Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment would realign 10 million from defense-wide accounts to support additional work within the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. The program was established in 1990 and is jointly planned and executed by the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies and industry.

The program improves DOD mission readiness and environmental performance by providing new scientific knowledge and cost-effective technologies in the areas of environmental restoration, munitions response, resource conservation, and weapons systems and platforms.

SERDP enhances military operations, improves military systems' effectiveness, enhances military training and readiness, sustains DOD's training and test ranges and installation infrastructure, and helps ensure the safety and welfare of military personnel and their dependents by eliminating or reducing the generation of pollution and use of hazardous materials and reducing the cost of remedial actions.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in very strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The decrease appears to be directed at funding provided in operation and maintenance defense-wide for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The operation and maintenance defense-wide account received a thorough review during the committee process

and has already been reduced by $258 million from the budget request.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense account has similarly been reduced by $36.4 million based on a detailed review of specific programs within this account. Adjustments have been made to duplicative efforts and to programs that were poorly justified.

Further reductions risk harm to operations in the defense-wide account such as special operations activities; education programs like the National Defense University and the Defense Acquisition University; and organizations that perform basic operational functions like finance and human resources.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Unfortunately, that is not the way the gentleman wrote his amendment; so I would stand with my provision which says further reductions risk harm to operations in the defense-wide account.

So if you take 10 percent out of the account, it is going to affect Special Operations activities; education programs like the National Defense University, Defense Acquisition University--and Lord knows, we need help in acquisition; and organizations that perform basic operational functions like finance and human resources. I stand by my statement.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Regrettably, I have to oppose this amendment. My good friend from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, is one of our most thoughtful Members and has been a leader on environmental issues. But in this case, we have already doubled the funding for this. I think this is unnecessary at this time. We have to constrain spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have followed this issue closely ever since the gulf war, and I feel that the gentleman has made a very compelling case. I think we should add this money, and the offset is acceptable. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Kucinich amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I would just point out that the committee has added $125 million this year and $454 million over the last several years, going back to when Mr. Murtha

and I were chairmen. So we completely concur that this is an important issue. The gentlelady has made a very compelling case. I rise in support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I appreciate the sincerity and the gentlelady's commitment to these programs. I have been a supporter of these programs over the years. Triple-negative breast cancer is a very, very aggressive and difficult type of cancer. As the Department goes through its work, peer-reviewed research, we will bring this up next year in our hearings and ask them what they're doing about this.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Army's environmental research program develops technologies that support the long-term sustainment of Army training and testing activities by improving the Army's ability to comply with the requirements of Federal, State, and local environmental and health laws and reducing the cost of this compliance.

The program develops technologies to decontaminate or neutralize Army unique hazardous and toxic waste at sites containing waste ammunition, explosives, heavy metals, propellants, chemical munitions, and other organic contaminants. This research concentrates on technology to avoid the potential for future hazardous waste problems by reducing hazardous waste generation through process modification and control, materials recycling, and substitution.

This program also supports military readiness by developing technologies to predict and mitigate range and maneuver constraints associated with current and emerging weapon systems, doctrine, and regulations. This program supports both DOD and environmental stewardship and military requirements. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

HIV poses a threat to military personnel in terms of readiness and force protection, and may affect the stability and security of many nation states.

American troops deployed to areas of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa and Asia face an increased risk of exposure to the HIV virus. Targeted research into prevention of infection, treatment, and cures is needed to reduce this threat to U.S. military personnel, protect U.S. military readiness, and decrease treatment costs for the Department of Defense health infrastructure.

The bill provides a total of $24 million above the request, including $8 million in the defense health program and $16 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, related to HIV/AIDS research. This funding will enhance efforts to prevent new HIV infections in the military, develop better tests and treatment options for military personnel and health care beneficiaries, and provide for a comprehensive program of research and development on preventive HIV vaccines. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Many environmental laws, regulations, and policies impose restrictions on Navy vessels, aircraft, and facilities that would impede Navy operations if not met. The Navy must be able to conduct its national security mission in compliance with applicable environmental requirements in the U.S. and abroad without compromising performance, safety, or health, while simultaneously minimizing the cost of compliance.

This program develops and evaluates processes, hardware, systems, and operational procedures which allow the Navy to operate in U.S., foreign, and international waters, air, space, and

land areas while complying with environmental laws, regulations, Executive orders, policies, and international agreements. Projects funded in this program support Navy compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and numerous others.

I come from an area where the Navy operates very effectively in the State of Washington, and these kinds of onboard waste disposal are absolutely critical; because when you serve on a nuclear submarine, you are out there for many, many days, and you have got to have things onboard ship as well to deal with these kinds of problems.

So I think this is in the best interests of the Navy, and I urge a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

NATO funding in this bill should not be curtailed because the U.S. and the NATO nations are one another's closest partners, and the NATO alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy dating back to its formation in 1949. While the alliance must evolve in light of changing world events, there is no other practical option to structure U.S. strategic and security cooperation with our European allies.

For all NATO nations, the alliance allows for security capabilities and a structure to control operations that the allies on their own could not afford to maintain. Active participation in NATO also allows the U.S. to pursue defenses against emerging threats, such as implementation of improved missile defense capabilities. To maintain its commitment to NATO, the U.S. must continue to contribute funding to NATO programs.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's not a fighter; it's a bomber.

