, whether you can lease them or buy them. This is an interim step, which is a good one, and I think we should accept the gentleman's amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I would also support the gentleman in efforts to find another less objectionable source for the funding.

Will the chairman yield?

I agree with the chairman. This Gulf War Illness has been something that bothered me a great deal. This was a very difficult diagnosis, what was causing this. But I think an additional investment here is worthy, and I think we should accept the amendment. I'm glad the chairman accepts it.

With all due respect, we have accepted the gentleman's previous amendment. On this one we have already added $20 million to the budget for this purpose, and we will, if necessary, go higher in conference because of the gentleman's concern, the chairman's concern, and my concern. But to totally eliminate funding for the Pentagon Channel, I think, is a mistake. There's very valuable information that is received by the military, by the Congress, by everybody who watches this thing.

It's the source of the amendment. So I would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw the amendment and then work with us and we will do the best we can to get to a higher level in conference.

This has become the issue of this war, when more people are dying of suicide than are in combat. We don't want to lose any lives. It means that there is a serious problem. And we want to work with you to address that.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time just for the moment, the point is we have also added money for traumatic brain injury, for posttraumatic stress disorder. Our subcommittee has been at the forefront of providing additional resources beyond the administration's request for a number of years, since this has become a major issue. But I would just ask the gentleman to try to work with us on this one because of the source issue, and we'll work together and do the best we can.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I commend my friend from Rhode Island for his efforts in this regard, and I just hope that this research will be successful. I know with his leadership, it will be.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to concur. I think this is a deserving amendment. We cannot do enough on these issues because this is going to have a lifetime effect on these people; and the more we do, as they come home, and even before they go to find out who is susceptible, this is critically important and will save us a lot of money.

We will accept the amendment on our side.

The committee recognizes the serious trouble of traumatic brain injury, as you just noted, and related conditions; and I'm happy to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to improve understanding of this important issue as we confer with the other body and work with our majority Members here who are deeply concerned, as we are, about this amendment.

I concur with the chairman and want to say to the gentleman from Minnesota, we appreciate his service to the country. You know a lot more about this than some of us who were not in the service, and we appreciate your leadership on this issue.

I want to commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. I think it's well-thought-out, and I hope it has the desired effect. I congratulate her on offering it.

I have an amendment at the desk printed in the Congressional Record.

Before I do my prepared remarks, I would very much also like to thank both Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young for the courtesies and all the help that they and their staffs have given me since being on the Appropriations Committee in the positions they are in.

Mr. Dicks, I would especially like to thank you for being a mentor and a guide star through this, not only on the Defense Appropriations bill, but on the Interior bill and, just in general, working on health care. Thank you so very much.

Over the past 4 years, the Department of Defense has spent a stunning $1.55 billion on military bands, musical performances, and concert tours around the world. That's right, $1.55 billion in taxpayer funds for 4 years for military bands. This amendment reduces the Pentagon spending for military bands and musical performances from the $388 million in this bill to $200 million for fiscal year 2013. The $188 million reduction is a transfer to the deficit reduction account. In the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, the House included language to limit the authorization for military musical units not to exceed $200 million. This amendment conforms with the defense authorization while cutting spending by $188 million.

Our Nation is in a fiscal crisis. The Pentagon is on pace to spend $4 billion over the next decade on military bands. Is the United States really going to borrow money from China and other foreign countries so the Defense Department can spend billions of dollars for its 140 bands and more than 5,000 full-time professional musicians? How does this enhance our national security?

Congress has a duty to provide the necessary resources for our Armed Forces and to ensure our national defense. We also have an obligation to ensure that every dollar in this bill is strengthening our national security. Spending $388 million of taxpayers' money on military music does not make our Nation more secure. It is a luxury the Pentagon and the taxpayers can just no longer afford.

Before he retired last year, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said:

We must come to the realization that not every defense

program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred and

well spent, and that more of everything is simply not

sustainable.

Mr. Chairman, the defense dollars I want to cut from military musical units is not necessary; it is not sacred and not well spent with so many other pressing needs. In this fiscal environment it is simply not sustainable.

