Right Start Child Care and Education Act of 2011

Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I support the manager's amendment. I'm going to speak the balance of my time on the Smith-Amash amendment coming up later. There has been a great deal of distorted information going out. I want to take this opportunity to correct some of it.

First of all, the Gohmert amendment that's being offered does not solve the problem; you will still be subject to military custody and indefinite detention. It is not clear on that point; it leaves open the possibility the President will maintain that authority, and that is what this debate should be all about.

The President, right now, has the authority to go outside of the normal due process, constitutionally protected rights that are part of a court trial, and lock somebody up indefinitely or place them in military custody here in the U.S. That is an extraordinary amount of power to give the executive branch over individual freedom and liberty. I don't think it is necessary to keep us safe. Ten years of successfully prosecuting, convicting, and locking up terrorists under Article III courts has proven that point.

But hands down, the dumbest set of arguments I've ever heard in debating has been circulating that somehow taking away this extraordinary power from the President rewards terrorists. I would like to remind everybody--and particularly Tea Party conservatives--that just because the government arrests you doesn't mean you're guilty. Under their thinking, basically, once the government says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and we shouldn't have a trial about it. So any effort to make sure that there's a process, to make sure that you actually are a terrorist becomes rewarding them. No; it's the process to make sure they are actually guilty. I cannot believe that Tea Party conservatives want to create a situation where when the government says you're guilty of a crime, that's it--no trial, no process, let's just lock you up and forget about it. That's why we have a court system.

Let's have the real debate here. Does the President need this authority to keep us safe? I don't believe he does. Let's stop these ridiculous arguments about rewarding terrorists and have some respect for the Constitution and due process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Just to respond to the arguments of the gentleman from Texas, if an al Qaeda terrorist comes to the U.S., whether they're an illegal alien or not, frankly, we want them arrested, tried, and convicted. All we want to do is make sure that they actually are a terrorist before we do that, to have a process in place so that the President doesn't have that power to simply lock somebody up without due process and a trial.

And then the argument about how we are bestowing upon illegal aliens constitutional rights. I've got bad news for the gentleman from Texas. We aren't bestowing anything. The United States Constitution bestows upon them those rights.

The United States Constitution says any person in the U.S., not citizen, not legal, illegal, it doesn't matter. So if he has a beef, he has a beef with James Madison and everybody else who supported the Constitution.

And we hear constantly from that side, strict interpretation, the Constitution must be adhered to. The Constitution says any person, not any lawful resident or any citizen. The United States Constitution clearly triggers that. We're not creating anything. In fact, the Gohmert amendment goes outside the Constitution by creating rights that aren't contemplated in here, separating people in this country in terms of who should get what rights. It's in the Constitution: any person.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just point out that Mirandized or not, nobody has to speak, and a ton of information has come out of people after they were Mirandized.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on the amendment by Mr. Turner that addresses safety at defense nuclear facilities, that is considered in this en-block package.

Much reckless damage has been done in this bill that weakens safety for workers at defense nuclear facilities and for the public.

Among other changes, this hill blocks independent oversight by the Department of Energy and weakens the capacity of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This oversight is critical to keeping people safe, and we should not be cutting corners on safety.

These changes have profound implications and risk imperiling the safety and lives of worker and the public.

It also transfers responsibility for safety to the National Nuclear Security Administrator and to contractors, at a time when NNSA's undivided attention should be focused on maintaining a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent and on the pressing need to make much-needed progress on nuclear nonproliferation to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.

For these reasons, Mr. Miller, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Waxman and I submitted two amendments to undo some of the damage that is done in this bill, and that would have preserved strong safety standards and independent oversight.

My amendment would have restored the authority of the Secretary of Energy over the nuclear weapons complex and nonproliferation programs, whose control has been improperly severed without justification in this bill.

However, the Rules Committee did not make these amendments in order, and so regrettably we are prevented from having this important debate on an issue that affects thousands of Americans who work or live near defense nuclear sites.

Going forward, I will work with the Senate in conference to reverse many of these changes, to improve the outcome in our final bill.

