Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Gordon Hirabayashi for posthumously receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his stand against Japanese American internment following the attack on

Pearl Harbor. This award is our nation's highest civilian honor and is presented to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the United States.

Mr. Hirabayashi was a Seattle native and a student at the University of Washington when Pearl Harbor was bombed. Shortly afterwards, Japanese-Americans were ordered to board buses for internment camps. In an act of bravery and civil disobedience, Mr. Hirabayashi, a second- generation Japanese American, refused to board the bus.

Mr. Hirabayashi, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit against the military executive order stating that Japanese Americans were a threat. Unfortunately, Mr. Hirabayashi lost the suit and was sentenced to 90 days in prison for curfew violation.

In 1987, Mr. Hirabayashi's conviction was overturned after it was determined that there was no military reason for the internment of Japanese Americans. After more than four decades, the effort he put into protecting the rights of citizens during times of war has finally been realized.

Mr. Hirabayashi passed away on January 2, 2012, at the age of 93 in Edmonton, Alberta where he served as a sociology professor from 1959 until his retirement in 1983. His family will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in honoring Gordon Hirabayashi for his tireless commitment to justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor William Foege for receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom for developing a strategy for immunizing people against, and eventually eradicating, small pox. This award is our nation's highest civilian honor and is presented to individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the United States.

Mr. Foege, a graduate of Pacific Lutheran University and the University of Washington School of Medicine, was instrumental in developing the plan to eradicate smallpox. While serving as a missionary in Nigeria where we gave vaccines to the locals, Mr. Foege experienced a critical vaccine shortage. In order to be most effective, he started actively seeking out infected people, using photos and rewards to draw people in and immunizing anyone who had come in contact with those suffering from smallpox.

The immunization strategy Mr. Foege developed became known as ``surveillance and containment.'' It is widely credited for the eradication of smallpox, which is often deadly especially in developing countries. For example, while using this technique in India during the 1970s, Mr. Foege and his colleagues found 11,000 cases of smallpox and within a week delivered immunizations to those infected people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in honoring William Foege for his dedication to effectively delivering immunizations to the world's most at risk populations and for being instrumental in the eradication of smallpox.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Camelot Elementary School, in Auburn, Washington, for being named a Green Ribbon School. This honor, awarded by the U.S. Department of Education, is given to schools participating in activities to promote and encourage a healthy and environmentally sustainable learning environment.

Students and staff at Camelot Elementary have taken a wide variety of steps toward reducing energy consumption. Since 2007, the school has reduced energy usage by 50 percent. They replaced light bulbs, removed personal appliances, and placed reminders on light switches and computers. Teachers and students use green checklists in every classroom to remind each other about ways to decrease energy consumption and waste.

To address the threatened salmon population in Washington State, students raised salmon in classrooms to release into local streams. Students also published a newspaper with information and resources about conservation. To decrease the use of plastic bottles, the school organized a fundraiser for reusable water bottles.

In addition to becoming good stewards of the Earth, staff, students, and parents are taking steps to improve health and nutrition. The school raised money from the community to build a community garden on the school grounds and the school follows the United States Department of Agriculture standards to make sure students have balanced meals. Nearly 60 percent of the student body walks or bikes to school. On the weekends, the school and the Parent-Teacher Association send backpacks filled with healthy foods home with disadvantaged students.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the students, staff, and parents from Camelot Elementary. The steps they are taking to reduce energy consumption, improve nutrition, and protect our environment and resources will continue to benefit our community for many years to come. I hope many other schools follow Camelot Elementary's example.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 100th Anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America and the designation of 2012 as the Year of the Girl.

I. 1912, Daisy Low began the Girl Scouts Movement with only 18 girls. Low's mission was to give girls the opportunity to develop skills in self-reliance and resourcefulness that will help them as professional women and citizens.

Over the years, more than 50 million girls and women have participated in the Girl Scouts, giving them the tools to lead with courage, confidence and character. Some of the most accomplished women in public service, business, science, education and the arts are alumnae of the Girl Scouts.

