Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which overwhelmingly passed the Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 60-1. In keeping with the committee's tradition of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I worked collaboratively to produce the bill and solicited input from each of our Members.

The legislation will advance our national security aims, provide the proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces and help us meet the defense challenges of the 21st century. The bill authorizes $553 billion for the Department of Defense base budget, consistent with the President's budget request and the allocation provided by the House Budget Committee. It also authorizes $18 billion for the development of the Department of Energy's defense programs and $118.9 billion for overseas contingency operations.

The legislation we will consider today also makes good on my promise, when I was selected to lead the Armed Services Committee, that this committee would scrutinize the Department of Defense's budget and identify inefficiencies to invest those savings into higher national security priorities. We examined every aspect of the defense enterprise, not as a target for arbitrary funding reductions, as the current administration has proposed, but to find ways that we can accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more effectively.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 achieves these goals by working to:

Ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training and time they need to successfully complete their missions and return home safely;

Provide our warfighters and their families with the resources and support they need, deserve and have earned;

Invest in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the United States from current and future threats, mandate physical responsibility, transparency and accountability within the Department of Defense; and

Incentivize competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with funding Department of Defense requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I know there have been many questions raised by the ACLU and others relating to a provision in our bill dealing with the 2001 authorization for use of military force. I would like to address some of those concerns now.

Section 1034 of the NDAA affirms that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, and persons who are part of or are substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.

It also explicitly affirms the President's authority to detain certain belligerents who qualify under this standard I just described, which Congress has never explicitly stated. It's important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the President's authority to detain belligerents as within the powers granted by the AUMF.

Moreover, the language in section 1034 is very similar to the Obama administration's interpretation of the authorities provided pursuant to AUMF, in particular, a March 13, 2009, filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. While U.S. courts have accepted the administration's interpretation of the AUMF, it is under constant attack in litigation relating to the petitions filed by Guantanamo detainees.

Because of these ongoing challenges, the administration's interpretation may receive less favorable treatment over time if Congress refuses to affirm it. Section 1034 is not intended to alter the President's existing authority pursuant to the AUMF in any way. It's intended only to reinforce it. I believe that our men and women in uniform deserve to be on solid legal footing as they risk their lives in defense of the United States.

Finally, some have suggested section 1034 was included in the dark of night. I note that this language was originally included in the Detainee Security Act of 2011 introduced on March 9 and was discussed during a committee hearing on March 17. We have sought input from the administration, as well as Ranking Member Smith, his staff and numerous outside experts. Moreover, the process used to craft this legislation is historic in its transparency. In fact, a copy of my mark was distributed to committee members' offices 5 days before our markup. The legislation, including funding tables, was posted online nearly 48 hours in advance of our markup.

It's also noteworthy that there are no earmarks in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Every Member request to fund a defense capability was voted on and includes language requiring merit-based or competitive selection procedures. To those who are concerned that members may unduly influence the Department of Defense to direct funds to a particular entity, I can only recall the words of my good friend, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, who would say, Read the amendment. What does it say? If DOD chooses to violate the law and the text of a provision in the

NDAA requiring merit-based selection, the Armed Services Committee will take them to task.

Finally, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Rules Committee for working with us to bring this measure to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of this bill. In partnership with you, we look forward to passing the 50th consecutive National Defense Authorization Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this important issue.

As the gentleman is well aware, oversight of DOD financial accountability issues is of high importance for our committee. We continue to work with the department to ensure they continue aggressive measures to get the department to a point where we have confidence in their financial statements.

Mr. Conaway is a CPA and brings great expertise to the Congress.

I applaud the gentleman from Texas on his continued efforts to shine light on financial responsibility at the Pentagon. The language he's working on is certainly needed by the intelligence community to meet the financial accounting standards we require of the rest of the Federal Government. If all committees can agree upon language, I would welcome the opportunity to support such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

I yield myself such time as I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, one of the great things on serving on this committee,

the experience that I have had, is getting to know Mr. Smith during these last few months much better than previously and the members of the staff who have worked so hard and so diligently to get us to this point. Last week, or week before, when we marked this up in full committee, we went from 10 in the morning until 2:30 the next morning. And everybody was at work again the next day ready to go.

