Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 2157.

I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, for giving my legislation a fair hearing and moving the bill through the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area is located in the northern half of my district in the eastern

Sierra Mountains. Mammoth provides between 10 and 30 percent of the total employment in Mono County, and it's a primary recreation destination for tourists all throughout California and the United States. Each winter, Mammoth sees an average of 1.3 million visitors.

These visitors pump vital money into the local economy by populating hotels, motels, restaurants, and stores throughout the region.

Tourism is the lifeblood of the eastern Sierra. Mammoth has operated on a special use permit from the U.S. Forest Service since 1953. The base area of the mountain is aging rapidly and is in need of renovation and redevelopment in order to provide a safer, more enjoyable experience for visitors to Mammoth Mountain; however, these renovations are difficult to achieve under the terms of the special use permit.

Since 1998, Mammoth Mountain has been working with the Forest Service to complete a land exchange between their main base parcel and other desired Forest Service acquisitions. These acquisitions include high- resource value lands in the Inyo, El Dorado, Stanislaus, and Plumas National Forests. The exchange would allow the main base to undergo significant and needed renovations.

My legislation is meant to supplement and codify this agreement. It is needed for two reasons:

Number one, the two parcels that the Forest Service wants are outside Inyo National Forest boundaries. Both parcels are currently leased by the Inyo National Forest from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power;

Number two, there's more value in the Mammoth Mountain parcel than in all the land parcels exchanged in total. So Mammoth needs legislation for permission to pay a cash equalization to the Federal Government that will be used for future forest acquisition.

The agreement is widely supported by the local community because residents, business owners, local governments understand the great value of having Mammoth Mountain in their community. Besides jobs and recreation, Mammoth supports a significant portion of the tax base providing needed revenue throughout the region.

We've received numerous letters of support from community members, including those from Duane Hazard, chair of the Mono County Board of Supervisors; Vikki Bauer, member of the Mono County Board of Supervisors; the Mono Lake Committee; the Eastern Sierra Land Trust; and the Mammoth Lakes Town Council.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving my bill time on the floor. Mammoth Mountain has been a good steward of the environment, a solid partner in economic vitality for the region, and an honest party in negotiations with the Forest Service. This land exchange will be mutually beneficial for all parties involved, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2157.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. I want to first thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for sponsoring this important piece of legislation and Chairman Kline for giving H.R. 2117 the attention it deserves.

In October of 2010, the Department of Education introduced a regulatory package that aimed to improve the integrity of student financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants and federal student loans. However, the outcome was an introduction of two new burdensome rules, the credit hour and state authorization regulations. Two more prime examples of the current Administration's overreaching regulatory agenda. I have deep concerns about the impact these regulations will have on college affordability.

Under the new credit hour regulation, federal student aid would be awarded to students based on the number of credits they take each term with the federal government defining a credit hour. This would discredit and negatively impact the traditional role of colleges and universities. Not only would this undermine colleges and universities but it would also overrule a state's determination of whether an educational program is a credit hour. In turn, this could lead to students receiving less federal aid or taking a slower path to graduation which results in fewer choices for students looking for postsecondary options to further their education. Overall students should be measured by how much they learn in the classroom instead of how much time they spend in the classroom.

The State Authorization regulation would impose a one-size fits all approach to America's higher education community and weaken what is currently a strong and diverse community of institutions, each with their own unique missions. This new management style would result in unnecessary and excessive costs not only on states and universities but as well as the students. Furthermore, it would give states unprecedented authority over private and religious institutions.

H.R. 2117 puts the right foot forward by repealing these burdensome regulations and instead focuses on the student and fosters an environment that enables them to learn and grow in a cost-effective manner. This legislation not only protects the student but also the academic institutions enabling them to focus on the individual by helping them excel in the academic community rather than having to worry about big government and its regulations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 493, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540.

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

I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act conference report. As you know, the NDAA is the key mechanism by which the Congress fulfills its primary constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense, and this year will mark the 50th consecutive year we've completed our work. The NDAA passed the Armed Services Committee with a vote of 60-1. It passed the full House by a wide margin of 322-96. Likewise, the Senate adopted its version of the bill by a vote of 93-7. We negotiated every provision in the two bills and have delivered this conference report using regular order. This is a bipartisan product from start to finish, with a wide base of support.