Today, Girl Scouts of the USA is developing more programs to help girls become more involved in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), environmental stewardship, healthy living, financial literacy, and global citizenship. Across the country, Girl Scouts dedicate over 70 million hours of service to their communities annually. Girls who achieve their Gold Award, the highest achievement a Girl Scout can earn, take extraordinary steps to solve a problem and make a lasting impact on their community.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor the great accomplishment of the Girl Scouts of the USA. I know today's Girl Scouts will be part of the next generation of women leaders in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Kenny Richards, the 2012 recipient of the national annual Zak Hollis Youth Achievement Award presented by the National Tourette Syndrome Association. The award honors youth who display a great commitment to helping those with Tourette Syndrome (TS) and who have notable achievements in their daily lives.

Kenny, an eighth-grader from Hudtloff Middle School in Lakewood, WA, was recently named the Washington and Oregon representative for the National Tourette Syndrome Association Youth Ambassador Training. Kenny, who lives with TS, visits schools and clubs to teach his peers about the neurological disorder. Kenny also serves as an ambassador for TS by meeting with teachers, school administrators, and Members of Congress, including myself, about policies that would best serve young people with TS.

In addition to serving as an ambassador for young people with Tourette Syndrome, Kenny also advocates for all special-needs children. He understands the challenges of growing up with a special need and wants to make sure that all children are accepted and given an opportunity to thrive.

Because he has the firsthand experience of growing up with a younger brother who is on the autism spectrum, Kenny and his mother started a monthly support group for children with TS and autism. About 25 participants attend monthly to have a safe space to discuss their experiences.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in honoring Kenny Richards for winning the Zak Hollis Youth Achievement Award. He is a strong advocate for young people with Tourette Syndrome and special-needs, and a role model for all who strive toward the acceptance of all children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg for his years of service to Washington State and our country. He has served our state for decades, most recently as The Adjutant General for the State of Washington. In this role, he served as commander of all Washington Army and Air National Guard forces and Director of the State's Emergency Management and Enhanced 911 programs.

Major General Lowenberg was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force concurrent with his graduation from the University of Iowa in 1968. In 1971, he earned a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the University of Iowa, College of Law. Prior to becoming The Adjutant General, Major General Lowenberg served as the Air National Guard Assistant to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. In this role, he oversaw programs affecting more than 114,000 Air Guard members, trained all Air Guard judge advocates and paralegals, and developed the civil affairs mission of the United States Air Force.

In 1999, Governor Gary Locke appointed Major General Lowenberg Adjutant General. He led the Washington State National Guard's transition from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve, making the Washington State National Guard a vital component of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also led emergency responses to a variety of events, including the 1999 WTO Riot in Seattle, wildfires in 2000, flooding across western Washington in 2007 and 2009, and state preparedness for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Major General Lowenberg is the second longest-serving Adjutant General since the creation of the Washington Territorial Militia in 1855. His leadership and hard work will be remembered for the advances he implemented in the National Guard during a crucial time in the history of our Nation and the National Guard.

Mister Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor Major General Lowenberg on his retirement. His leadership on military issues, homeland security and domestic preparedness, at the state and federal level, are second to none and will truly be missed. I wish him the best in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker I rise to honor the Roman Meal Company and the Matthaei family on the company's l00th anniversary. This impressive milestone places Roman Meal among fewer than 25 private companies in the United States who have been in business for one century.

The company was founded in 1912 by Robert Jackson, a Canadian physician and historian, who came to Tacoma, WA for medical

treatment. Mr. Jackson studied how Roman legionnaires fought, and discovered they ate a diet that included wheat and rye for strength and stamina. He then developed a hot cereal meal based on that diet.

In 1927, William Matthaei purchased the Roman Meal Health Company. The Matthaei family used centuries of baking knowledge and Mr. Jackson's formula to develop Roman Meal Bread. William Matthaei's son, Charles, still comes to work every day at the age of 92 and his grandson, William, serves as CEO.

Running a company continuously for 100 years requires more than outstanding products. Roman Meal's ability to survive through the Great Depression, multiple recessions, and evolving consumer preferences required that the company adapt quickly to changes in the marketplace. Pressures from competition and trade demanded that they constantly innovate to stay ahead.