We get to meet with the troops, we get to see the young people, and some that are not so young, serving us around the world to preserve our freedoms and freedoms of other peoples. And our job is to do all we can to help make their job easier, to help make their job--to help, as I said earlier, give them the equipment, the training, the leadership, the time, all the resources that they need to return home safely to their families.

I think this bill does that. I feel very good about all of the members of the committee, the hard work that they have done to get us to this point. I look forward to the next few days working on the amendments and turning out a final finished product; and, hopefully, then we can encourage the other body to get their work done, and we can get this bill as our 50th bill to the President for his signature.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 1540.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of the bill before us that will fund our troops through the end of the fiscal year, cut an additional $12 billion in Federal spending, and prevent a government shutdown.

Failure to pass this resolution would intentionally harm those who have made great sacrifices in defense of our ideals and our values. We simply cannot have our fighting forces on the

front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya wondering if their families at home will be provided for. It would be a grave injustice and a gross affront to the civil-military relationship. Their pay cannot, should not be disrupted, not for a week, not for a few days, not for a second. Our men and women in uniform deserve better.

I don't even want to contemplate a government shutdown, but if it should happen, people need to know that the pay to our military would be suspended. This means we would have our troops on the front lines risking their lives with their families at home, with bills to pay and mouths to feed, and they wouldn't get their paycheck.

As Secretary Gates has said, many of our youngest sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines live from paycheck to paycheck. While wives and husbands are off fighting to keep this Nation safe, we cannot have them left wondering what's happening to their families.

I think we are mature enough to fix this problem. But if we don't, failing to properly resource the Defense Department during the difficult trials of war could arrest the momentum that has been achieved through the blood, sweat, and tears of our troops.

The military is already overstretched, over-deployed and overworked. Should this resolution fail, they will also be underpaid. We have too much riding on these young men and women to sell them short. Let's work together to figure out this budget, but let's also get this military pay issue off the table first.

I encourage all Members to send a clear message to our military men and women by supporting this critical troop funding appropriations bill--this Congress believes in you, we support you, we honor your dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 1323.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues from the Foreign Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, and my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee in opposition to this resolution. This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military commanders and troops as they work side by side with their Afghan and coalition partners.

Yesterday, in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, General Petraeus, commander of the U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, described significant progress made by our troops and Afghan forces. But while the United States is on track to accomplish our objectives by 2014, the general also warned that this hard-fought progress is fragile and reversible; and he urged that continued support from this Congress for our mission in Afghanistan is vital to success.

When asked specifically how our troops and enemies would view the resolution before us today, General Petraeus stated: The Taliban and al Qaeda obviously would trumpet this as a victory. Needless to say, it would completely undermine everything our troopers have fought so much and sacrificed so much for.

Mr. Speaker, when the President authorized a surge of 30,000 additional troops, he reminded us of why we are in Afghanistan. It's the epicenter of where al Qaeda planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent Americans. It remains vital to the national security of this country to prohibit the Taliban from once again providing sanctuary to al Qaeda leaders.

Moreover, withdrawing before completing our mission would reinforce extremist propaganda that Americans are weak and unreliable allies and could facilitate extremist recruiting and future attacks.

Like most Republicans, I supported the President's decision to surge in Afghanistan. I believe that with additional forces, combined with giving General Petraeus the time, space and resources he needs, we can win this conflict.

During a visit last week with our troops in Afghanistan, Secretary Gates observed the closer you get to this fight, the better it looks. Having just returned myself from Afghanistan a few weeks ago, I couldn't agree more.

Our delegation to Afghanistan met with senior military commanders and diplomats, talked to airmen at Bagram, marines in Helmand and soldiers in Kandahar. It was clear to our delegation that our forces have made significant gains and have reversed the Taliban's momentum.

Our forces and their Afghan partners have cleared enemy strongholds, swept up significant weapons caches, and given more Afghans the confidence to defy the Taliban. We have made considerable progress in growing and professionalizing Afghanistan's army and police so these forces are more capable and reliable partners to our own troops.