Let me further assure Members that the bill's authorization levels have been reduced to comply with the Budget Control Act. The bill would bring the total authorized funding for the national defense to $554 billion for the base budget and $115.5 billion for overseas contingency operations. This represents a $19 billion reduction from last year's authorization.

Nonetheless, what makes our bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained therein. Our bill provides for pay and benefits for our military and their families, as well as the authorities that they need to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism.

In addition, we include landmark pieces of legislation sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran and strengthening policies and procedures used to detain, interrogate, and prosecute al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated groups, and those who substantially support them. However, I must be crystal clear on this point: the provisions do not extend any new authorities to detain U.S. citizens and explicitly exempt U.S. citizens from provisions related to military custody of terrorists.

The conference report covers many more critical issues, but I will close in the interest of time. However, before I do, I would like to thank my partner, the gentleman from Washington, Adam Smith, the ranking member on the committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, vice chairman of the committee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and a member of the conference committee, Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces and a member of the conference committee, Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Protection Forces and a member of the conference committee, Mr. Akin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

This conference report does no such thing. It in no way affects the rights of U.S. citizens.

I agree completely.

I do.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

I do, and I will be happy to work with you to that end.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Mr. Wilson.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Armed Services, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference requested by the Senate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just have to respond to the last speaker that we had.

We have this language in the bill. We have worked with Ms. Tsongas. She's done great work with Mr. Turner. We have been out of the majority for 4 years. We now have the majority. I'm not going to say that it shouldn't have been fixed before; it should have. But we have this in the bill. But to attack the military and make them like they are the worst people in the world--19,000 is excessive. It is something that never should have happened. This will take care of it.

We just had talk of a revered football coach we found right in their organization of a very upstanding university that we all have thought great things about, has all kinds of problems with sexual abuse.

I refuse to have the innuendo or the charge that the military is corrupt top to bottom, which is what you basically inferred in what you just said.

We support this. We put it in the bill. We think that it is very important to take care of this problem.

I'd be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, you did charge them with some very serious issues and besmirch the character of the military.

I'd be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, as the new chairman of the committee, the first bill that we have brought forward, we have it in the bill. We are moving to take care of it.

No. I think we've probably said enough.

What I would say at this time is we do support this. The bill was overwhelmingly supported out of committee 60-1, 322-96 in the House. We're moving strongly on this issue. We will support it through the conference and do our best to see that it remains in the bill because it is such a very important issue.

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

Reserving the right to object, I understand that I did that once myself, yield back my time inadvertently.

With that, I would be happy to see that my colleague has the balance of her time to close, and I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that the managers on the part of the House on H.R. 1540 be permitted to close to the public any of the conference at such times as classified national security information may be broached, providing that any sitting Member of Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Admiral Mike Mullen who is retiring as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after more than 43 years of distinguished service to his country.

A proud graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy's Class of 1968, his rise in the Navy started at sea, when Ensign Mullen deployed to the western Pacific and participated in combat operations off the coast of Vietnam aboard USS Collett. Over the course of his career at sea he subsequently served on six other warships, including command of three of those vessels. Admiral Mullen also commanded the George Washington Carrier Strike Group and U.S. Second Fleet.

In July of 2005, Admiral Mullen was sworn in as the 28th Chief of Naval Operations, serving as the top uniformed leader and representative to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During his tenure, he oversaw the service's efforts to man, train, and equip our Navy to fulfill its traditional missions at sea. Additionally, he conceived and championed the Navy's contributions to the fight on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other nations in support of our country's effort to combat violent extremism.

After successfully completing his tour as Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mullen assumed duties as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2007. Since assuming duties as Chairman, he has, in concert with our Nation's leadership, overseen multiple, sustained joint military operations that disrupted terrorist networks, provided humanitarian assistance at home and abroad, and improved the security and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While continuing to lead our men and women in uniform around the world, Admiral Mullen has been the catalyst for a nationwide dialogue to advance awareness and support for our warriors, veterans, and their families. I have no doubt his commitment to these Americans who have given so much will indeed be enduring, lasting far beyond his days in uniform.

