Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of prayer and faith in our Nation's history. In October of 1863, President Abraham Lincoln discussed his deep reliance on God during his Presidency.

In addressing the Baltimore Presbyterian Synod, Lincoln said, in part, ``I saw, upon taking my position here, that I was going to have an administration, if an administration at all, of extraordinary difficulty. It was, without exception, a time of the greatest difficulty that this country ever saw. I was early brought to a living reflection that nothing in my power whatever, in others to rely upon, would succeed without direct assistance of the Almighty, but all must fail. I have often wished that I was a more devout man than I am. Nevertheless, amid the greatest difficulties of my administration, when I could not see any other resort, I would place my whole reliance in God, knowing that all would go well, and that He would decide for the right.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of prayer in our Nation's history. On October 12, 1844, 167 years ago today, John Chambers, the Governor of Iowa Territory, issued a proclamation declaring a day of Thanksgiving to God.

Chambers said, in part, ``I have deemed it proper to recommend a day of general Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the many and great blessings we enjoy as a people and individually, and of prayer and supplications for the continuance of His mercy and goodness towards us; and for the prosperity, happiness, and ultimate salvation of the American people.

``We are told that `righteousness exalteth a nation' and are taught by divine authority that the voice of thanksgiving and prayer is acceptable to our Father in Heaven. Let us then unite our voices in the humble hope that they will reach the Throne of Grace and obtain for us a continuation and increase of blessings.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Prayer Caucus to note the importance of prayer in the founding of our country.

This week in 1791, John Hancock, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Governor of Massachusetts, issued a proclamation declaring a day of public Thanksgiving.

John Hancock said in part, ``I have thought fit to appoint a day of public Thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God for all his goodness towards us, above all, not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil rights and liberties, but the great and most important blessing, the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do earnestly recommend that we may join the penitent confession of our sins and implore the further continuance of the Divine Protection and blessings of Heaven upon this people, especially that He would be graciously pleased to direct and prosper the administration of the Federal Government and the other States in the Union, to bless the allies of the United States, and to afford His almighty aid to all people, who are virtuously struggling for the rights of men, so that universal happiness may be established in the world, that all may bow to the scepter of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole Earth be filled with His glory.''

Mr. Speaker, our country truly is facing a financial crisis. I guess the good news is that even Congress is beginning to ask a question that is part of that financial crisis, which is simply this:

How long can we continue to spend almost twice as much money as we bring in?

The unfortunate part is that we've waited so long to ask that question. I wish we'd asked it before we embarked upon the series of bailouts and stimulus bills that we have embarked upon over the last several years. I am happy that I'm one of only 17 Members of Congress who voted against each and every one of those, but I'm unhappy where it has brought us, which is the fear that we had: that this runaway spending would bring us to a point where we had to begin cutting the national defense capabilities of our country.

Today, we will vote on the Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2219, which will reduce the President's budget for national defense by $8.9 billion. That's only a downpayment of the cuts that are going to come. The next cuts, we are told, could be $400 billion to $700 billion from our national defense. Before we do that, there are two crucial questions we need to ask.

The first one is: What is the risk assessment that the United States faces today?

Now, that should be answered by our Quadrennial Defense Review, but if you look at a bipartisan independent assessment of that Quadrennial Defense Review, you'll find out that we are a train wreck that is on its way to happening because that defense assessment has truly become no more than a reaffirmation of what we are already doing.

The second thing that we should be asking before we decide what we can cut is how much we are currently spending and what the risk will be if we make those cuts. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense hasn't provided us with the audited financial statements the law requires so that we know where we're spending those dollars and so that we know the true risk of making those cuts.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you that there is a way you can find out. Our commanders in the field provide us with the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress, which is a classified document. Now, I know as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee for the Armed Services Committee that I'm in the minority, and am probably going to vote against this bill today.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am also in the minority of the individuals who have read this classified report. And the one thing that I would encourage our Members to do before they cast their vote

today to begin down that series of cuts to our national defense is at least go in to our staff today and read the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress that is a classified document. Our staff is ready to show you the document, to let you review that document. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you will just do that, it will be very difficult to then come on this floor and begin to start voting to cut and make the cuts we're going to make to national defense. Mr. Speaker, that's why today I can't support that bill and will be voting against it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Boehner resolution, but not because I feel that the President has stated a correct policy for us being in Libya. I think he hasn't. All that you'll hear on the floor today would lead to a policy that, if we adopt it, would put us in war with five or six other countries tomorrow. But, secondly, I don't support the fact of how we got in there because I think clearly he didn't go through the proper procedures that we need and didn't comply with the War Powers Act.