As significant as our troops' achievements in the fields are, they can easily be undone by poor decisions made here in Washington. Today's debate is not being conducted in a vacuum. Our troops are listening. Our allies are listening.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are also listening. And, finally, the Afghan people are listening.

Mr. Speaker, I want to send a clear message to the Afghan people and government, our coalition partners, our military men and women that this Congress will stand firm in our commitment to free us from the problems that the Taliban created for us on 9/11. We will not have this sanctuary ever happen again.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Kline/ Foxx/Hastings/McCarthy/Payne amendment which will block the administration from using any funds to implement the gainful employment regulations.

The overbearing regulations the Department of Education promulgated deny students a choice in their educational program and would require the federal government to approve new educational programs being offered at proprietary schools. This is another attack by an administration that is more intent on exerting more government control than expanding job creation in America.

For-profit schools perform a crucial role in higher education; they fill a void in providing college education that traditional universities cannot meet. Traditional public universities are tightening their belts both financially and in terms of the number of students entering their programs. For-profit schools are capable of being flexible enough to meet the demands of students and businesses looking for qualified candidates. This regulation stands to destroy that relationship between the needs of the market and the dreams of students.

After hearing the arguments put forward by the Department of Education several times, I remain completely unconvinced. After receiving over 90,000 comments in the public comment period on the proposed rule, the Department has largely ignored the chorus of opposition to the rule. The process is flawed, the logic at the department is flawed, and the administration's approach on higher education is flawed. Therefore, I strongly support this amendment to ensure that the Department of Education cannot move forward on the gainful employment regulation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. McCarthy and I rise today to honor the life and passing of Ty Killen, a proud veteran of our nation's Armed Forces and a resident of Lancaster, California. Ty's unwavering commitment to her country began during the height of WWII when at 19 years old she joined the military as a Women Airforce Service Pilot (WASP). During this difficult time in our nation's history, this brave group of women selflessly rose to the occasion and supported the war effort by flying thousands of stateside missions for the United States Armed Services. For her service, Ty was recognized and awarded the Congressional Gold Medal last year by the 111th Congress.

Following the war, Ms. Killen moved back to southern California and continued to serve her community as a school teacher in Lancaster. Retiring after 40 years, Ms. Killen's distinguished career continues to have a lasting effect on the community. Ty will surely be missed, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the family, friends, and students who have been moved and inspired by Ty during her life.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on Armed Services, which were adopted by the Committee on January 20, 2011.

Rules of the Committee on Armed Services 112th Congress

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join the entire House Armed Services family in my shock and sadness at the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and members of her staff. The tragic events that occurred this past Saturday give us all reason to come together and reflect on the frailty of human life--my thoughts and prayers go out to Gabby, to her family, and to all the victims of this heinous crime. Violent acts of this nature have no place in our democratic society, and it is my hope that justice will be swift for those who perpetrated this attack.

I spoke with Gabby just before the holidays and am reminded of her tireless efforts to work across party lines in representing Arizona's 8th Congressional District, as well as her unwavering support for our men and women in uniform. Today we rise to honor the service of Representative Giffords and offer our thoughts and prayers for her, her family, and all victims of this attack.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak with a heavy heart for a couple of reasons. One is the process that has brought us to this point. And the other is that this will be the last defense bill for my good friend and partner on the committee, Ike Skelton, our chairman.

He has been a force on the committee and within the defense community for decades. The way he has conducted business on the committee sets an example for all members of the committee and for this Congress to follow.

Considering Ike's legacy, the actions of the Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House are all the more frustrating to me. They have made it completely clear that they place a higher priority on repealing the Pentagon's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy than on the National Defense Authorization Act.

The procedure that is set up in the House for passing legislation is, for the House to pass a bill, it goes through committee, goes through hearings. Finally it is passed by the committee, passed on the floor. And then a similar process should be followed in the Senate. And then once those two bills have been passed, we have conferees appointed. The conferees get together and negotiate the differences in the bills, and final bills are brought back to the floor.

To this date, we have not had a Senate bill passed on the floor. So this brings us to this point without a Senate bill and giving individual Senators the opportunity to have a line-item veto on the House bill after we pass it here and send it back over.