It's a much different type of airplane.

First of all, I have to again correct the record here that the President of the United States, OMB and Defense Department requested $197 million.

Our committee held hearings with the Air Force and found, from a lot of dialogue with the three companies that are competing, that we might be able to accelerate this bomber replacement program if we could get an additional $100 million. So the President requested $197 million, and we added $100 million to that because we see that this program is vitally important.

Now, I led the fight many years ago in the House on the B-2 bomber, and my colleagues got very tired of listening to me on this. But we started with that program at 125 bombers, and we wound up with only 20. So we need another stealth bomber, which can reach around the world as we have seen the B-2 do just recently.

This is a very high priority of the Air Force. I mean, next to tankers, the replacement of the bomber and along with the Joint Strike Fighter, are going to be the top priorities for the Air Force. So this would be a catastrophic blow to terminate this program.

And though I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Vermont, I would say that I would stay with the committee, which unanimously supported this program, has always supported modernization of our strategic bombers and our strategic modernization of our submarines, which are two of the major issues that our committee is dealing with.

So, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

NATO funding in this bill should not be curtailed because the United States and the NATO nations are one another's closest partners, and the NATO alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy dating back to the formation in 1949 during the Truman administration. While the alliance must evolve in light of changing world events, there is no other practical option to structure U.S. strategic and security cooperation with our European allies.

For all NATO nations, the alliance allows for security capabilities and a structure to control operations that the allies on their own could not afford or maintain. Active participation in NATO also allows the U.S. to pursue defenses against emerging threats such as implementation of improved missile defense capabilities.

To maintain its commitment to NATO, the United States must continue its contribution to all aspects of the NATO program, including research and development activities.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I am so thrilled that the gentleman from Florida has an amendment that I can support. I join with you, and I urge everyone to support the gentleman's amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman explained to me that the $10 million would not be part of the government program, that this would give people with traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, an option to go to the private sector?

What about TRICARE, which is a private company?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We accept the amendment too.

This amendment would repeal section 8015 of the bill, which in various forms has been included in the bill for the past 14 years.

This section requires that, before work is contracted out, the Department of Defense must conduct a formal cost comparison to determine whether privatization would actually save money. The section also provides an exemption to ease contracting with businesses owned by disadvantaged persons, qualified nonprofit entities for disadvantaged persons, or businesses owned by Native Americans. In cases where outsourcing is appropriate, one of the fundamental reasons would be to lower government operating costs.

Requiring the DOD to actually conduct this analysis under the A-76 review is reasonable and should be included in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I must say we have done these A-76 reviews across the country, and many times we find that the government entity reorganizes itself and can actually do the work at a lesser cost than the private sector.

And the other problem with this whole thing is, once the private sector gets it, the costs go right through the roof.

So you need to have an analysis done after contracting out is done to make sure that you're not getting ripped off. So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

The gentlemen's amendment strikes section 8101 from the bill. This section provides that the Defense Department must certify compliance with a fiscal year 2008 law which requires DOD to provide an inventory of its service contracts, review those contracts, and then integrate those results into the budget process before using the OMB Circular A-76 privatization process. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

This provision is included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. It requires that DOD exercise responsible stewardship over its contractors by providing an inventory of such contractors, a review of associated contracts, and an explanation of how these contracts are integrated into the budget. The provision requires the Department of Defense to maintain better accountability of the thousands of contractors performing services for the Department every day, and therefore maintain better accountability of funds. Striking this section releases the Department from this responsibility.

And I must tell the gentleman from Texas, who is a good friend, that we had a terrific problem getting the Department of Defense to even be able to tell us how many contractors they have. We had this problem in Iraq, we had this problem in Afghanistan, and we are still struggling. Now they give us a quarterly report of how many contractors and how many contract employees there are.

I have always believed in the A-76 review process. In fact, I had an amendment probably 25 years ago that said after you do A-76, if you contract out to the private company--if they win the competition between the government unit and the private sector--that you have to keep on analyzing what has happened to the cost. And what we found was, as soon as the thing was contracted out, the prices started to go up until we had an auditing process that looked into it. That process was taken out I think in the nineties. So we didn't have this mechanism to ensure that we were getting the best deal. And there were problems associated with pensions. Could you compare government pensions with private sector pensions?

A lot of this was worked out. But the idea of not being accountable, not having these companies, not having the government, the Defense Department know how many service contractors it has and how much. And if we are going to reduce spending, we have got to know that. We have got to understand that. And I hope that we could continue to work on this problem, because the idea that Congress doesn't get the information that is necessary to know how many people we have contracted out to is, I think, ridiculous. And I think Congress has to insist that we get this information.

I yield, of course.

I think the A-76 process has been a worthy one. Sometimes the contractor wins, and sometimes the unit of government reorganizes itself, and they compete, and it comes out that the government wins. So I think the A-76 process has worked. I hate to see us get rid of that.

Now, the other thing is, I think the Department has to do a better job of accountability, of being able to report how many civilian employees, how many military employees, how many contractors.