Specifically with regard to the amendment by Mr. Turner in this package, it makes several important improvements but does not go far enough and fail to fix significant problems in the bill.

(1) This amendment does not specifically prohibit a reduction in the safety standards, both nuclear and non-nuclear, compared to the standards we have today for defense nuclear facilities. Nonnuclear safety standards, such as fire protection, quality assurance, chemical, are also important to the safety of defense nuclear facilities.

(2) This amendment reaffirms that the decision on safety standards should be made by the Administrator for Nuclear Security, rather than by the Secretary of Energy and the Dept of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security, which would provide independent oversight of NNSA and the nuclear weapons complex health and safety and security operations.

(3) The core concept of risk and cost-benefit should not be an element of adequate protection. Inserting cost requirements muddles the requirements for safety. At this time, cost is not an element of adequate protection for commercial nuclear power or for DOE's defense nuclear facilities. It also forces the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to pre-

judge NNSA's action and decisions in responding to safety concerns, rather than allowing the Board to focus on identifying and raising safety concerns.

(4) This requirement places obstacles in the Board's path and will make it more difficult to ensure adequate protection of public and worker safety.

(5) These provisions would allow inconsistent safety standards.

I am deeply concerned about these changes and hope to work with my colleagues to remedy the measures that unnecessarily put workers and the public at risk.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I think the gentleman raises a very legitimate point that the exercise of strikes against terrorist targets does need a proper oversight. There are a number of ways in which I think we can have greater transparency in those decisions, frankly, whether they're signature strikes or against individuals.

The bottom line is al Qaeda declared war against us in 1996. They are actively prosecuting that war against us from a number of different locations, many of which we don't have as much information as we would like, but clearly in federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, they are organizing training camps and they are actively pursuing us. Our Joint Special Operations Command is trying to keep track of those networks and keep them from attacking us.

The ability to hit those training camps is an important part of protecting us from terrorist attacks. As General McChrystal said: It takes a network to beat a network. We need our network to have the ability to stop Al Qaeda's network. They declared war against us. They haven't changed their mind. It is still something that we need to be able to adequately protect this country against. This amendment unduly restricts our military's ability to protect this country.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

We are not ignoring any of that. All of those issues are things we discussed in the Armed Services Committee, are very much aware of and very concerned about. But the bottom line is, as my colleagues have pointed out, regrettably, Pakistan is in a part of the world where we have national security interests.

Pakistan has, at various times, provided critical support to allow us to get the supplies we need to our troops in Afghanistan. They have also assisted us in going after various terrorist groups inside of Pakistan. That help has been maybe 2 percent of what we would like it to be, but that 2 percent, regrettably, is help we cannot turn away.

It is a very problematic relationship. I think the gentleman who offered this amendment described that quite well. But we cannot afford to simply cut it off because of how important that region is to our national security interests. His amendment would do that. And it is bad policy for this country, bad policy for our troops, and bad policy for our national security interests. Therefore, I would urge us to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as well.

As was discussed earlier, we certainly have problems with our relationship with Pakistan. We want to make sure that we continue to put the pressure on them to improve that relationship. Opening up these supply lines are critical to our troops. I think it is a minimum requirement that we should ask, and the gentleman's amendment is very well thought out. It is the appropriate response for dealing with our difficult ally.

As Mr. Rohrabacher mentioned earlier, certainly there is much that Pakistan does that causes us trouble. But they are a country that we need to work with if we're going to properly contain the al Qaeda and terrorist threat that comes from that region of the world. I think the gentleman from Virginia's amendment strikes that balance just right, and I urge this body to support it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do not oppose military commissions. I think military commissions are an important tool, particularly when you are talking about people who are captured overseas, potentially in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia. I agree with the gentleman in that there are instances when the evidence necessary requires a military commission.

Yet the problem with this amendment is it says it has to be a military commission, that Article III courts are never an option. We have an extensive history of capturing terrorists overseas, of bringing them back to the United States, of trying them in Article III courts, and of convicting them and putting them in prison. We've done that a number of different times, and it is an option that should be on the table. I cannot support taking that option completely away under any circumstances, because there are a couple of problems with military commissions.