Many of the provisions that we have passed in our bill went through a semi-conference, and some of the provisions which were championed by the House, including a higher pay raise for our troops than the statutorily mandated pay raise of 1.4 percent, a provision which would have exempted critical force protection and medevac personnel from any troop cap in Afghanistan, and several provisions regarding the Nation's nuclear and missile defense policies, those found themselves on the cutting room floor of the conference. Most of those provisions have significant support in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. And in the process that we had, the election, they are demanding a process that is better than the one that got us to this point. They want a legislative process that works to provide our troops with the resources they need, not a process that is held up for months and then rushed through in the waning minutes of a lame duck session.

The process in the Senate, coupled with the Democratic leadership's goal of advancing legislation to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell ahead of the annual defense authorization bill, has politicized the National Defense Authorization Act, and it's indicative of a flawed process with misguided priorities. In a time of war, Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable.

One thing I can promise to the American people and to our military: They will no longer be used as a political football. We will return to regular order in the next Congress, and I think that is something that we can all look forward to with pleasure.

Now, back to my good friend, the chairman on the committee. I want to commend him for years of service to this Nation, to this Congress, to the people that he has represented. We all owe him a debt of gratitude, and I have appreciated working with him, especially in these last 2 years, as I had the opportunity to serve as the ranking member alongside him. We will all miss him. Ike, we owe you much and appreciate your service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Snyder, is also leaving us. He retired. I want to thank him for the years of service that he rendered to this committee and to this Congress and to the Nation.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the ranking member on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the words of Mr. Smith in honoring all of those men that he just mentioned that served for so many years on this committee.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a member of the committee, who will be the vice chairman of the committee in the next Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

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.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the chairman has 30 seconds remaining?

I would like to yield the gentleman from Missouri 30 seconds of my 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned before, Chairman Skelton, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Snyder--all on the top row-- represent over 100 years of experience, of service, of dedication, of devotion to the troops. To those who were representing us around the world and protecting our freedoms, I want to thank them for their service.

I have had the opportunity of traveling with Ike, and I have watched him relate to the troops and their families. He just has a spirit about him, and they love to see him. They are going to miss him. We are going to miss him on the committee.

I am going to vote for the Ike Skelton bill, mainly because it's Ike Skelton, and I encourage all members of our conference to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Speaker has decided once more to subvert regular order in the waning moments of this Congress and bring to the floor, without consideration by the House Armed Services Committee, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Now, anyone who was listening earlier to the Clerk read the bill that we're discussing, it is titled: To amend the Small Business Act with respect to the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. Now, if you're confused, what they have done is taken this bill that has passed, stripped out what is in it, and put in Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

So today, we will debate this standalone measure as a priority when we don't even have a National Defense Authorization Act for 2011. The other body cannot get its work done on that bill because the leadership there placed a higher priority on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to satisfy a Democratic liberal agenda than on passing a bill designed to meet the broad needs and requirements of our national defense, as well as those men and women serving in harm's way. Where are the Democrat priorities? Certainly not with overall national security.

So now we are here to consider the bill by Representative Murphy. It comes to the floor without the committee of jurisdiction being able to formally examine the issues raised by the recent DOD report and without the ability to question witnesses who would have to implement the repeal. Essentially, the high-handed actions of the Speaker forcing this bill to the floor deny the House an ability to assess the conflicting testimony and conclusions that have been rendered by the report.

So I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Murphy's bill. He and the House leadership behind him bring it to the floor in complete disregard for the testimony of three of the four service chiefs and their warning that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness.

Let me repeat that: three of the four service chiefs warn that implementing repeal now will have a negative impact on combat readiness. This is something we all ought to pay serious attention to when we are fighting two wars.

Beyond that, Mr. Murphy brings this bill to the floor in complete disregard for the concerns of those actually in the combat arms. As we now know: ``The percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their units' ability to `work together to get the job done' is 30 percent; the percentage for the Marine Corps is 43 percent, 48 percent within Army combat units, and 58 percent within Marine combat units.''

If there is any doubt about where the service chiefs stand, here is what they told the other body.

General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff said, ``I think it's important that we're clear about the military risks. Implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war. It would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the cumulative effects of almost a decade of war and by a force in which substantial numbers of soldiers perceive that repeal will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness and morale, and that implementation will be difficult.