I don't think anyone here today will tell the American people that there is no waste or excess in the Pentagon's budget. This Congress should not be protecting waste and excess in the Pentagon. It should cut it.

There's a lot of talk, mostly from my Republican colleagues, about protecting defense from the sequester and protecting millionaires and billionaires from expiring tax cuts. Protecting every single defense dollar means shifting the burden and the pain for billions of additional budget cuts onto local communities, middle class families, seniors, the poor, and vulnerable children.

Is this Congress going to really kick more kids off the school lunch program or make deeper cuts to our first responders in order to justify paying for more military music? Well, that will not be my choice. That does not reflect my values, and it is not the legacy I want to leave behind as a policymaker.

This amendment cuts a program that has grown out of control. It reduces the deficit, and it does nothing to impact military readiness, mission strength, or our troops' ability to defend our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the McCollum amendment and cut unnecessary funding for military bands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Well, we just heard from the last speaker that part of what all this money is being spent on is branding and goodwill and that the Congress, and we today, should not be making any changes and micromanaging what the National Guard is doing.

I would call to our colleagues' attention legislation, Public Law 106-398, in the 106th Congress. The Legislative Information System, which is available to all of us, directs us as to what really took place in the 106th Congress.

We directed the Secretary of the Army, during a period beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending December 1, 2005, to carry out a pilot program to test various recruiting approaches. One of them was to be an outreach that the Army was going to do with motor sports. It doesn't work, and that's why the Army has dropped it.

The National Guard, through what Mr. Kingston had, didn't come to us directly. We were provided some sponsorship information through NASCAR of all the contacts and all the hits. Everybody who walked through the gate was counted as being part of branding. Folks, this was not supposed to be about branding; it was supposed to be about recruiting. That's why the Army spokesman on CNN said, when they announced that they were ending their 10-year, multidollar, taxpayer-funded relationship with NASCAR, ``It was not a great investment.

The Navy pulled out. The Marine Corps pulled out of NASCAR years ago. But yet the Pentagon has paid one racing team--Mr. Earnhardt's team-- $136 million in taxpayer funds for the National Guard logo on his car in the name of recruitment. This year, they're paying Mr. Earnhardt again $26.5 million, to which the National Guard has reported--this is what the Guard told me--20 qualified candidates expressing interest, zero actual recruits.

For the past 2 years, the National Guard has spent more than $20 million in taxpayer funds on professional bass fishing tournaments. Folks, we're in a fiscal crisis here. Bass fishing is not a national security priority. This Congress is cutting services to communities and needy families because we're in a fiscal crisis, yet the Pentagon is spending in excess of $80 million on NASCAR racing sponsorships, professional bass fishing, ultimate cage fighting, and other sports sponsorships. The program is a waste of taxpayer money; it doesn't work.

Over the past few days, the professional sports lobby has come out in full force to protect their taxpayer-funded subsidy. For the purposes of the 2013 Defense appropriation bill, those pro teams are military contractors who have failed to deliver on their contract in the past for the taxpayers for recruits.

I want to thank Representative Kingston for his leadership on this and joining me to cut a Pentagon program that's just not effective.

This committee, in which we're having this bill discussed right now, has been bipartisan in the way the bill has been put together and bipartisan in the way this amendment has been offered. If the private sector wants to pool their money to sponsor military race car teams to demonstrate their patriotism, I say fantastic and go for it. But it is my job to be a steward of taxpayer funds.

I want to be clear about something else this amendment does not do. This amendment in no way, shape, or form prohibits or limits military recruiters from recruiting at NASCAR races or any other sports event. I just want the military recruiters to attend those

races and community events where there are potential recruits.

We need, as Mr. Kingston pointed out, more recruiters doing their job in the right way. They have ideas, folks, on how they can do this better. We need to listen to the recruiters.