But, Madam Speaker, I also realize that regardless of that disagreement he is the President of the United States; and as such he has information about our national defense that many Members of Congress don't have that we need to have shared with us.

And, second, Madam Speaker, as the President of the United States, when it comes to foreign policy issues of this magnitude, we need to give him some latitude to present that case and make it to this Congress.

Madam Speaker, the Boehner resolution does that in a reasonable way by giving him 14 days to present that information. But I believe, as many people do, at the end of that 14 days, if he hasn't done so, if he hasn't made that case, if he hasn't given us that information, we need to be prepared to launch the subpoenas to get the information, or we need to be back on this floor taking action to cut off the funding of what's taking place there.

Madam Speaker, I hope we will support the Boehner resolution. I think it's a reasonable approach and the correct approach.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We all know this: Every great champion knows that he hears from the sideline those voices who are constantly screaming for him to quit, those voices who tell him the race is just too tough, the finish line just too far away, just quit.

Mr. Chairman, when I listen to what I'm hearing today and I realize that both sides now in Afghanistan are working for a 2014 timetable, they're both serious about it, they're both pursuing it, I think, who would love this amendment?

Well, I've heard a lot about our troops, but I just got back last week and I talked to a lot of troops across Afghanistan, and I will tell you, I don't think there was a one of them that I talked to that would have supported this amendment.

The second thing is, I talked to young individuals who were elected to the Parliament in Afghanistan who were talking about concepts of freedom for the first time and transparency and who were working to change that government in Afghanistan. Not one of those individuals that I spoke to would have supported this amendment.

I saw young children for the first time in Afghanistan beginning to flood into school every day. Not one of them would have looked and supported this amendment.

I talked to Afghan soldiers who were being trained and who realize the importance they have of reaching that 2014 time period and taking over the reins, and not one of them would have supported this amendment. But I tell you who would have. The Taliban and al Qaeda would love any glimpse of hope that we're going to get out of there before we get the job done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to finish with this. I heard my friend from North Carolina talk about the price tag we pay. Let there be no question that we know the price tag we pay, that our men and women fighting over there know the price tag they are paying, but they also know that our failure to win in Afghanistan and meet the goals we have is a far greater price tag for us to pay. That is why we should defeat this amendment.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment, but, Mr. Chairman, most of all, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for doing what many people often think is impossible in this House, and that is bringing forth a bipartisan bill, 60-1. 60-1, in the committee, this bill passed with this provision in it.

One of the keys with bipartisanship is that the American people realize it's important when we come to national defense that we have both Republicans and Democrats supporting in the same direction. And the key to that oftentimes is the word ``balance,'' which is not always a sexy issue, but it is so important.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, when it comes to the workforce, there are some people who don't like the word ``balance.'' They either want every single employee to be a government employee and hired by the government--some on this side, some on this side--but then, Mr. Chairman, there are other people who want everybody to be in the private sector. I think the beauty of this piece of legislation is it struck the right balance for the national defense of this country because it struck a balance. And it said what we realize is from every general, every admiral, everyone who testified: We can no longer do it with just all government employees; we can't do it with all military employees; we can't do it with all contract employees; but every single one of them will tell you we need that mix.

The wonderful thing about this piece of legislation that this amendment tries to take away is that it creates a comprehensive approach to workforce management and a total force management, which is what we need to do, the most important thing this legislation does, which is to defend and protect the people of the United States of America.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this amendment, that we will keep the bipartisan approach that came out of this committee's work, that we will keep the balance, we will not remove this tool from the arsenal that the Department of Defense needs, and we will reject the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't think the gentleman is on the Armed Services Committee so oftentimes might not have heard so many times the people who meet with us and tell us the importance they need for this overall comprehensive approach. And I'll just point out to the gentleman, as he mentioned the need for an inventory, it's in the bill.

The second thing I would tell you is the inventory alone doesn't do anything unless we go the next step, which is in this bill, which is to say that we're going to develop a policy from the inventory. We can have all the inventory, all the statistics in the world, but what's wonderful about this bill and what this bill does is it takes all of that information and it creates a total force management approach, which is exactly what we need for the national defense of this country.

Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I don't know why we would want to try to skew that one way or the other and take away opportunities for the Department of Defense to get the right balance between military, civilian, and contractor personnel.

The bill that came out of the committee--again, 60-1, overwhelmingly supported by the people who have been at all the hearings, heard all the testimony--is a bipartisan approach, strikes the right balance. This amendment would skew that balance.