``I believe that the implementation of repeal in the near term will: one, add another level of stress to an already stretched force; two, be more difficult in our combat arms units; and, three, be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests.

``My recommendation would be that implementation begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. I would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the Army has on its plate.''

The commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Amos, said, ``If the law is changed, it has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for combat.

``Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy to the theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time and, finally, the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time.

``What I would want to have with regards to implementation would be a period of time where our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. All I am asking is for the opportunity to implement repeal at a time and choosing when my marines are not singularly, tightly focused on what they're doing in a very deadly environment.''

Just yesterday, General Amos made clear just how strongly he feels about the threat that repeal poses to marines

in combat, warning ``that a change in current policy could pose a deadly distraction on the Afghanistan battlefield. I don't want to lose any marines to a distraction,'' Amos said in a roundtable discussion with journalists at the Pentagon.

Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norman Schwartz, said, ``I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. Our officer and NCO leaders in Afghanistan in particular are carrying a heavy load. I remain concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in Afghanistan is low. That assessment is too optimistic. I suggested that perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but I do not think it prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. I think that is too risky.''

These are three of our four Chiefs of Staff.

I strongly believe that we ought to listen closely to the concerns of the service chiefs if for no other reason than they are closer to the sense and pulse of their services than are the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Moreover, I also believe that we should do nothing at this time to threaten the readiness of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are at the tip of the spear, fighting America's two wars. So I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the Murphy bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a gentleman who joined the Marine Corps right after 9/11, had two deployments to Iraq, one in Afghanistan in combat situations. We are very proud of this young man.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the time left on both sides.

Maybe we can even the time out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), Republican Conference chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana, who just recently retired after 30 years of service as a colonel in the Army, Mr. Buyer. He also serves as ranking member on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a few times from the other side to do the right thing. I think the right thing will be in the eye of the beholder.

I choose to feel that the right thing for me is to protect those in uniform. I prefer to listen to what those who are leading those men into combat have to say. Just one of the quotes out of the survey said:

In warfighting units, the ones which will be the most effective, 67 percent of marines in combat units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit's effectiveness in completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea.

Now, we may all have different opinions--obviously, from this debate, we do--but these are the ones who are going to be affected. These are the guys who are on the line right now, and they are saying it will have a negative impact--67 percent. I don't think it is worth the risk to put them in any further jeopardy than they are in right now.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, I would implore our Members to reject this Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. Let's go back and look at it a little more thoroughly before we move forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of outgoing Victorville City Councilmember, and nine- time Mayor, Terry E. Caldwell.

Terry was first appointed to the Victorville City Council on April 20, 1972, and completed eight consecutive terms. Born in Riverside, California, Terry graduated from Barstow High School in 1956 and went on to study at Taft College, San Jose State University, did MBA work at the University of Southern California, and obtained his law degree from the Southern California School of Law.

Terry's distinguished career in public service spans nearly forty years. He helped grow Victorville from a small town into a sprawling community, greatly improving the quality of life of families throughout the valley. Never shying away from new challenges, Terry took on responsibilities with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, served over 10 years as Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Victor Valley Economic Development Authority, worked on the Victorville Planning Commission, Victorville Sanitary District, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.

Terry also played a vital role in the acquisition of the former George Air Force Base--now the Southern California Logistics Airport-- from the U.S. Air Force. This included the purchase of 5,000 acres and the development of a long-range economic development plan. Other major accomplishments for the Victor Valley under Terry's leadership include: Construction of the Bear Valley Road Interchange, bringing Victorville the Mall of Victor Valley, growth of the Bear Valley Redevelopment Area, and development of the Auto Park at Valley Center. All of these accomplishments brought jobs, economic development, and a growing number of residents to Victorville.

Terry leaves behind a remarkable legacy of public service and lasting impact on the residents of Victorville. I want to congratulate Terry, his wife Pat, and his three children, Christie, Carrie, and Leon for helping create a vibrant future for the Victor Valley.