They are necessary for many of the reasons that Mr. Rooney stated. However, they are also relatively new. We had some military commissions during World War II--I believe just one for a particular group of German spies who were here in the U.S. We've done a couple since then, but they are untested, and there will undoubtedly be appeals.

The beauty of the Article III courts is you have 230 years of history. My math may be off a little bit there, but you have over 200 years of history. Let's put it that way. It's well developed, and you know what's coming, and you can prepare the evidence accordingly. We don't know what's going to come from a military commission.

The second problem with the military commissions is that our overseas allies are not as fond of them as we are, and it may inhibit our ability to get them to turn terrorists over to us for prosecution if they know they have to go to military commissions.

This amendment doesn't make any sense. To take Article III courts completely off the table is taking an option away from the President and from this country to properly protect us. There are going to be instances when we are going to want to use that tool and other instances when we will want to use the military commissions, and this amendment takes away that option in a way that, I believe, will hamper national security. It will limit our options for how to prosecute terrorists.

I will say this again, and I will emphasize this: we seem to have totally lost track of the fact that the Department of Justice, the FBI, our Article III courts have been one of the most important tools in successfully stopping the terrorists--over 400 tried, convicted, and locked up for life. That is a very effective tool. The FBI knows how to investigate crimes. It knows how to interrogate suspects. It can do the job.

Why would we take that tool in our toolbox and throw it away? It doesn't make sense. For that reason, I have to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rooney has the right to close; is that correct?

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Three quick points. I think the difference here and the reason that I drafted my amendment to say ``just in the U.S.,'' I think is a legitimate point. Overseas we do not have the same control over the investigatory process that we have here domestically. There's a clear difference between dealing with someone here domestically. That's why in the last 10 years we haven't done anything other than try people here in the U.S. under Article III courts. We haven't needed military commissions. That's why I think we should take that power away from the President because it's an extraordinary amount of power to give him that isn't necessary.

Overseas they are, in fact, taking away the options in this amendment and saying it has to be military tribunals. They are also saying that Article III courts are inadequate to do that when, in fact, they've done it repeatedly. The people who committed the bombing against the World Trade Towers in 1993 were captured overseas, brought back, and tried here in domestic courts. Article III courts work sometimes in these incidents. Their amendment takes those options away completely. I also point out that Guantanamo Bay is not an enormous facility. They already have 40 people waiting in line for military tribunals. Many more will backlog that.

But I want to come back to my amendment that will come up later. Domestically, we have proven that Article III courts are more than adequate. Overseas, we've proven that we need multiple options. So this amendment sort of is in reverse of what the facts bear out that we should be doing, and I urge opposition to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Without question, the F 35 has been a troubled program. It's been more expensive than we would like it to be and has underperformed. It is getting better, as the chairman mentioned.

There are a number of problems with this amendment, however. First of all, in replacing the F 35B--that's the Marine Corps variant; it's a vertical takeoff plane. I know Mr. Kline will do a much better job of explaining this in a moment than I will. The Marine Corps is an expeditionary force. They need to insert themselves. That's why they need a vertical takeoff plane. The F 18 that is proposed to replace it is not a vertical takeoff. It is not a replacement for the F 35B.

Second, the F 35 is a vastly more capable plane than the F 18. It is all about stealth and being able to get in on targets. The F 18 cannot get to the areas that the F 35 could get to to deal with adversaries like Iran or North Korea and those surface-to-air missiles. It is a much more capable plane.

If we cut this variant, we will also jeopardize the entire program, not just this variant. Our foreign partners are likely to withdraw. It will undermine our per-unit cost to the point where sustaining the program will be very difficult.

It is unfortunate at this point the degree to which we have to rely on this program. But it's going to be 95 percent of our fighter attack aircraft fleet in 10 years. We have to make it work. Therefore, I oppose this amendment.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we're going to have ample opportunity to debate a number of the issues that the distinguished ranking member raised, but I don't think that we can be here on the floor and allow some of the arguments that have been made to go without some challenge.