That is what I am trying to get to. I think the idea that they can submit their budget but not be able to tell us how many contractors there are, how many contract employees there are, is just ridiculous.

Yes, I yield.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Young, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, and to Mr. Dicks, who is the ranking member, for their long years of service.

To my colleagues, good news today: the announcement came that the President of the United States would send the same sympathy letter to families of those soldiers who committed suicide in battle as of those who had fallen in different ways in battle. The reason that is good news is, in a sentence I am reminded of, the President and his office indicated that they did not want to stigmatize the mental health concerns of our soldiers.

I want to pay tribute to the Defense appropriations committee for its work on post-traumatic stress disorder and

to make note of our late friend, Congressman John Murtha, who worked with Houston on establishing a new post-traumatic stress disorder center. I am grateful for that because, as in all of our States, many of us are facing a large numbers of returning soldiers from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I ask for my amendment to be supported to increase research and development funding for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, which affects our men and women who serve selflessly and bravely in our Nation's armed services. My amendment would increase research and development funds for PTSD and TBI by $500,000. It will be offset by reducing general operations and maintenance and activities of the Department of Defense.

I believe this is critical in ensuring our country's military strength as we move toward the 21st century.

We obviously were aware of post-traumatic stress for those who follow the military in all of our wars. We've seen it every day by our Vietnam soldiers, those who came home without welcome. We see it in the numbers of homeless soldiers, many of them Vietnam vets.

Over the years, members of the military and veterans have seen a drastic increase in the number of cases of PTSD and TBI. PTSD cases in the military have risen from 1,614 total cases in 2000 to 88,719 total cases in 2010. Additionally, it is reported that 17 percent of all active duty soldiers, 25 percent of reserve soldiers, and 19 percent of Vietnam veterans suffer from PTSD. Traumatic brain injuries in the military have increased from 10,963 total cases in 2000 to 178,876 total cases in 2010.

We know that the kinds of explosives that are now used in war cause greater damage, or more damage, or damage of this kind to our soldiers. Also, in May of this year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Veterans Affairs' treatment of mentally ill veterans is so inadequate it is unconstitutional. We are grateful for the work that has been done, but this court said many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care. This is simply unacceptable. The courageous men and women of the Armed Forces brave IED attacks, injury, and horrific violence to protect the safety and security of the United States.

I was listening to a soldier on the television speak about his injuries and then he mentioned the fact that a soldier in front of him, his comrade, his friend, stepped on the IED, but the vast damage was to all of those who were around him. And so we know the collateral damage is as severe as it might be in any other form of mass war.

We see the loss of life, but we see the injuries remaining. We must in turn care for them, and when they return home we must make it a priority--as I know this committee has done--to increase the resources. Members of Congress may disagree when it comes to the level of commitment and resources of the United States to foreign wars and conflicts, however we must not allow these debates and discussions to cause us to fail to properly care for these brave soldiers when they return home or when they are injured. I believe in Congress and its wisdom, and I believe it is committed to taking care of our warriors.

As the members of the military return to their homes and their families, they come without the desire for glory or appreciation. But whenever you talk to a vet, they are looking to make sure that they have the care that they need. Increasing the amount of resources, however small this amendment offers, helps in finding ways to prevent and better treat post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI, and is the first step that Congress can add to the work that is already being done. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in areas that are outside of some of our largest centers are less likely to be diagnosed.

We should not wait. I believe we are of good mind and good will when it comes to our soldiers. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, today I rise to ask for support of my amendment to increase research and development funding for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, that affects our men and women who serve selflessly and bravely in our Nation's Armed Services. My amendment will increase research and development funds for PTSD and TBI by $500,000, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenances and activities of the Department of Defense. I believe this is critical to ensuring our country's military strength as we move forward into the 21st century.

Also in May of this year, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Veterans Affairs' treatment of mentally ill veterans is so inadequate, it is unconstitutional. The decision said, ``many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care.''

This is simply unacceptable.

The courageous men and women of the Armed Forces brave IEDs, attacks, injury, and horrific violence to protect the safety and security of the United States, and we must, in turn, care for them when they return home. We must make this a priority and increase the resources available to help prevent and treat PTSD and TBI.

Members of Congress may disagree when it comes to the level of commitment and resources of the United States to foreign wars and conflicts. However, we must not allow those debates and discussions to cause us to fail to properly care for these brave soldiers when they return home or when they are injured. Congress must separate the war from the warrior, and Congress should never fail to care for our warriors.

As the members of the military return to their homes and their families, they do not come home seeking glory or appreciation, but no soldier should have to come home to inadequate treatment or care for the injuries they sustained protecting the freedom of all Americans.

Increasing the amount of resources specializing finding ways to prevent and better treat post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI is the first step Congress can take to providing veterans with the services they need. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.

America shouldn't wait until soldiers with these injuries are discharged to begin treatment. The Department of Defense needs to spend more resources on how to detect and treat PTSD and TBI earlier.

These soldiers need to be certain that Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a successful one. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment to ensure no solider is left behind.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to take a moment, since I have just followed my amendment, to thank Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks for seeing an expanded category of individuals suffering from PTSD and accepting my amendment and working with us. I want to thank Dr. Broun for his service and for his direct view of what happens to great Americans, soldiers who have sacrificed and they cannot function because of PTSD. So I am grateful for that.