I hope we will reject the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, he is right. That's why we have the inventory included in here. That's why we require the policy. All of that is included in here, it's just that the approach that the Armed Services Committee has done is a much more balanced approach. It's one that gives the Department of Defense the tools they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and hope we will defeat this amendment.

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

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. I know he is sincere in talking about deficit reduction, and I certainly appreciate that. All of us on this side are equally sincere. In fact, I'm one of only 17 Members of this body who voted against every single one of the bailouts and stimulus bills because we realized what it was doing to the deficit in this country.

Secondly, I share the gentleman's concern when he talks about some of DOD's decisions to change from private contractors to civilians because some of those decisions haven't been based on business models. But just because they have not all been correct doesn't mean they have all been wrong. And the problem with this approach is that it's exactly the wrong approach because it will be a disincentive to the Department of Defense to try to reach these efficiencies.

The reason that DOD has an incentive to try to make these efficiencies is so that they can reprioritize and use these dollars for programs that are absolutely vital and important for the national defense of the country. To say that every time they make those savings we are going to take off of the top line of the Department of Defense will be a disincentive for the Department of Defense to make those savings.

And here are the effects that we have. If we don't have civilians doing these jobs, we have had testimony coming before our committee from our generals and our admirals that basically what that means is they have to take military personnel to do that work, which means they don't have the time to do the training that they need to do to be prepared to fight and defend this country.

The other concern we have with some of the reductions that we would be taking out of DOD, in the budget submitted to us this year, they were actually pushing back on facility maintenance that we needed to keep our facilities updated to only 80 percent of the maintenance that was required.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think it's vitally important that we do a lot for deficit reduction. I think it's vitally important that we look at the fact, for example, that on some of our stimulus bills we're talking about $800 billion. In this, we're talking about several million dollars.

But I think the most important thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we make sure we are giving DOD the incentives they need to make sure they are prioritizing correctly the dollars that they have and that we not take money off of the top line of the defense budget, which I think would be detrimental to us at this time.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer my good friend's question by saying I absolutely believe what Admiral Mullen said. When you look at the efficiencies that the Department of Defense has been talking about, we're talking about roughly $179 million. But I would suggest my friend look at comparing that to the $800 billion that we spent on a stimulus package which I voted against because I realized what it was doing to the deficit in this country, exactly what the admiral mentioned.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, that I would suggest to the gentleman is, quite honestly, I will tell him I do not know if the Constitution mandates or gives us the authority to bail out the auto industry or the insurance industry or the banking industry or the mortgage industry or whatever else we've been bailing out, but one thing I do know is this. When some of the smartest people this Nation has ever birthed came together and agreed on one thing in our Constitution, the thing they mandated that this Congress do is to maintain strong armies and navies and to defend this country. And one of the things I unabashedly will say is that we need to stand firm and make sure the Department of Defense has the dollars that they need to defend and protect freedom and to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. And I believe this amendment goes a step towards taking that ability away from them.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and I appreciate his work on the Armed Services Committee. He's always very thoughtful and always committed to the national defense of our country.

As I listened to him over and over again, I was agreeing with many of the things that he said. I think oftentimes the decisions that the Department of Defense has made under the guise of efficiencies have not been efficiencies at all. They could have actually cost us more. I think, secondly, they have been made without being well thought out. I think sometimes they have backfilled their analyses after they made those decisions.

But as I read the gentleman's amendment, basically it would suspend all the sourcing and workforce management policies based on all of DOD's efficiency initiatives, which is a wide gamut. Mr. Chairman, I think that, even though, as I mentioned before, I think oftentimes the Department of Defense has been wrong in some of its efficiencies, that doesn't mean they've been wrong in every situation. And one of the things that I think is a vital flaw in the gentleman's amendment is that there's no offset for the amendment to cover the reverse on the planned savings. In fact, according to the information I have been given, the cost of not implementing these efficiencies could be as much as $3 billion. That is off of the top line of the Defense budget. And I know the gentleman would agree with me that, at this particular point in time, such a huge hit to the Department of Defense would not be in the best interest of the national defense of the country.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose the amendment. I hope that I can work with the gentleman and other members of the committee so we can make sure DOD gets this right as they move down the road. But certainly we don't want to put this kind of impact on our men and women in uniform at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to applaud the gentleladies for the amendment they have brought forward because they have hit a true problem with the Department of Defense. There is a statute requiring that the Department of Defense audit their financial records, and they have failed do that. They didn't do it in 2007, didn't do it in 2008, didn't do it in 2009, didn't do it in 2010. They are not going to do it this year. But this is part of a bigger problem.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have got to do for the national defense of this country, first of all, is determine what the true threat assessment is without having budgetary influences. The independent panel that reviewed our QDR has said that they are very, very concerned that our QDR, our defense strategies, are dictated more by the budget than they are by risk assessments. And I am proud of the fact that the chairman and the ranking member have fought very hard to make sure in this bill they have moved us in that direction.