For example, to say that a letter signed by two former Attorneys General, a former Secretary of Homeland Security, and a variety of other officials who have had positions of responsibility in previous administrations who believe that the Smith-Amash amendment would be detrimental to our effort against terrorists, to say that those arguments are somehow silly or foolish I think really demeans past administrations.

It is not actually fitting for this sort of debate. I understand that emotions can run high when we talk about these issues, and there are serious issues to be discussed, some difficult problems and some clear differences. But I hope that in the future the nature of the debate is elevated somewhat beyond calling former distinguished officials names.

And let me make one other point. One of the key problems that many of us have with the Smith-Amash amendment is that it would bestow upon illegal aliens who come to this country to carry out terrorist attacks, it would bestow upon them full constitutional rights. That means basically, as soon as a member of al Qaeda sets foot on American soil, the first thing he hears after ``you are under arrest'' is you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to be provided an attorney. And if you can't afford one, an attorney will be provided to you.

Now, there may be differences about how we should treat illegal aliens who come here as members of al Qaeda to conduct terrorist attacks. But I think the vast majority of people in this body and around the country do not think telling them they have the right to remain silent, as the first thing they hear, is a wise thing.

So as you go through the arguments, and I would encourage Members of the House to read the letter themselves. I would encourage Members of the House to look at today's Wall Street Journal editorial. I would encourage Members of the House to look at the Heritage Foundation entry today on their Web site, to look how significant these issues are, how the Smith-Amash amendment would undermine our ability to defend our people, and how it is unfair to characterize concerns expressed by a dozen or eight to 10 former national security officials as somehow foolish or silly.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we can do better with that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, again, the strong views of the distinguished ranking member. I would just say there is a real difference of opinion about to what extent U.S. constitutional rights, which each of us, as citizens, are privileged to have, are bestowed upon any illegal alien, as soon as they set foot in this country.

Now, there are places in the Constitution it says ``persons.'' There are other places it talks about ``accused.'' But I would point back to some of the very case law from the Supreme Court such as the Hamdan decision, which references the differences in procedure that due process requires for a citizen versus a noncitizen. It is not a clear- cut thing to say that as soon as you set foot on this soil, then you have the right to remain silent.

And the part that the gentleman--the other concern that many of us have is when you say you've got the right to remain silent, that prevents us from getting the intelligence, the information that prevents the attack of your buddy, the guy next to you. That's got to be factored in here too.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member, and I am glad to do so on an issue on which we agree.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

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

As a point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on this amendment?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, the ranking member of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

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

I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises a number of concerns. It is a very strange thing, for example, to say in a war that you have to know the name, rank, and serial number of the person that you are about to shoot before you can even shoot him. And to put it a little more in this context, the gentleman from Ohio's amendment would say that if we see people making bombs down there that are going to be used against our servicepeople, that we can't do anything about it, that we've just got to watch them. And then even after the bomb explodes, unless we know the identity--which is the language in the amendment--unless we know the name of the person down there, we can't do anything about it, with all of the technology that's available to the United States.

And actually, it gets even worse. If we see al Qaeda members shooting at our troops down there, if we don't know the identity or the name of the people doing the shooting, then we can't do anything about it. Surely that carries things far too far.

We can't debate in the open House all of the allegations that are made in newspaper articles. What we can do is say what the National Security Adviser or the President has said, that these sorts of capabilities are only used pursuant to law, and they are only used where there is a significant threat to the U.S., where action could mitigate or prevent the threat, and that collateral damage or harm to civilians is absolutely minimal. That helps protect our soldiers and our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I think all of us share many of the frustrations voiced by the gentleman from California, but his amendment goes too far.

I agree we should look for additional allies in the region. The problem is there's not another ally in the region through which our military can be supplied. So for the sake of our troops in Afghanistan, as well as a lot of the broader interests in the region, it is important for us to try to improve our relationship with Pakistan.