And the reason why I say that, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, is because many people don't realize the work that the Defense Appropriations and the Pentagon does on a number of health issues. One of them happens to be cancer. I have heard in coffee clutches or around dinner tables that cancer is an epidemic. It seems appropriate for the Defense Department, which has been at the cutting edge of technology over the years, such as the Internet--can be in the lead.

So I intend to offer an amendment that I would like to discuss with Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks, but I intend to withdraw. But it is very important. This amendment would increase funding under title 6, Defense Health Programs, by $500,000 in order to fund research related to triple negative breast cancer, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenance and activities at the Department of Defense.

I am hoping my colleagues will work with me on this, and I hope they will be reminded of a young woman by the name of Yolanda Evette Williams, who was an outstanding medical professional who fought against this triple-negative strain of cancer and left behind a husband, a mother, and two children. It is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

I offer this amendment to increase funding for research, not to take away moneys from others, but I would certainly like to, out of this discussion, have this kind of cancer looked upon as we are doing our research to develop a targeted treatment for the triple-negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods such as hormone- and gene-based strains have higher survival rates than the triple-negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Just to say a word about Yolanda, she was a dedicated member of the Good Hope Baptist Church. She was a graduate of Texas Southern University. She received a number of degrees. She was a member of the Jack and Jill. Her mother was a medical professional, Dr. Lois Moore. She was a chief clinical officer for the Atrium Medical Center Hospital in Stafford, Texas, having a long history, even though she was very young, of her commitment as a nurse to medical care. This young woman did not have a chance because of this enormous strain that does not have a high survival rate. It is treatment, is hormone- and gene-based strains, and it has, as I said, a difficult time of survival.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I appreciate it.

Let me just say, breast cancer accounts for one in four cancer diagnoses among women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and another 6,000 will die. This impacts all women, of all backgrounds, and my interest is to make sure that every subset has a seat at the table, Chairman Young, so that no matter what ethnic background you come from, you will not, in essence, suffer the opportunity for full research.

My amendment was $500,000. It is in tribute to the honor and the leadership and the life of Yolanda Williams. I would like to ask my colleagues here on the Appropriations Committee to allow me to engage with you and to possibly modify, as we go forward, language to just say that this money will be available for difficult strains of cancer so that her life will be honored and that we would be able to move forward.

In conclusion, I would indicate that I had the privilege and honor of paying tribute to Ms. Williams at her home-going service. I want to offer to her family again, her husband, her children, her mother and all her family members, my deepest sympathy for this valiant American woman. With that, I know that we will work together.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #67 to H.R. 2219, the ``FY2012 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.'' My amendment would increase funding under Title VI Defense Health Programs by $500,000 in order to fund research related to triple negative breast cancer, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenances and activities of the Department of Defense.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' I offer this amendment to increase funding for research in order to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.

Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39 percent higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups. African American women are also 12 percent less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer. More than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

Mr. Chairman, last month, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was only 44 years old.

This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston, Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple negative strain.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2219, the Defense Department Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012, represents $530 billion in regular discretionary spending, $8.9 billion below the President's request, but $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.

Before going further into my remarks, I would like to thank my friend and fellow Floridian for yielding time to me, and I extend a personal thanks to him and his family, and particularly his three sons that are serving in the Army. I don't have three sons, but I had three uncles who served in the Army in another era, in the Second World War. And as I was proud of them, I am also proud of Mr. Nugent's sons and the many families and servicemen and -women in our military.

From pay raises for military operations, this legislation offers a basically reasonable and comprehensive approach to our Nation's defense activities.

Yet I'm deeply concerned by really the staggering amounts of money this country continues to devote to the military. At a time of fiscal austerity when the majority is slashing tens of billions of dollars from essential social programs, it's, in my view, absurd that we continue to exempt the Department

of Defense from the same scrutiny that we apply to our domestic programs. For all of the rhetoric that I have heard through the years from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about runaway spending, the fact of the matter is that Republicans actually increased spending in this bill. While they insist that more families must go hungry, fewer students need to go to college, fewer firefighters and teachers need to work in our cities, and fewer jobs need to be created, the Republican majority believes that $649 billion still isn't quite enough.

The United States accounts for 43 percent of all military spending on Earth. We already outspend Russia and China, the next biggest spenders, by a factor of six. We tell teachers they can't get classroom supplies, but we don't tell admirals that they can't have more submarines. We tell mayors that they can't have more cops, but we don't tell generals that they can't have more ballistic missiles. And we tell Americans that they can't get their roads fixed or their levies strengthened, but here we are funding a next generation of nuclear weapons, not to mention that we already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody on Earth 25 times over.

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that our priorities are askew and our spending on defense is unsustainable. Let me give you an example:

The Republican majority recently cut one-third, or proposed cutting one-third of the budget--almost $500 million--from the Food for Peace program. Over the course of almost 50 years, this program has delivered lifesaving food supplies to over 3 billion people. As John F. Kennedy correctly noted when he was running for President, ``food is peace.'' Yet these cuts mean that millions of people in vulnerable and underdeveloped regions of the world will not receive food aid from the United States.