Secondly, we've got to determine the true cost of defending the country based on those risk assessments. And thirdly, we've got to determine what the risks are if we don't do it. And the fourth thing, as the gentlelady mentioned, we've got to know where our money is going, and right now we do not know that. But the unfortunate thing is this bill is just a bridge too far. It is a risky situation to begin cutting all of the funding from many of these operations and we are not cutting the missions.

While I agree with the gentlelady's concern and think we need to work towards it, I am proud of the work that we have done in this committee this year to move that forward. I can assure the gentlelady we are going to continue to work to hold DOD's feet to the fire and to make sure they're accountable for the dollars they spend. The American taxpayers deserve that.

But I hope we will reject this amendment because our men and women in uniform and the people of the United States also deserve to make sure we're doing everything possible to defend and protect this country, and I'm afraid this amendment would put that defense in jeopardy. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady makes a good point, it is past time this happened, but this is a very risky thing to do.

One of the things, these waivers are limited. The second thing is, it's very difficult for the President to come in and make sure he is making all the appropriate waivers. This could jeopardize monies that we are spending for training, money that we are spending for modeling and simulation to forecast risk assessments that may hit the United States and where they hit the United States.

I think we need to be very, very careful before we come in with a sledge hammer and begin hitting all of this funding across the board, that we make sure that we recognize we have a problem. But the key for us, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure we are very, very deliberate and very careful about how we address that problem.

I think we have done it in this bill. I think we have done it in a bipartisan manner. It was 60-1 in the bill, and I think, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will reject this avenue because I don't think we can afford to just go in and carte blanche cut off all the funding, as much as I may wish we could do that. I think it's dangerous for the American people and for the defense of the country. I hope, once again, we will defeat the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we stood on this floor about a year ago when the minority was the majority, and the language they want to change now is the language they approved. In fact, the then-chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, said this: `` . . . we are in a position to accept this motion. I just wish to point out that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism. I agree with the motion.''

But, Mr. Chairman, what a difference a year makes because there is not just some difference; there is a huge gap now between the Democrats and the Republicans on fighting terrorism. And I have never heard so many red herrings, the red herrings of all of these people who have been tried here. Very few of them were detained under the authorization to use military force. Most of them were arrested and detained based on law enforcement, a huge difference.

They raised the questions: Can we hold them here? Sure.

They asked: Can we get a conviction? Possibly.

But the real question is why would we want to bring them here to trial. There is no prosecutor who knows what he is talking about, no investigator who is going to walk in here today and tell you that it is easier to convict one of these detainees by bringing them to the United States and trying them in an Article III court than it is to do it in a military tribunal.

And the reason is, they ask: Who wants it? I tell you who really wants it, the ACLU. Why do they want it? Because they don't want convictions. They have already said they want all of the detainees released. And they know the moment they hit U.S. soil, they will pick up a host of constitutional rights they don't now have. They know it will be harder to get conviction, and they also know this: that one of the trials that took place in AMF, the defendant was acquitted of over 200 different counts.

When, Mr. Chairman, is someone going to stand up for the rights of the victims of terror here who asked this question: When are we going to start getting prosecutions?

My good friend from New Jersey talked about the fact oh, we want to let our prosecutors make these decisions. We want to let them go forward unfettered. What he didn't point out to you was that was happening. The prosecutors, a special prosecutor working under the current law at that time had worked for over 18 months, over 56 motions. That prosecutor would have told you he would have had guilty pleas in 6 months, and this administration not only stopped him, not only took away his rights, but did away with the entire investigation and started from zero; and they have been 2\1/2\ years and haven't prosecuted.

Mr. Chairman, the question for us today is very, very simple. We have got military tribunals. Nobody is truly questioning the constitutionality of those military tribunals. The question for us is when are we going to prosecute them. The other question is let's keep the terrorists out of the United States and let's vote against this amendment.

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

Once again the gentlelady raises a couple of very good points. We are all concerned about transparency. And as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I can tell you that I live every day examining and being concerned that we have our fleet in a ready state to defend this country.

But, Mr. Chairman, I'm also concerned about this: We fight oftentimes to keep our adversaries from gaining all the information that they try to gain about our military. We fight to protect our computers, and sometimes we don't succeed. But also at times we just have to step back and say we just give away way too much information.