And as my colleague from Texas says, in the bill now we cut the funds from DOD in half and we require a certification that Pakistan is supporting our counterterrorism efforts, that they are supporting efforts to dismantle the IED networks, that they are preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related material, that they are issuing visas in a timely manner for U.S. Government personnel involved in counterterrorism efforts. We put severe restrictions on any assistance that they get. But that is a carrot to encourage them to work with us, rather than saying, No, you get nothing.

Mr. Chairman, essentially this amendment says get out now; leave Afghanistan regardless of the consequences.

I appreciate the honesty and the forthright nature of this amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. It is better to say up front what you're trying to do rather than put various conditions on it, or to tie our troops' hands in some way, or to not put enough troops in the field in order to accomplish the mission we're asking them to do. This is very clear. It says

leave now. And it is tempting for all of us because we have been there for awhile.

I want our troops to leave as soon as possible consistent with national security. As a matter of fact, the underlying bill says that the United States military should not maintain an indefinite combat presence in Afghanistan and should transition to a counterterrorism and advise-and-assist mission at the earliest possible date consistent with the conditions on the ground. And that's really the difference-- consistent with the conditions on the ground.

We believe, I believe, you have to take account of what the situation is there, and you cannot just abandon Afghanistan and ignore, stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not going to have consequences. I think it's important to remember why we're there to begin with. We're not there because of them. We're there because of us. We're there to make sure that Afghanistan is no longer used as a safe haven, as a base which will be used to launch attacks against us. That's the crux of the matter.

As soon as they are able to provide for their own security and prevent a return of the Taliban, a return of al Qaeda, then we can go and we'll have accomplished our mission, and they'll have to sort through their domestic issues on their own.

But if we leave too early and al Qaeda and the Taliban return and use it as a base to launch attacks against us, then I'm afraid more Americans will suffer and we could see repeats of past terrorist attacks.

So as tempting as it is, Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore the consequences of our actions. Leaving too fast would be bad for our security.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4310.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1 be modified in the manner that I have placed at the desk.

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

We have worked long and hard, the staff has worked long and hard to get us to this point. This manager's amendment that we've worked on has been worked through both sides. We have unanimous agreement on it. It's a good bill, a good addition to the bill, and I ask that it be approved.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to commend the gentleman, Mr. Berman, for his strong work on this amendment, for the work that he's done to further this cause of helping businesses in being able to do business abroad while still protecting the security of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chair, I yield, at this time, 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I do agree that protecting our men and women in the military from the detrimental effects of prescription drug misuse, especially protecting our combat-wounded servicemembers, is of vital importance.

As the gentlelady knows, the committee report of H.R. 4310 includes an item of special interest that expresses the support for substance abuse treatment programs within the military services and that encourages the Department of Defense to pursue research aimed at developing new treatments to help our troops who are struggling with the devastating problem.

I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman from California to consider the appropriate measures to address this critical issue.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

We have no further requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I encourage all Members to support the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the vice chairman of the committee.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), a member of the committee, a gentleman who has led troops in battle.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the committee and an Air Force pilot.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Could I ask the time remaining?

And I have the right to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, when I was in Afghanistan a few years ago, I visited Camp Leatherneck. General Nicholson, who was just setting up base, and they were just there in the desert--the men were out setting up forward operating bases, trying to take back territory that the Taliban commanded. The general told me that his troops were being asked every day by the local people, when are you leaving? How long are you going to be here? Can we trust you to be here to protect us?

Last year, when I returned, I went to the same area. We were able to go to Marjah this time, which we couldn't go to before because that was a Taliban stronghold. Last year, we were able to walk down the street in Marjah. I saw marines and Afghan soldiers embracing; they were happy to see each other. Maybe they'd been apart for a while.

The marines had put up light standards down the street, and the merchants were able to keep their stores open a little bit longer.

We opened a school while we were there, not a school like we enjoy, but it was a school built out of adobe and tents. They had 500 kids. About a third of them were girls. They were able to go to school that they hadn't been able to go to before. They were excited about that opportunity.