The Arab Spring uprisings that arose in Tunisia were largely because of the concerns for food, and that is true elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. And this particular year should be a reminder that conflict erupts when people go without their most basic needs, including food.

At the same time when people see that the food they receive is coming from the United States--and I've had the good fortune of visiting around the world, having served over a period of time, 8 years over a period of 10 years on the Intelligence Committee here in Congress and having served previous to that on the Foreign Affairs Committee and now serving on the Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have had an opportunity to see firsthand in Germany countless amounts of food stamped with ``USA'' on them, and I've seen them in camps, and I suffer with the people now in southern Sudan. My colleague, Donald Payne, and a former colleague, Harry Johnston from West Palm Beach, were together at a refugee camp in Nemili and previous to that in Mombasa, Kenya. I've seen our food aid around the world reduce the kind of anti-American extremism that often festers in these regions and manifests itself into conflicts that we wind up having to go and fight about.

So the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that food aid is actually critical to our national security. And the spending that we do to preempt or prevent conflicts means the less money that we have to spend later fighting them.

We're doing a disservice to our servicemen and -women by cutting programs that reduce the risk of war while adding billions to programs that create ever-more powerful methods to wage war. At the same time, we need to recognize that the increasing amounts we spend on the military means the less money we have here at home to address our pressing domestic concerns.

All of us heard the President of the United States last night speak to this issue, that while it may appear and might readily be perceived as nation building that we are doing in some countries, it is time for us, as the President said, to begin domestic building.

When I went to Iraq a few years ago, they showed us the remains of a water treatment plant. We spent 14 million U.S. dollars building that plant, and just as soon as it was finished, somebody came and blew it up. Mr. Speaker, I see us building water treatment plants in Basra and in Baghdad, in Kandahar and Kabul. But I don't see us building much- needed water treatment plants in the cities of the Glades that I represent--Belle Glade, Pahokee, and Clewiston--as well as others, Deerfield Beach, and Miramar, my hometown, I've had requests for water treatment matters, as well as Riviera Beach. Every year cities and counties in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve come begging and asking for money to support infrastructure projects that no one is likely to blow up, and yet we don't fund them.

I don't say that we shouldn't help the Iraqi or the Afghan people develop their country, but I do say that we ought to be mindful that in our own country we have bridges collapsing, dams breaking, levies failing, roads crumbling, and water utilities leaking away. We simply cannot justify to the American people our willingness to spend tens of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan while neglecting those same efforts here at home.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this measure contains several billion dollars in aid to Pakistan. As I have said before, you can't readily say the word ``Afghanistan'' without also saying the word ``Pakistan.'' To the extent that we are involved in Afghanistan, we also are involved in Pakistan. But we send billions of dollars to Pakistan only to see large sums of that money being used against American interests, funding the very same extremist groups that we are trying to eliminate.

A recent article in the New Yorker magazine noted that the Pakistani military submits expense claims every month to the United States Embassy in Islamabad. No receipts are provided and none are even requested. We're sending money out the door into one of the most conflict-ridden regions of the world without so much as an understanding of where that money is going, what exactly it is being used for, who in Pakistan is giving it to whom, and why someone is receiving it. We know that the Pakistani military and intelligence community support some of the extremist groups that are engaged against United States interests and which have committed acts of terrorism against civilians.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I come around to the point that we spend absolutely too much money on military and defense matters that we do not give half the same attention to debating as we do about cutting nutrition support, as is proposed for women, infants and children or financial aid to college students.

When Belle Glade, Florida, in the congressional district that I serve, comes looking for less than $1 million to fix their infrastructure and provide jobs for their local residents, the Republican majority has a whole long list of reasons of why we can't afford it. And yet, before us today, I see $5 billion for two submarines, $2 billion for one destroyer, and $6 billion for 32 fighter jets.

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that our level of defense spending is on an unsustainable course. And at a time when we are demanding that the American people do more with much, much less, we also have to make choices and set priorities when it comes to our Nation's military spending.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an icon in this Nation and a passionate person on the subject at hand.

Thank you, Mr. Nugent. Again, I appreciate your complimentary remarks regarding mine, and I compliment you with regard to yours. I don't think we have a single bit of daylight between us when it comes to the support of the men and women that are in the military.

I do quarrel with, across the 14th Street bridge, the amount of money that we spend at the Pentagon. I have personally seen generals serving generals. And somewhere along the line, that just does not add up to frugality.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us provides a comprehensive accounting of our Nation's military activities and includes much deserved pay raises for our troops, critical funding for health programs, and disease research.

Let's make it very clear. The only thing that we could afford was a less than 2 percent raise for our troops. And I personally, and I believe Chairman Young of the subcommittee and the distinguished Floridian who has served on this committee for a protracted period of time and has no peer when it comes to support of the military--he did have one peer that I know extremely well, and he does as well, and that's Ike Skelton, who was not reelected.

We miss Ike and the extraordinary service that he put forward on behalf of this country, first as a soldier and then as a Congressperson.

We can come up with the necessary expenditures to keep our military well-equipped, well-trained, and superior to any other force, but at the same time we need to devote greater attention to the use of these precious resources. I wish that the Republican majority would have devoted as much concern for the non-defense portion of our budget as they do to the vast level of spending contained in this measure. We need to appreciate that spending money on conflict prevention, as my friend Mr. Lewis pointed out, is far, far cheaper in the long run than spending money on conflict engagement.