Mr. Speaker it is with great pleasure that I recognize the success of the Roman Meal Company and the Matthaei family in creating an excellent product and a dynamic company that has thrived for 100 years. I wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, I recorded an erroneous vote on the amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan to H.R. 5326. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 215, on agreeing to the Huizenga amendment to H.R. 5326.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of Pramila Jayapal, founder of the Hate Free Zone, now called OneAmerica. For more than a decade she has worked tirelessly to ensure that people from immigrant communities have a voice in America. Her efforts have made Washington State and our Nation a better place for all people who call it home.

In the days immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Pramila began the Hate Free Zone Campaign of Washington as an entirely volunteer-run organization to combat discrimination against immigrants, especially from communities of color--primarily Muslim, Arab American, East African and South Asian--and to work against stereotypes in a post 9/11 world. At first, the mission was to advocate for the rights of those who were likely to be victims of hate crimes.

Soon after, Pramila began to shift the focus of the Hate Free Zone towards identifying and addressing violations of the rights and civil liberties of immigrants. Through these efforts, she began working with community leaders and elected officials to address these concerns on local, State, and Federal levels.

In 2008, the Hate Free Zone became OneAmerica: With Justice for All, reflecting the mission of advocating for the fundamental principles of democracy and justice by giving voices to all immigrant communities. Today, OneAmerica works with allies and community leaders to educate, engage and advocate, and has become an active and trusted immigrant advocacy organization in Washington State.

Pramila's dedication to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is important to every single group of Americans, immigrants and non-immigrants alike. The promotion of civic education, voting rights and civil liberties benefits everyone who calls the United States home.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor Pramila Jayapal and all of her work at OneAmerica. Though she is moving on from OneAmerica, I have no doubt she will continue to advocate for those in need. Her dedication to improving the lives of all persons living in Washington State has been an inspiration to us all, and I look forward to her next endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Federal Way High School Air Force JROTC team for qualifying for the National Academic Bowl in Washington, DC. Advancing to compete in this national event is a tremendous accomplishment and these cadets should be extremely proud.

The Federal Way High School Air Force JROTC Team is comprised of David Yang (Junior, Team Captain), Blaise Pascual (Junior), Roger Arenas (Sophomore), Benjamin Swartz (Sophomore), Varun Sharma (Junior, Alternate), Arishma Prasad (Freshman, Alternate). The team is coached by Randall Long, Lt Col, USAF (Ret.). In addition to participating in the Academic Bowl, these JROTC cadets have learned about citizenship and community service, while developing core values of responsibility, character, and self-discipline through the JROTC program.

Prior to qualifying for the National Academic Bowl, team members competed in two preliminary rounds where they were tested on standard high school curriculum, including math, science, English, and current events. The Federal Way High School Air Force JROTC team placed among the top of 183 teams that competed nationwide. The top 16 Air Force Academic Bowl teams advanced to the finals in Washington, DC and the winner of the Air Force Academic Bowl will advance to the JROTC Tri- Service Academic Championship.

The Academic Bowl helps students prepare for success on ACT and SAT exams, develop interest in college admission, demonstrate the academic strength of the JROTC program, and build team and unit spirit. The Federal Way High School Air Force JROTC team will spend the next few months preparing for the Academic Bowl Championship by developing and studying a SAT tutorial plan.

It is with great honor that I recognize the work of the Federal Way High School Air Force JROTC team and their qualification for the National Academic Bowl. I know that this accomplishment is indicative of the future successes of these dedicated cadets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Debbi Fisher, founder and Operations Director of Rainier Therapeutic Riding. Her work gives active duty servicemembers at Joint Base Lewis McChord and veterans in our community a facility for therapeutic riding and relief from mental and physical injuries.

Debbi founded Rainier Therapeutic Riding in Yelm, Washington in 2008 after nearly 40 years of riding and horse training experience. As the widow of a Marine Pilot and Air Force Colonel, and the mother of a son in the Marines and daughter in the Air Force, she aspired to use her skills to help those who have served our country. She has described horses and servicemembers and veterans as perfect companions.