Please join me in recognizing and commending Admiral Mike Mullen for a lifetime of service to his country and to wish him the best in his retirement. May God bless Mike and Deborah, and their family, for all they have given and continue to give our country. The United States Navy and our military will dearly miss one of its most respected and valued leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Casa Del Desierto, a historical Harvey House located in the city of Barstow, CA, on the occasion of its 100th birthday.

One of eighty four Harvey Houses stretching along the Santa Fe Railway from Kansas to California, the Casa Del Desierto was designed by Fred Harvey Company architect Mary Colter and was constructed in 1911 by the Santa Fe Railway. Its distinctive Spanish Renaissance and Classical Revival architecture stands as a lasting legacy of America's westward expansion in the Mojave Desert.

Harvey Houses revolutionized the service delivery to railroad companies, businessmen, and families making the long journey out west. Prior to the development of the Fred Harvey Company establishments, travelers were forced to choose from roadside establishments with limited options for dining and lodging. The Harvey House model included standardized, quality, sizable meals, and eventually lodging at some of the larger Houses. At the beginning of the twentieth century there was a Harvey House located nearly every 100 miles along the Santa Fe Railway.

In 1975 the Casa Del Desierto was declared a national landmark on the National Register of Historic Places and in the 1990s the City of Barstow undertook a sizable restoration of the building, ensuring that the proud history of the west can be shared with generations to come. The building is now the home to the Barstow Chamber of Commerce, the Route 66 Museum, and the Western American Railroad Museum.

I am proud to join with the City of Barstow to recognize the Casa Del Desierto on their centennial and trust that because of the great efforts of the residents of Barstow to preserve their western heritage, our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy and learn about our storied past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to General James E. Cartwright, who is retiring this week after forty years of accomplished and distinguished military service. Throughout his career as a senior officer, General Cartwright has provided invaluable testimony and advice to this body, and in particular to the Armed Services Committee. From U.S. operations in Afghanistan, to missile defenses in Europe, to Department of Defense efficiencies--General Cartwright has provided his expert military advice on a wide range of defense and national security issues. I think I speak for all of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee when I say that his depth of knowledge, outstanding leadership and professionalism, and deep respect and consideration for all of our men and women in uniform will be greatly missed.

General James ``Hoss'' Cartwright was born and raised in Rockford, Illinois, where he showed an early affinity for the military as a member of the Junior ROTC. After graduating from the University of Iowa in 1971, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. During his career as a Marine aviator, General Cartwright served as a Flight Officer in the F-4 and as a pilot in the F-4, OA-4 and F-18. In 1983, he was named outstanding Carrier Aviator by the Association of Naval Aviation. His flying career culminated with command of the First Marine Aircraft Wing in Okinawa, Japan from 2000 to 2002.

After a brief assignment as the Director for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment (J-8) on the Joint Staff, in 2004 then- Lieutenant General Cartwright was selected for promotion to full General and became the first Marine Corps officer to lead United States Strategic Command. As Commander, General Cartwright led STRATCOM through a period of transition as the military adapted and evolved to confront an increasingly dynamic strategic environment. General Cartwright led development and implementation of strategies to integrate the military's approaches to cyber, space, nuclear proliferation, and missile defense and reorganized STRATCOM to increase interagency cooperation.

Over the last four years, General Cartwright has served as the eighth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Through my roles as Ranking Member and now Chairman of the Armed Services Committee I have had the pleasure of working directly with General Cartwright during this time. He has faithfully executed his oath of office and constitutional duties and provided the President and Congress with honest, direct, and sound advice. He is a model Vice Chairman and a model Marine, and will leave a lasting legacy on our Armed Forces.

He is also a tremendous advocate for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. General Cartwright's efforts to accelerate procurement and deployment of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle saved countless lives. He has leveraged his knowledge of technology and Department of Defense resourcing processes to streamline acquisition and deliver a variety of desperately needed new capabilities to the troops in the field. Most important of all, however, General Cartwright is a steadfast champion of our wounded warriors, our troops who have given their lives in service to their country, and their families.

For forty years General Cartwright has performed his job professionally, honestly, and with great dedication. We will miss his leadership and vision, and wish him all the best as he takes off the uniform for the last time.