We cut social services programs here at home and around the world at our own peril. For when people lack food, lack resources, lack dignity, lack a future and lack hope, their nations will much more easily succumb to the kind of extremism, violence, and instability that we are spending billions fighting.

I have no quarrel with providing the necessary funding to support our servicemen and -women or to carry out their missions. Our Nation needs a lean and powerful and effective military. And we owe a debt of gratitude--as has been expressed and likely will be continuously throughout this appropriations process--to the members of the military and their families for the sacrifices they make and the devotion to duty they demonstrate. When they are sent on difficult missions overseas, it's our duty to see that they have our full and complete support.

But we also have great needs in this country, and we cannot continue to slash funding for essential programs here at home in favor of ever- increasing funding for wars abroad. We cannot continue spending money overseas that will go to waste when water treatment plants get blown up. We can't continue funding dubious efforts in regions where our money trickles down to the very extremists it is supposed to be defeating. And we cannot keep increasing our military budget year after year while devastating essential programs are left by the wayside here at home.

I do have one concern about this rule, and that is the new section that was added to this rule at the last minute that set forth restrictions on the amendment process.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may utilize.

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It has, once again, been an honor to work with my friend from Florida, Chairman Bill Young, to prepare the Defense appropriations bill for FY 2012. In the longstanding tradition of this committee, the bill has been prepared on a bipartisan basis, and I support the bill. I know that Chairman Rogers will be glad to hear that.

I am happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to support our troops both at home and in the field. It also makes the investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully equip our troops and maintain our Nation's technological edge.

Within the funds provided, and after careful review, the committee exercised its constitutional responsibility

to allocate resources to those programs that best support the requirements of our military forces.

In writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. The allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request. While this is $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011-enacted level, much of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and maintenance, and the Defense Health Program accounts.

The bill also provides the funds needed to support U.S. service personnel. Examples of this include the military pay accounts fund at a 1.6 percent raise, consistent with the budget request and the level included in the House-passed fiscal year 2012 armed services authorization bill.

The bill also provides $32.3 billion for the Defense Health Program, including $125 million above the request to continue the committee's longstanding efforts to improve research and treatment of traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions. The bill also includes funding increases for several research efforts including peer- reviewed breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer research.

The bill fully funds $2.3 billion requested for family programs and adds funding for several initiatives including $250 million to replace schools owned by local education authorities and $40 million for Impact Aid.

The bill addresses many of DOD's most pressing investment needs. It funds 10 ships, as requested in the budget, and 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. I would like to have seen more Strike Fighter aircraft because I believe they're doing a much better job on this program. Last year it was in some trouble. This year Admiral Venlet has said repeatedly that they're, in fact, ahead of the training schedule. So I think this is very good news.

The bill also adds funding to fill gaps in DOD capabilities. Some examples include the M1A2 System Enhancement Package: $272 million is included to prevent a break in production of tanks. And this is something that our committee agreed with on an overwhelming basis, that shutting down the tank line in Ohio would be a terrible mistake because we'd lose the skilled workers and then we're going to reopen this tank line in 2 or 3 years, and it would just be a waste of money. So we bridged that gap.

HMMWV Force Protection: $50 million is added to develop and test and improve armor and other blast protection technologies on the HMMWV.

Long Range Strike: $100 million is added to reduce technical risk and schedule risks for this program. We're moving ahead on a replacement for the Trident submarine. The C-17 replacement is included to replace the operational loss of a C-17 aircraft. The committee has steadfastly replaced--when there have been operational losses, we've replaced the equipment. This is another example.

Special Operation Command shortfalls: this is one thing we had in our bill in 2011, and this year an increase of $250 million is added to address unfunded requirements identified by the Special Operations Command.

National Guard and Reserve equipment: $1.5 billion is included to fund equipment shortfalls in National Guard and Reserve equipment.

Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance: $50 million is included above the request to continue to fill gaps in DOD ISR equipment.

Israeli missile defense programs: $130 million is added to enhance Israeli missile defense programs including the Arrow missile defense system.

Small business innovative research: $50 million is included to continue the committee's efforts for SBIR Phase III transition.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $20 million is added to continue defense research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Energy efficiency improvements: the bill includes $82 million above the request to field equipment that will reduce the energy footprint of deployed Marine Corps units. The bill also includes $10 million above the request for pilot programs to improve DOD energy efficiency.

The bill provides $118.7 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for continuing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The bill ensures that troops have essential force protection and provides the means for the Afghans to provide their own security. The bill includes $12.8 billion to train Afghanistan's National Security Forces.

While the bill provides essential support for our troops, I remain concerned about our Nation's direction in Pakistan and ongoing operations in Afghanistan. There is cause to question the reliability of our partnership with both countries. In the light of recent events, we must reassess the extent of U.S. military involvement and the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world, reexamining whether U.S. national security requires a continued deployment of over 100,000 U.S. service personnel.