I visited with the local governor there. We had lunch. I asked him what motivated him, because he knew, as the Taliban came back for the spring effect, that his life was on the line. He said, God willing, we'll prevail.

Mr. Chairman, I think when we talk about pulling these people out before they have a chance to complete their mission--I was at a street fair in Simi Valley last week and I talked to a lady working in a booth for the troops. She said, my grandson just came home from Afghanistan. And I told him we ought to just get out of there. And he said, Granny, that's wrong. We're accomplishing great things. We're helping those people. Let us finish our mission.

That's what the generals say they should do. That's what the troops say they should do.

Defeat this amendment that pulls the troops out immediately.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment although I don't oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we had an amendment earlier to cut off all funds to Pakistan. This is a more moderate approach.

Pakistan is part of the problem, we understand that. They live in a tough neighborhood. We know that in some ways they help us, in some ways they don't help us.

This amendment is kind of a carrot-and-stick approach. We say, when you do the things that you say you'll do, when you open these Ground Lines of Communication, we'll be giving you some of the funds. I think that's the proper approach that we should take, and I think that will help us in moving forward our effort in that area.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I think it makes the bill stronger. I thank him for his work in this regard.

I ask support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Conyers amendment. The F 35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the F 35 stealth fighter, and it's in the final stages of development and has entered low-rate initial production. The F 35B will operate from large deck amphibious ships as well as have the capability to operate from forward operating bases and damaged air strips to support Marine Corps ground maneuver forces ashore.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Amos, wrote to the committee yesterday and said:

The importance of the F 35B short takeoff vertical landing

variant to the Marine Corps and the Nation cannot be

overstated.

The F 35B has made significant progress in the last year, under General Amos' guidance, by completing all of the plan test points in 2011 and accomplishing 260 vertical landings. If passed, this amendment could have major negative impacts to our Nation's future combat power, increase the cost of the overall F 35 program, and negatively affect the eight international program partners in foreign military sales.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee and the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, chairman of the Education Committee, and a marine pilot, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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

First, let me just say this. It is just downright outrageous that the McGovern-Jones amendment was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee, denying this House the opportunity to debate and vote on their amendment.

Secondly, we really do need a clear and 2 days of debate, at least-- not 20 minutes--on this critical issue of Afghanistan. So for the life of me, 20 minutes is not long enough. And I don't quite understand why, in fact, the McGovern-Jones amendment was not given the full amount of time, because the American people deserve to hear both sides of this issue from a variety of policy perspectives.

My amendment today would put a responsible end to combat operation in Afghanistan by limiting the funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors.

And I have to thank the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment-- Representatives Jones, Conyers, Paul, Woolsey, Welch, Nadler, Hastings--and all of our colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the years to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. I have offered this amendment in the past, and it has been a bipartisan amendment.

It is clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. My amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. The call has been growing across this land to bring this war to an end. It's time now for the Congress to answer the call here today.

The reality is there is no military solution to the war in Afghanistan. Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and more.

As a daughter of a military veteran, I also know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible situation. There is no military solution, and it's past time to end the war and bring the troops home.

Over a decade now, over $500 billion spent in direct costs and, mind you, not a penny of it has been paid for. Instead, we should have been investing in jobs and in our economy here at home and a smarter national security strategy.

It is time to say enough is enough. With almost 2,000 United States troops killed in Afghanistan and many tens of thousands more maimed with injuries both hidden and visible, we must recognize that the boots on the ground strategy in Afghanistan must end. It's critical to our economy and the future of this country that we stop pouring billions on a counterproductive military presence in Afghanistan.

The American people have made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting--not for another year, not for another 2 years, and surely not for another 12 years. Today, Congress should stand with seven out of 10 Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years, it is time to bring our troops home. We can do that responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 30 seconds and respond to the gentleman from Florida and just say this amendment--I think he's probably not reading the amendment that I have offered.

What this amendment does is restrict our funding for the purpose of the safe and the orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense. It is not a cut-and-run amendment. This is a force protection amendment. It would bring our young men and women out of harm's way and it would provide the resources to move forward to help stabilize the region.