As Congress continues to debate proposals to raise the debt limit and rein in Federal spending, I wish to remind my colleagues of the perils of Senator Reid's proposal, specifically as it relates to national defense. The Reid plan would cut defense, including funds to maintain the reliability of our nuclear weapons and triad of strategic delivery vehicles that represent our deterrent for both ourselves and our allies.

Because the Obama administration has reduced our strategic forces to the lowest level in decades, the health of our deterrent must be a top national security priority. Prior to the ratification of the New START Treaty, the President committed to fund a host of nuclear modernization efforts that were supported on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. The House also passed language in the fiscal year 2012 Defense authorization bill to ensure the President makes good on these commitments.

We cannot allow a proposal like Senator Reid's to jeopardize the reliability and security of our strategic deterrent. We must continue to maintain our investment in our security, stability, and peace.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment to restore funding to the defense activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In May, the House overwhelmingly passed--by a vote of 322 to 96--the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA recognized the critical need to shore up our nuclear security enterprise and authorized full funding for NNSA.

Unfortunately, the appropriations bill before us reduces the NNSA budget by $1.1 billion from the level authorized by the NDAA. The funding level authorized by the NDAA was a key component of a deal between the Administration and Congress. This deal would finally, after decades of neglect, reinvigorate and modernize our nuclear security enterprise to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear force reductions contained in the New START treaty. The 10% NNSA budget cut proposed by this bill greatly endangers this modernization, and reneges on this deal.

I recognize that the offset in this amendment is difficult for many of my colleagues. Unfortunately, there are no easy offsets within the energy and water bill.

Through my committee, Armed Services, the House authorizes all defense funding--both for the Department of Defense and the NNSA. We must recognize that NNSA is defense spending, and treat it as such. As Secretary Gates told my committee earlier this year, NNSA's work is ``incredibly important'' and is, ``intimately tied to our national security and should be regarded as part of the security component.''

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support national defense, and restore funding for NNSA.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations bill. Ensuring that our military receives funding for the coming fiscal year is an essential duty of this Congress and key to maintaining the capabilities of our Armed Forces. I applaud the work of the subcommittee and full committee for considering this legislation in regular order. I also give credit to my colleagues on the Rules Committee for ensuring that the House has once again returned to the days of open rules on appropriations bills, so every Member's voice can be heard.

Furthermore, it is with the utmost appreciation that I commend the Appropriations Committee for working in partnership with the Armed Services Committee on matters relating to our military. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I remain fully committed to providing our troops with the resources needed to fulfill their missions. To that end, I am pleased to see that this bill provides the full amount of funding requested by the President for fiscal year 2012 to fund Overseas Contingency Operations, which is essential to achieving victory in ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, I do have reservations about the cut to the defense base budget during a time when we are engaged in several overseas conflicts and facing an abundance of emerging threats to our security. Despite the fact that our nation's heroes got Osama bin Laden, we are still a nation at war--a war that we did not start. Al Qaeda has named bin Laden's successor and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that their primary goal is to kill Americans.

I recognize that on a percentage basis, an $8.9 billion cut may not seem significant--less than two percent. But two percent is the same amount Secretary Gates has been trying desperately to find through efficiencies to reinvest in our force structure and modernization accounts. We have applauded his efforts and supported his goal. Now, unfortunately, this bill would take those dollars away.

Nevertheless, it is clear that we are experiencing a fiscal crisis due to excessive government spending. I fully support ongoing efforts to responsibly cut excess spending to put our nation on the path to economic recovery and lasting prosperity. There are larger battles looming in the days ahead, in which we must tackle monumental issues such as the nation's debt ceiling. This is where our focus must be. I urge my colleagues to stand united as we move forward to ensure that we do not lower military spending to a level which threatens the safety of American citizens. To do so would be an investment in the decline of our national security.

Once again, I thank my colleagues for bringing this bill to the floor. I believe this bill strikes a reasonable balance of fiscal responsibility and providing for our armed services, and will therefore oppose amendments that would further reduce the resources available for our men and women in uniform and their families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The President's initial justification for our military intervention in Libya was that it was necessary to prevent the massacre of Libyan civilians by government forces in Benghazi, and that this would be strictly a humanitarian mission.