I welcome President Obama's decision to start the withdrawals, and I also urge a ceasefire and a political settlement. After a careful review of the security situation, I believe it is time to significantly accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

To accomplish this objective responsibly will take some care. By necessity, a political solution in Afghanistan will involve negotiations with Taliban representatives. It will also demand taking into account the interests of surrounding nations to ensure that those neighbors do not fight with one another along sectarian or tribal divides within Afghanistan.

Finally, we must guard against creating a vacuum similar to the one that occurred at the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Even with these cautions in mind, I believe it is time to begin the process of bringing the level of deployed U.S. troops in line with a new assessment of our security interests in the region.

I look forward to hearing from General Petraeus and General Odierno. We worked with them on the surge in Iraq, which turned out to be very successful. The military has done a very good job in Helmand and Kandahar and has dominated the Taliban in recent times, which is very positive.

We still have a problem on the eastern front between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we need to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda, though the capture and death of Osama bin Laden was something that all the troops that have served here since 2001 should take satisfaction in, the person who led the effort against the United States in one of the most horrific acts and one of the most economic destabilizing acts that has ever occurred to our country.

While I have concerns about our Nation's policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I strongly support this bill. It's a bipartisan bill, and it provides the resources needed by our troops. I urge your support for the bill.

I also want to thank the staff. I know Chairman Young will join me in this. We have a tremendous staff that works together. They worked together when I was chairman. They're working together now that Chairman Young has--he had been chairman before and has now regained his chairmanship. And the staff has done an extraordinary job. It's a major piece of work to put together a $530 billion bill and know all these programs, and I commend them for their good work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is a former member of the Defense Subcommittee and now is the ranking Democrat on the Military Construction-VA Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee and someone who is a very dynamic leader on our committee and that I enjoy working with.

I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to again thank the chairman for his great work and the work of the staff.

The President did lay out the rationale for why we got involved in Libya. He said that we were there to help protect the Libyan people. There were two resolutions adopted by the United Nations. And it wasn't just the United Nations. You had the Arab League and NATO involved in this. And, yes, I think the President would have been better advised to have asked for authorization, but this was a situation where the Libyan people were going to be slaughtered and the President felt that he had to act.

Some of us just got back from a trip. We saw the men and women who handle the equipment, who fly in there, do the jamming, all the different things that are done. They have done a phenomenal job. And now the President has turned the leadership of this over to NATO and they are taking the lead, though the gentleman from New Jersey is quite correct; they cannot do all these things without tankers, without other things, some of the special intelligence and reconnaissance that we have that just isn't out there for anybody else.

So I hope that tomorrow's debate will be on the merits. Let's look at this thing; let's talk about it. I think this will be a worthwhile discussion. But remember, there was going to be a no-fly zone, an embargo. We were going to protect the people. I think the President laid out exactly what this was about.

We have to look at this in terms of Egypt and the other countries in the area. Thousands and thousands of people are fleeing from Libya, and this is going to cause a major problem in the countries that surround Libya.

Ronald Reagan attacked Libya. I think he called Qadhafi a ``mad dog,'' and I don't remember him coming to Congress before he let the bombers go in there and attack him.

So I am one who is very restrained at the use of force, but in this case I think the President had to act, and he had the United Nations, the Arab League, NATO, he had the French and the British demanding action.

I think we have to look at the result here, too. I think right now the rebels have a very good chance of succeeding, and I hope they can do it in a timely way. We would all like to see this over as quickly as possible. But remember Kosovo. That took a significant amount of time before that worked out. There were a lot of critics, a lot of critics of President Clinton when he did that, but in the end it turned out very well for everyone. In Libya, I think Qadhafi should be replaced. I wish we were more candid about that, and the President has said that.

So I hope we look at this fairly and realize the damage that would be done to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if the United States all of a sudden pulled all of its forces out of this. They would not be able to continue. This would be a worldwide embarrassment to the United States of America, to our great country and to our military.

I think we have to look at all of the ramifications of this issue. This is a serious matter and should not be politicized. Senator Jackson from my State used to say, when it comes to national defense, the best politics is no politics. Call it on the merits and do it in the best interests of our country and in the best interests of people serving our military.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would offer $10 million to restore a cut that the committee had already made in the operation and maintenance, defense-wide account. Actually, the Defense Department offered this up when we were looking to achieve $9 billion in savings to reach our allocation. This is one of the areas where the Defense Department indicated that there was no problem with taking a cut. You will hear me discussing this throughout the day and evening as long as we're dealing with this bill.

We had to come up with $9 billion in reductions from the President's request. This is a part of where we found the $9 billion. And since the Department did not have any objection to this, in fact, offered this up as a possible way of helping with the savings, I must oppose this amendment and ask that the Members do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I do so reluctantly because I know my good friend is very sincere about this. However, Mr. Dicks has spoken the position established by the subcommittee very well, and I endorse the comments that Mr. Dicks made and rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment would redistribute $15 million of Army operation and maintenance account funding in order to finance the Energy Security and Technical Certification program. The program is not authorized. It was added by the House Armed Services Committee, but the defense authorization bill is not law. This program currently is not authorized; and because of that, the amendment had to be written in such a way, as just a straight increase or decrease, without actually mentioning the actual program, to avoid being out of order.