So, I think it will be just irresponsible and outrageous that Congress would go ahead and continue to borrow money from China to pay one race car driver's team $26 million for delivering zero recruits. Our Nation is facing a fiscal crisis. Communities and families and seniors and vulnerable children are bearing the brunt of deep and painful budget cuts. Congress needs to get its priorities in order and stop protecting military spending that doesn't work.

I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Kingston's amendment. It's an honor to be a partner to it. We need to cut the wasteful spending in programs and reduce this deficit.

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

Hon. Betty McCollum.

CRS Response: DoD Spending on NASCAR Sponsorship

In response to your request for U.S. Department of Defense

spending on NASCAR sponsorships, we are providing the

following information.

Budget:

Each of the Military Services use a variety of marketing

and advertising strategies to meet their annual recruiting

targets. For example, the U.S. Army has sponsored NHRA and

NASCAR vehicles and events, as well as the Golden Knights

Parachute Team and other activities. The different

advertising strategies and approaches are designed for

maximum impact upon the target population and derived from

annual youth surveys.

U.S. Military recruiting advertising for each of the

branches is budgeted under ``Operations and Maintenance.'' At

this level, we only have visibility of the Service's overall

budget for advertising, not the specific sub programs.

Authority:

Each of the U.S. Military branches receive authority to

conduct ``marketing/advertising'' under the auspices of

recruiting requirements. Please see the attached document 10

USCS Sec. 3013 for the Department of the Army.

An article published on the U.S. Army web site states ``The

U.S. Army Motorsports Program began in September 2000 when

Congress directed the secretary of the Army to conduct a

five-year motorsports outreach test. In 2003, building upon

the success of the NHRA program, NASCAR was added.'' For the

full article, please: http://www.army.mil/article/30553/armv- to-continue-nhra-nascar-sponsorships/

Legislation Public Law No: 106-398 [106th]

The Legislative Information System (LIS) summary states the

following: ``Subtitle F: Matters Relating to Recruiting--

Directs the Secretary of the Army, during the period

beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending on December 31,

2005, to carry out pilot programs to test various recruiting

approaches. Requires one program to be a program: (1) of

public outreach that associates the Army with motor sports

competition; (2) under which Army recruiters are assigned at

postsecondary vocational institutions and community colleges

to recruit such students and graduates; and (3) that expands

the scope of the Army's current recruiting initiatives.

Authorizes such Secretary to expand or extend a pilot program

after notification of the defense committees. Requires a

report on the above programs.''

For more information see House Report 106-945, Subtitle F--

Matters Relating to Recruiting. This report is available at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-106hrpt945/pdf/CRPT- 106hrpt945.pdf

We hope that you find this information helpful.

Nese F. DeBruyne,

Information Research Specialist; Foreign Affairs, Defense

and Trade Section; Knowledge Services Group; Congressional

Research Service.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I deeply appreciate the difficult job that Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks have. This is important legislation, difficult balancing. It is a time of strain in terms of the budget, and it is a time of strain for the military. But I do think that my colleagues who come to the floor and who are questioning whether we need to continue the same policy, the same funding, the same direction with Afghanistan are right on point. This Congress should be spending more time actually engaging in a debate on our policy, our practices, our future in Afghanistan.

We initially went to war to deal with the protection of the United States. It was in Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot that led to the 9/11 attacks. He was protected by his Taliban enablers, and it was entirely appropriate for the Bush administration and this Congress to go after him to end that threat and obtain justice.

Sadly, before the job was done in Afghanistan, before Osama bin Laden was actually captured, we veered into a tragically misguided, flawed, and expensive mission in Iraq. As were many of the colleagues who are joining us today on the floor, I was strongly against it. It was a mistake in terms of strategy; it was a horrible price paid by our troops; and it was dramatically unsettling. It has limped along to an unsatisfactory resolution, but it wasn't until 9 years later that we finally finished the job with the death of Osama bin Laden.

I commend the President for being in charge of that operation. But it's done. It's over. We killed Osama bin Laden. It is time for us to stop the longest war in American history, whether it is formally declared or not, and I strongly identify with many of the comments from my friend Ron Paul on the floor here a moment ago.