Mr. Speaker, for the time to speak in favor of my legislation, H.R. 5194, to name a peak in the Eastern Sierra in honor of Andrea Mead Lawrence. Let me also express my appreciation to the leaders of the Committee on Natural Resources, Chairmen Rahall and Grijalva, and Ranking Members Hastings and Bishop who worked to help bring this legislation to the floor today.

Andrea Mead Lawrence was a remarkable woman. I was honored to know and work with her for the protection of the Eastern Sierra, a cause she championed for much of her life. Born in Rutland County, Vermont, on April 19, 1932, she developed a life-long love of winter sports and appreciation for the environment. A skilled skier, she competed in the 1948 Winter Olympics in St. Moritz, Switzerland as well as the 1956 Winter Olympics in Cortina d'Ampezzo Italy. She also served as the torch lighter at the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley, California. In the 1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo Norway, she won two Gold Medals in the Olympic special and giant slalom races. To this day, she remains the only United States double-gold medalist in alpine skiing. For her significant accomplishments, she was inducted into the U.S. National Ski Hall of Fame in 1958, at the age of 25.

These remarkable achievements at a young age, however, were just the beginning of a life of service to her community and environmental preservation. In 1968, Andrea moved to Mammoth Lakes in the spectacularly beautiful Eastern Sierra of California. It was in this special region she spent the rest of her life working to protect the area's natural treasures.

Never one to rest on her accomplishments, she founded the Friends of Mammoth to maintain the beauty and serenity of Mammoth Lakes and the Eastern Sierra. She served for 16 years on the Mono County Board of Supervisors, where she worked tirelessly to protect and restore Mono Lake, Bodie State Historic Park, and other important natural and cultural landscapes of the Eastern Sierra. As a member of the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District, she worked to reduce air pollution caused by the dewatering of Owens Lake. In 2003, she founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers to protect the environment and the economic vitality of this important region.

In 2008, she testified before the Mono County Board of Supervisors in favor of the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, a bill enacted the day before she died on March 31, 2009 at the age of 76. Andrea left a rich legacy of a family of five children and four grandchildren, as well as a distinguished record in skiing. Her tireless efforts have left a better legacy for the people who live and recreate in the Eastern Sierra.

Andrea Mead Lawrence's life philosophy is summed up in her quote ``Your life doesn't stop by winning medals. It's only the beginning. And if you have the true Olympic spirit, you have to put it back into the world in meaningful ways.''

Mr. Speaker, it is very fitting to name Peak 12,240 ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence''; both in her honor, and as a visible point of inspiration for future generations.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need of these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system as the former chairman and ranking member of Education and Labor.

Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities, but this arguments misses two larger points.

First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.

Second, rescissions to the defense budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that Defense restructure or postpone programs, and in some cases the money is no longer available in these accounts.

Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next 5 years, the only secretary that has been asked to do this. My ultimate concern is these savings will not be reinvested into America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs.

We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats, with the full support of the White House, are taking critical defense funding to pay for another State bailout.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the Federal Government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid for in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense has need for these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system, as the former Chairman and Ranking Member of Education and Labor.

Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities. This includes $683.5 million unspent from last year's economic stimulus package and $325 million for military construction projects. They will use this argument to convince members that these cuts will not harm the Department and to assure you that this next bailout is fully paid for.

But this argument misses two larger points. First, as yesterday's Military Times observed, ``. . . diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.'' For example, in the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, we used the unobligated balances for military construction projects to fund other more pressing infrastructure needs, such as barracks and armories, and many of the services' unfunded requirements. Now these funds will no longer be available for these purposes and the services will have outstanding needs go unmet.

Second, rescissions to the DoD budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that DoD restructure or postpone programs. I am confident the Department will try to avoid adverse effects on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when this nation is fighting two wars, Congress should not be pulling the financial rug out from under DoD at the end of the year.

Moreover, while these funds were identified as ``unspent'' earlier this year, some of these ``unspent'' dollars have already been diverted to other defense programs. When we cut the original accounts now, it will mean that some of these accounts no longer have enough money in them. Think about your own checking account--at the beginning of the year, you see that you have $1000 more than your budget says you'll need. So you move $800 into another account or give it to one of your children. If the government comes and takes $1000 from you at the end of the year, your remaining account balance may not be sufficient and you find yourself in an overdraft situation. In the case of government agencies it is against the law to overdraft an account. We have been told that the Department of Defense may find itself in violation of the Antideficiency Act in some accounts.

Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next five years. Yesterday he announced a series of spending freezes and closures of organizations within his office and combatant commands. Secretary Gates plans on plowing these savings back into force structure and modernization accounts. As elected officials, Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted on inefficient, wasteful or redundant programs. All of us support efforts to identify and curb such programs. Yet, as Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are also tasked with the unique responsibility of providing for America's national defense and meeting the needs of our military services, which is why we will need to receive more information from the Department of Defense so we fully understand the rationale behind each decision and potential impact of every cut.

My ultimate concern is that these savings will not be reinvested into America's defense requirements, but will be harvested by Congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats--with the full support of the White House--are taking critical defense funding to pay for another state bailout. What's to stop them from taking this money, too?

At his press conference yesterday Secretary Gates stated, ``. . . my greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the Nation's deficit problems, to find money for other parts of the government . . . And as I look around the world and see . . . more failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in their militaries . . . as I look at the new kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise missiles and so on--my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today and what we're likely to see in the years to come.''

I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of the Secretary in this matter and vote no to a cut in defense spending. Instead of another Federal bailout, let's make sure our men and women in uniform have the resources and equipment they need. Leave this money in the Department of Defense where it belongs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to COL Jeff ``Tank'' Koch on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force.

I have had the pleasure of working with Colonel Koch on a number of occasions during his tenure here in the House, and have greatly appreciated his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication, which I know has benefited me personally, as well as numerous other members, and countless staff.

So it goes without saying that Colonel Koch's professional achievements are numerous, but I know would be the first to state that none of them would have been possible without the love and support of his wife and family. Throughout Colonel Koch's service to our country, his wife, Tracey, has been his mainstay and a selfless partner. Her balance and calm has seen their family through multiple moves to military bases within the U.S. and overseas. Together with their children, Caleb and Abby, the Koch family has endured the challenges and sacrifice of family separation and relocations. Each member of the Koch family has made a significant contribution to the U.S. Air Force and our great Nation.

Colonel Koch has led an enviable career. After receiving his commission through the Reserve Officers Training Corps at Troy State University in 1987, Colonel Koch proceeded to numerous distinguished assignments. With his new pilot wings and assignment to the A-10 Thunderbolt fighter jet, Colonel Koch served in the 92nd Tactical Fighter Squadron at RAF Bentwaters, UK flying 37 operational combat missions over Northern Iraq in direct support of Operation PROVIDE COMFORT. With help from the 92nd's armed reconnaissance and close air support missions, thousands of starving Kurdish refugees received life- sustaining food and supplies.

After this, Colonel Koch served as an instructor pilot at the U.S. Air Force Academy, returned to the A-10 to fly missions in Korea, and instructed at the same Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program he completed earlier in his career. Colonel Koch also served as flight commander in the 358th Fighter Squadron, executive officer for two commanders of the 12th Air Force, and Chief of Offensive Operations at the AFSOUTH Combined Air and Space Operations Center. He also served as a Presidential Advance Team Agent--and a Capitol Hill Fellow for Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada. This successful arc continued with a stint in the Air Force's Programs directorate as the Chief of the Joint Strike Fighter Programming office and command of the 557th Flying Training Squadron. These successful milestones were recognized with assignment to one of DoD's most challenging senior developmental education opportunities, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Following ICAF, Colonel Koch received a follow-on assignment back to the Pentagon as a Senior Readiness Analyst for the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness.

Perhaps the most challenging assignment was his final one as Chief of the Air Force House Legislative Liaison Office. This seasoned aviator and Command Pilot with more than 3,000 flight hours in five different aircraft has been a trusted and articulate voice for the Air Force on Capitol Hill.

Colonel Koch has excelled throughout his distinguished career and I am honored to pay tribute to this Airman. Madam Speaker, on behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank COL Jeff Koch, his wife Tracey and their children, Caleb and Abbey, for their service to our country. I wish them Godspeed, and continued happiness as they start a new chapter in their lives.