Rainier Therapeutic Riding is now the largest provider of equine therapy to military personnel in the country, serving 75 people a year at no cost to the individual or the government. They work with the Warrior Transition Battalion and Air Force Medical Flight at Joint Base Lewis McChord to give those suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, traumatic brain injuries, and other injuries a place to rediscover a happiness for life.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the work of Debbi Fisher and all of the volunteers at Rainier Therapeutic Riding. By giving back to our servicemembers and veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country, Debbi has helped many to vastly change their outlook and improve their happiness.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on vote No. 294 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5651, as amended); ``yes'' on vote No. 295 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4201); and ``yes'' on vote No. 296 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 915, as amended).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson).

I yield the gentlelady from California an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman, though I'm not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I too support the amendment, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, though I'm not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I would just say that I think the gentleman raises excellent points, and I urge the body to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I can't recall in 16 years in Congress ever speaking against a rule. By and large, I have a great deal of respect for the fact that the majority has the right to set the terms of debate. I understand that we cannot endlessly debate every issue. You have to set a certain amount of parameters on it and move forward.

But this rule goes so against the principles of how we are supposed to debate the Armed Services bill--and I've been privileged to be on that committee for 16 years--that I have to speak against this rule. It is not allowing us to have our position on the single most important issue that faces our country right now on the Armed Services Committee--the future of the war in Afghanistan. It is not allowing us to have our position debated and voted on on the floor.

Now, I had an amendment on Afghanistan in the committee, which was not allowed either because of sequential referral rules. The committee gets all kinds of interesting sets of rules; and even though the base bill had a discussion of Afghanistan policy, my amendment was not allowed. So we said, okay, we'll have the debate on the floor. I worked with Mr. McGovern, and I worked with a variety of others. I very specifically told the Rules Committee that this is our amendment on Afghanistan, and it was not allowed in order. The amendment that was allowed in order by Ms. Lee simply says: get out. There is a huge distance between that policy and the policy of the majority, which is: as many troops for as long as possible. That is the position that Mr. McGovern and I put forward. I asked the Rules Committee to rule it in order, and they denied us the right to debate that amendment and to vote on it.

It is the single most important issue facing our Armed Forces right now. The minority's position was excluded from this debate. Now, I can understand why. Close to 70 percent of the country wants us out of Afghanistan quicker. The majority's position is: more troops in Afghanistan for a longer period of time. Our position is quite the opposite: get us out as soon as we responsibly can; meet those obligations on counterterrorism, but do so without an extended troop presence. Our position is clearly where the country is. The majority didn't want to have to vote on that. It didn't want to have to have that debate, so they froze out our amendment.

There are a lot of debates that when you're in the majority you'd just as soon not have. I understand that, but that's why it's a representative democracy, and that's why we have the rights of the minority. That's why, particularly on the Armed Services bill, I tell everyone that it's the most bipartisan committee in Congress.

Let me just say that my beef is not with Chairman McKeon. He has worked with me in an open and honest manner, and he testified at the Rules Committee that my amendment should be ruled in order, and yet it was not.

This is a critically, critically important issue. They have denied us the right to debate it. They have denied us the right to put our position out on the floor, to have a debate, and to have a vote on the war in Afghanistan, on the Armed Services bill. There is no more important issue. They were afraid of the debate--afraid that they're on the wrong side of the issue--so they denied the people's House the right to debate it and to vote on it.

I can think of no greater reason to vote down a rule than that. It is a shameful way to deal with the Armed Services Committee bill. I urge this body to vote ``no.''

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).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, the V 22 was a troubled program. Certainly before it was finally developed, it went through a number of difficulties. But as the gentleman mentioned in offering the amendment, it has gotten over those difficulties; and, in fact, has been deployed in Afghanistan for a very long time. I was in Afghanistan, and I rode on a V 22. And so

it obviously can perform in desert environments. I was down in the Helmand province, and it is a very capable plane.

Again it has to do with the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps' capabilities. They are an expeditionary force. The vertical takeoff and landing ability of the V 22 is critical to what they do. As Mr. Bartlett pointed out, it has longer range and greater capacity, and properly deployed and properly used, can actually make it cheaper than buying more helicopters that are necessary to accomplish that mission. It is a necessary program, certainly necessary for the Marine Corps. I would urge opposition to the amendment.