I'd like now to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

I'd like to yield now 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Let me just first say that I appreciate this 20-minute debate, but we should have a couple of days to be able to have a full debate on why we need to, one, protect our troops and provide for their safe and orderly withdrawal.

The American people are war weary. We need to reunite our brave men and

women in uniform with their families at home. We should transfer the billions of dollars that we're spending on war to creating jobs here at home. We should ensure that our troops are provided with the resources that they deserve and they need during this withdrawal.

We're asking for a safe and orderly withdrawal. We're saying our young men and women have fought; they've done everything we've asked them to do. We think that now, as the American people are saying, the combat mission, the fighting should end, and we should begin by protecting our troops and contractors; and we should begin to end the longest war in American history. It's time to end the war in Afghanistan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, since 9/11, the United States has given Pakistan about $22 billion. That money has served only to embolden Pakistan's government to maintain the brutal repression of its own people and to continue its blatant support for terrorist attacks on its neighboring countries, as well as attacks on American troops in nearby Afghanistan.

My amendment would cut off all aid in this bill designated for Pakistan. It would end the charade that we are buying cooperation in the ongoing struggle against terrorist forces in South Asia. Pakistan isn't with us in a war against terrorism; they are at war with us.

Pakistan, at best, is a war profiteer, collecting a ransom by taxing our military supply lines that pass through

their country, which, for the past 6 months, by the way, they have closed to resupplying our forces in Afghanistan. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, the Pakistani people will never see any of that money.

The corruption in Pakistan itself is reason not to give aid to them, which they will then pilfer. Furthermore, they use their military power to butcher the Balochs and others who don't want to be under their corrupt thumb.

How can we forget this same Pakistani Government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden after he led the conspiracy that slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11? After our SEALs went in to get him, the Pakistani Government took the wreckage of our downed stealth helicopter and gave it for study to Communist China, whom they refer to as their ``all- weather friend.''

The Pakistani Government has gone so far as to arrest and imprison, without trial, Dr. Afridi, the doctor who helped us gather the intelligence that located Osama bin Laden in the nest that the Pakistani Government had provided him right there in Pakistan. The Pakistani Government threw him in jail and is talking about trying him for treason for the good deed that he helped us in bringing to justice the man who slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens. And we can continue to give money to these people, even as we ignore the suffering of Dr. Afridi, who is in prison now, languishing in prison? And all of us are forgetting this hero?

We have lost almost 2,000 Americans defending our country as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Most of those deaths were due to Pakistani- inspired and -supported insurgents.

How much more does the Pakistan Government have to do before we quit giving them our money? They are playing us like fools while murdering our soldiers. And, yes, we are acting like fools for giving them this money despite that. We should have quit bankrolling this rotten regime a long time ago. My amendment would do just that.

The Pakistan Government is a terrorist government that murders and even attacks its own people, such as in Balochistan. It is a pro- terrorist, radical Islamic clique that rules Pakistan. They don't deserve one penny from us to help them in their dirty deeds.

I would ask for support from my colleagues. Let's finally stand up. If we need an ally in that area, let's go to some people in that area that want to be our friends, perhaps the Indians.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining?

I have here 13 pages of restrictions that we have had on Pakistan aid over the last few years, 13 pages of restrictions that have meant nothing.

During the time that we have been giving them billions of dollars with all

of these restrictions, they have been giving safe haven to Osama bin Laden, who massacred and slaughtered 3,000 Americans. How can we forget about that? How can we just go on and give these people money?

The people of Pakistan can be our friends. They are our friends. But we have to recognize that their government is a terrorist-supporting government and a radical Islamic-supporting government.

And we continue to give them money as they support insurgents that kill our people overseas. Is there any doubt about that? Admiral Mullen confirmed it for us.

Why are we ignoring that? We are acting like fools and we are acting like cowards. It is time for us to stand up for the American defenders who are over there putting their lives on the line and say, No. If we're going to give money to the people killing you, we're not going to do that, period. That's going over the line.

I would suggest to my colleagues to join me in defunding the enemy of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.