As I noted back in March, deploying American warriors to protect civilians from a brutal dictator is a noble cause. Yet I also expressed my reservations at the time because I feared that the mission could result in a protracted stalemate. Although the President promised the American people that our involvement would be limited, a matter of weeks, not months, we find ourselves past the 3-month mark with no end in sight.

This bill would authorize operations for up to a year. We're currently engaged in a war that is vital to our national security. In Afghanistan we're fighting extremists who sheltered the terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, and would again provide them with a sanctuary if given the chance. We're in the process of consolidating our victory in Iraq and still have 50,000 troops there in harm's way.

Indeed, a clear strategic vision is required to make any military intervention successful. Since this operation began, the connection between strategic ends and operational means has been lacking. Consequently, unless the NATO mission departs from its original mandate, it appears that our only recourse is to hope that Qadhafi will voluntarily leave his country. I cannot support a long-term commitment of U.S. forces to hostilities when success is based on hope.

Furthermore, the President failed to seek congressional authorization for this operation on the flimsiest of legal rationale. It's not appropriate for this body to cover his lapse with a blanket authorization.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, the original mission was not to get Qadhafi. The original mission, as explained by the President, was to help, for humanitarian purposes, those civilians that Qadhafi was threatening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

May I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2278.

My colleague has set forth a responsible plan that would effectively limit the United States' role in Libya. This bill would allow U.S. forces to continue to conduct search and rescue missions, aerial refueling, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and provide operational planning assistance.

Mr. Speaker, this is what NATO has told us would allow them to continue to carry out the mission. These are very critical functions. That is all that they have asked us to do as we move forward. And it helps the President be truthful in saying that we're not engaged in hostile actions.

This bill would clearly end funding for all other military missions in Libya. Of particular concern to many Members is the United States' continued engagement in strike and suppression of enemy air defense missions. The President has repeatedly stated that the U.S. is not engaged in hostilities and that congressional authorization is not necessary to continue our role in this operation.

I share with many of my colleagues the view that firing a missile at a target in a foreign nation does indeed constitute hostile action. This disagreement is at the root of the issue at hand. H.R. 2278 would put an end to that debate by explicitly defining the congressionally authorized scope of the U.S. military mission in Libya.

The administration has yet to present Congress and the American people with a clear strategic objective for our involvement in Libya. Furthermore, to date we have not been informed of a specific end goal under which the U.S. military operations would cease. This threatens the effectiveness of our mission and can soon create an unjustifiable strain on our military while they remain engaged in two other theaters of operation critical to our national security interest.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, my good friend from Washington, there

are a lot of things that would make me feel better. If we could go back and start this whole thing over, there are a lot of things that would make me feel better. But the President has said we're not engaged in hostilities. And I think we would agree that when we're firing missiles, when we are having missions with our fighter planes suppressing ground fire, I believe that would be--most of us agree that that is hostile.

The NATO people, we met with the military from Great Britain. They told us what we have in here would allow them to continue successfully their missions.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I do not believe that the President has provided adequate justification for our military operations in Libya nor why continued intervention in a humanitarian stalemate is in our national interest.

More than 2 weeks ago, I sent a letter to the President outlining my concerns regarding our strategy, our role within NATO operations, and the escalating costs of these operations at a time when the administration is asking the Department of Defense to make an additional $400 billion in cuts. To date, I have not received a reply.

Yet I believe that forcing the hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces from NATO operations in Libya would embolden Qadhafi and gravely damage our credibility with our allies. Consequently, such a move could have dramatic, negative, second-order effects on operations that are critical to our national security, such as operations in Afghanistan.

I believe Speaker Boehner's resolution addresses much of the frustration shared by Members of this body. The resolution reinforces provisions in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act prohibiting the escalation of U.S. participation without express authorization from Congress. This resolution requires the President to clearly outline the strategic interests that justify intervention in Libya, to explain how the operational means being employed will secure them. It requires a prompt and transparent accounting of costs as well as information regarding the capacity and intentions of the rebel forces. This information is essential to allow Congress to execute its constitutionally mandated oversight role of military operations.

Again, I fully agree that the administration has been disturbingly dismissive of Congress's role in the authorization of military force. But I also feel that passing this resolution is the most effective way of holding the President accountable without sacrificing other vital national interests that would be damaged by a precipitous withdrawal from NATO operations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Error and Land Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Young.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.