It is time for the United States to stop spending more in a month in Afghanistan than it would cost to hire every man and woman in Afghanistan of working age. That's what we're spending. You could rent the country for a year for what we are spending for a month, and the resolution is going to be exactly the same. Whether it's 2013, 2014, 2015, whether it's another 100, another 1,000 American lives, whether it's $10 billion or $100 billion, it is time for us to give the military a break, to listen to the American public, to reposition and deal with the challenges at hand.

Madam Chair, I am haunted by the notion that we have lost more men and women to suicide than we have to hostile action. There are terrible consequences for this operation that need go on no longer.

I suggest it's time to end--to save lives, to save money, to save the strain on our military--and for this Congress to get to work on things that will make a difference for international peace and security, for restarting the American economy and for making our communities safer, healthier, and more economically secure. If we do our job in Afghanistan, in scaling it down and in getting the troops out as quickly as we responsibly can, we will take an important step in that direction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, we take great pride in the American military, trained fighting force. We work hard to make sure they are properly equipped, but decades of military training has left dangerous explosives and harmful chemicals on millions of acres of United States land.

This contaminated real estate now serves as housing, schools, parks and playgrounds in every congressional district in the country. In fact, you may have read in the morning paper down at what is called The Yards near Nationals stadium, the development that is being done there, they discovered a thousand-pound bomb less than 1 kilometer from where we're debating today.

To help the Department of Defense become a better partner for our communities and our constituents, I strongly urge that my colleagues support an amendment that would preserve the Department of Defense efforts to employ skilled labor and high-tech companies to clean up these dangerous liabilities and create economic development opportunities on these dangerous properties.

Congress established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program- Formerly Used Defense Site Program, DERP-FUDS, in 1986 to remove hazardous material from former Department of Defense properties and allow for safe reuse. Over two decades later, 2,600 properties nationwide require cleanup at an estimated cost of over $18 billion; and I will tell you, my colleagues, after having worked in this area for over a dozen years, that probably understates it.

The current funding for the program is less than $300 million, one- half of 1 percent of base defense spending. At this rate, the Department estimates, at this low-ball figure of $18 billion, we will not finish cleaning up the sites we know about for the next 250 years. My amendment would simply restore funding to the current level to ensure that we continue work removing these dangerous burdens from our communities within our lifetime, to say nothing of our great, great grandchildren's.

At a time when total military spending amounts to more in 1 day than what we spend in an entire year, I strongly urge my colleagues to reprioritize our investments. These sites are decades--in some cases they are hundreds of years old.

Now, the Defense Department has an obligation to clean up after itself, and they have made great progress. They have made critical technological breakthroughs in removing unexploded ordnance, making it less expensive, and some of the investments that we have made have actually saved lives overseas, because the same technology that will help us figure out whether it's a hubcap or a 105 millimeter shell can make a difference in IEDs overseas in Afghanistan or Iran.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It has operational impacts today for our military. It has economic development impact, which will help us return millions of acres to productive use; and it's the right thing to do.

I don't want a situation where we shortchange what the Department of Defense does. Remember, in prior debates--Mr. Dicks, Mr. Young may remember--I brought to the floor Larry the Lizard coloring books that we were distributing to school children to warn them of the hazards because we hadn't invested enough to clean up, or the children that were killed in a former defense operation in San Diego because they found a bomb when they were playing.

I strongly urge that you approve this amendment and simply return the funding to the level that we have today. It will make a difference for the military now and for generations to come.

I appreciate your consideration and yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your understanding of the importance and your concern about prioritization. If we don't prolong it in debate and recorded vote and all of this sort of thing, would it be possible to work with you and the ranking member as we move forward to see if there is an opportunity for us to plus-up this fund a little further in other areas?

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, today I, along with my colleague Bob Filner, am offering an amendment to restore an overall loss of $10 million in research funding dedicated to finding a cure for gulf war illness, an illness that directly affects over one-fourth of veterans from the first gulf war.

This amendment has the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It has the support of the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the support of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will reduce total outlays by $7 million.