Further, the Army operation and maintenance account is funded at over $34.5 billion. Should this project remain in the final authorization bill and the Department concurs that it is a high enough priority, then there are more than enough funds for the Department to execute the program.

Unfortunately, however, I don't have the ability to make that determination for the Department on the floor. And because of these and other objections, I must oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Gulf War Illness Program is an important medical research area, the program to which Mr. Kucinich speaks; but this bill already contains $6.4 million for the program. In addition, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill has already included an additional $15 million for the program.

The committee has been extremely careful to guarantee that medical research programs are funded at the level at which they can be adequately dealt with as far as the medical researchers are concerned. But in the days of having to reduce our budget by $9 billion, we believe that we have already adequately funded this program at $6.4 million, in addition to the $15 million added by the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Therefore, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that this is a tremendously important issue. Traumatic brain injury is something that we don't even know what the needs are going to be in the future.

Our warriors are coming home wounded, yet full of high spirit, morale, and wishing to go back to the fight if they were medically able. Some of our warriors today don't even know that they have or will be exposed to having traumatic brain injury in the future. It is something we just don't know the answer to.

We also know that the medical professionals tell us that they cannot use money just to spend it, but they have to use it effectively, and they have to use it where it has produced results. In view of this, I think it is important to guarantee that we have an adequate source of funding for this medical research and the treatment of these wounded warriors who suffer with this affliction. And so in view of that, I rise in support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the Army budget documents submitted to the committee during our lengthy hearing process--and they were lengthy--stated that funding in the request for this purpose is to support the long-term sustainment of Army training and testing activities by improving the Army's ability to comply with requirements mandated by Federal, State, and local environmental laws.

In other words, what we're dealing with here is an issue that the military is mandated to comply with by existing law.

We have already--and I said this before, and I'm going to say it again probably numerous times today--we have already reduced the President's budget request for the defense bill for fiscal year 2012 by $9 billion. It wasn't easy. We made a lot of cuts, and I just don't think that we should take this cut. And so I object and I oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, which would eliminate all of the funds for the Army's military HIV research program.

Since 1986, the military has recognized the HIV epidemic as a threat to U.S. and allied forces worldwide, and this program has evolved to become an important international partner in efforts to combat this disease. With over 33 million infections worldwide, HIV poses a significant threat to our own military who are serving our Nation throughout the world.

Additionally, HIV has been identified as a national security priority in the President's national security strategy since 2002.

Previous funding for the Military HIV Research Program has helped ensure a safe blood supply for our warfighters. More recently, funding has supported the first vaccine clinical trial, which showed a reduction in the risk of HIV infections to humans.

This funding for the Military HIV Research Program will continue to support the development of an HIV vaccine, ensure accurate HIV testing for the Army, track the prevalence of HIV in the military population, and assess the risk of HIV exposure to U.S. and allied forces deployed overseas.

This amendment would eliminate all $22.8 million of funds for this very important Army program, and so I must oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

NATO has been a very, very important part of keeping peace in the world. Are there some changes that might be necessary in NATO as we see the world unfold and the world develop differently? Maybe so. But it should not be done in a hit-or-miss, helter-skelter way.

Mr. Dicks and I, as the leaders of the Defense Appropriations Committee, have already had several lengthy meetings on this subject. And we have agreed that following the completion of this fiscal year's Defense appropriations bill, we plan to hold hearings and look thoroughly into what we see as the role of NATO today, tomorrow, and next year. But in the meantime, it's important that we don't do any serious damage to NATO, which is probably one of the most effective international organizations at maintaining peace that we have in the world. So I must object to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

I have suggested so many times that I would not do anything, produce any bill or support any bill, that negatively affects our soldiers or that negatively our affects readiness.

Well, this bomber is a long time from production because it takes time to develop a new bomber due to the nature of that vehicle. But by the time it gets online, we are going to need the new bomber because the old bombers are going to be old.

Now, without going into all the details that Mr. Dicks did, and he did a very good job of explaining in detail why this new bomber is needed, just let me relate a story that happened to me as a freshman and a member of the Armed Services Committee after a lengthy hearing with the United States Marine Corps.

This very, very distinguished, very powerful-looking marine came to me after the hearing and he said, listen, son--he called me son back in those days--he said, listen, son, we marines will go anywhere to fight any war our country sends us to. We will fight on the beach, we will fight on the sea, we will fight in the hills, we will fight in the jungle. Just promise me that as a Member of Congress you will do everything in your power to make sure that any airplane that flies over the battlefield is an American airplane. You can certainly understand why the troops on the battlefield would want that to be the case, why he would want that bomber flying overhead to be an American, why he would want that fighter flying overhead to be an American, why he would want that strike fighter flying over the battlefield to be an American. It just makes good common sense that if you are going to send troops to war, make sure that the aircraft that fly over the battlefield belong to us and not to the enemy.

And, having said that, I again say I strongly oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations 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.'' This amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I do so to make this announcement: that there are a number of points of order lying on amendments that we will be considering shortly. It will be my hope that we can reserve the point of order so that the Member propounding the amendment can also have their 5 minutes to explain the amendment. As long as that courtesy is not abused, I will continue to allow that, but if it does appear to be abused, then we will raise the point of order immediately.

I yield back the balance of my time.