Veterans of the first Gulf War suffer from persistent symptoms, including chronic headache, widespread pain, cognitive difficulties, debilitating fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, respiratory symptoms, and other abnormalities that are not explained by traditional medicines or psychiatric diagnosis. Research shows that as these brave veterans age, they're at double the risk for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, as their non-deployed peers. There may also be connections to multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. Sadly, there are no known treatments for the lifelong pain these veterans endure.

Gulf War Illness research was slated to receive a total of $25 million in fiscal year '12: $15 million at the VA and

$10 million at the DOD's Gulf War Illness Research Program. We've learned that the VA cut $10 million from its FY '13 program, which more or less supports allegations that VA officials, whose views on Gulf War illness have been discredited by the Institute of Medicine and the scientific community, are obstructing the research. The veterans of the first Gulf War who remain without a cure should not have to pay the price for this controversy. That's why this amendment would restore $10 million into a research program that has proven itself: The Defense Department's Gulf War Illness Research Program.

Last year, researchers funded by this program completed the first successful pilot study of a medication to treat one of the major symptoms of Gulf War Illness. The critical increase in funding from this amendment was built on progress that's already been made, including a followup clinical trial, as well as other promising studies which have been waiting for funding. The offset for this amendment comes from the $32 billion Operations and Maintenance Defense-Wide Account in title II.

Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these Gulf War veterans who put it all on the line and who are paying with a lifetime of pain and a potentially shortened life--it's our responsibility to make sure they're not left behind. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to fully fund research into Gulf War Veterans Illness.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the chairman. I also want to let the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member know that I appreciate their support for the Gulf War veterans in the previous amendment. I also submit that this particular amendment addresses another area that is receiving attention in the media but needs some money behind it to make sure that it receives attention from the Department.

This amendment to the Defense appropriations bill will increase funding for suicide prevention among our soldiers by $6 million. Now I happen to know there are members on this committee who are very concerned about the increased level of suicide among those who serve. And it's a bipartisan concern. We know the heartbreak that's out there when someone who serves this country finds that the conditions that they're in either during service or just afterwards are so horrendous that they take their own life.

Far too many troops coming home from war have sustained numerous mental insults, including post-traumatic stress order and traumatic brain injury. The mental anguish for them is so unbearable that they're stripped of hope and they just feel that they have to take their own lives. And sometimes they take not only their lives but the lives of loved ones as well.

There was a New York Times article in June of 2012, which said:

The suicide rate among the Nation's active duty military

personnel has spiked this year, eclipsing the number of

troops dying in battle and on pace to set a record annual

high since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more

than a decade ago.

There's almost one troop suicide per day. Women face additional difficulties and have a higher rate of attempted suicide. Being a victim of sexual assault, for example, is a known risk factor for suicide. The disincentives to simply reporting such an assault are many and strong, which means getting help is even harder.

The epidemic of veteran or active duty military suicides is not only a reason to increase funding for prevention of suicides, it's a reason to end the wars. It's one of the hundreds of reasons that are independently sufficient to end the wars. But until we end these wars, the very least we can do is to summon a good faith effort to do everything we can to prevent soldier suicides.

The amendment's offsets come from the Pentagon Channel.

I yield to the gentleman.

The short answer is yes.

Can I ask the chairman of the full committee if he would enter into a colloquy for this?

First of all, I want to acknowledge my friend from Washington for his commitment. This isn't the first time you and I have talked about this long commitment to address this suicide prevention.

I would ask the chairman of the full committee, would you be willing to support such an endeavor to plus-up the funds for suicide prevention in the conference?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have confidence in the good faith of the chairman and the ranking member. I know that you're both concerned about this, you've said so now, but I also know that you've demonstrated this at other times. So what I would ask is that we could work together to look at the amount that is in there programatically right now, find a way to plus it up so that we can make sure that the people on Active Duty and those that just left Active Duty know about programs, have access to programs, and have access to the kind of treatment that would be necessary to cut down the number of suicides.

In view of this colloquy, I will withdraw the amendment. Again, I thank both gentlemen.