And the gentlelady is right, there is a possibility--however remote it might be--that we could find something in this data that may save a life. That is a possibility, but the far more likely scenario is that we will give away crucial information that could jeopardize our pilots, jeopardize our fleet, and also jeopardize the men and women that they fly to protect. We could jeopardize disclosed fleet readiness rates, critical parts failure rates, and other sensitive logistics and sustainment data that we just shouldn't be giving out.

So, Mr. Chairman, while I wholeheartedly agree with the gentlelady's concern about transparency and readiness, I also realize that to run the greatest military in the world there are some pieces of information, some data points, that we don't want to make available to those who may use them against us. I think this is one of those, and I hope that we will defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Once again, I appreciate the gentlelady. And she is absolutely right, I represent a lot of military families. I just got back last week from talking to a lot of men and women in Afghanistan who are serving there; and I can tell you overwhelmingly, when you talk to those families, one of the things that came out just recently as we had the whole situation with the operation that killed bin Laden, over and over and over again those families were telling me the same thing-- too many people are giving too much information and saying too much, and they're not protecting the people in our family who are fighting to defend this country.

And I would agree with the gentlelady that we need to be on top of this readiness issue, but it's not just our aircraft. It's our ships and the vessels that we have there. And I can assure her that our subcommittees on the Armed Services Committee, both the chairmen and the ranking members, are doing just that to make sure those vessels are safe, to make sure that information is available when it's needed, but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that we're not giving out fleet readiness rates to people who could use them against us, critical parts failures to people who could use them against us, and other sensitive logistics and sustainment data which her amendment does not protect.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I hope we will defeat this amendment and protect this sensitive information.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just renew my opposition to the amendment and I hope we will defeat it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I have just five questions. I understand we've got people on both sides of this issue, and I respect them; but if we ask the five questions, I think we'd vote against this amendment.

The first one is this: Do we need to use military force against al Qaeda, the Taliban and the people who are supporting them, or don't we?

There are some in here, as they just talked about, who didn't support using military force at the beginning, and they don't support it now. I respect them. I just think we're not going to defeat these forces through our words or by ignoring them. I think the answer is clear. We need to use all the force that is necessary and appropriate to defeat them. This legislation does that.

Second: Should Congress write the language to authorize that or leave it solely to the executive and judicial branches? I think we ought to do it.

Third: Is this the right language? It is the exact same language that the executive has put forward and that the judiciary has put forward. We are marrying them.

Four: Does it go too far? It doesn't go too far. With all the red herrings that are there, if you go back and read the language, it clearly says it does not supersede or change the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act was violated then, and it is violated now with this language.

The final question, Mr. Chairman, is simple: Should we adopt this amendment? The answer is just as simple: not if we want to do everything necessary to defend and protect the United States of America against terrorist attacks.

I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, 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.)

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is a rare opportunity that you get to stand up and agree with two friends that you have on the floor, and the only thing we disagree with is the approach.

I would say to the gentleman from California that he is absolutely right. We do need to start this. We need to set those targets. But the great news is that the chairman and the ranking member have done just that in this bill, because of all of the agencies, of all of the departments that we look at across the government, the one that we absolutely cannot be arbitrary on, the one that we cannot guess about, the target we cannot be off on is the Department of Defense. We have to be right there.

And what we realize is that you cannot do this by setting an arbitrary target and working backwards. That gets you huge problems, exposes us to huge risks. We have to do it the opposite way.

The first thing we have to do is we have to ascertain what the true risk assessment is, the threat assessment we have to this country, which we have not done because, quite honestly, it has been more budget driven than it has been threat assessment driven. But this bill moves us closer to doing that and finding out what that risk assessment is.

The second thing after we do that is we have to determine what does it take to meet that risk, and what do we risk exposing the country to if we don't do it.

The third thing is we have to find out where we are spending our money now and where that money is going, which we don't know. The gentleman is correct. We need to audit the DOD. That is where we are moving in this bill to do.

After we have done those three steps, then we can come back, and the Congress ought to be a part of this, of saying here is the target and the number of employees we think that you need to get that job done.

But, Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with my good friend from New Jersey. This is not the right approach. It is a dangerous approach to arbitrarily look and say we are going to begin cutting these employees. We don't know what that will end up doing to the Department of Defense and to the defense of this country.

So I hope we will reject this amendment, but continue along the line of what the gentleman has talked about, and make sure that we are moving toward defending this country in the most efficient way possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank my friend from New Jersey.

A week ago today I was in Afghanistan, and Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that if you listen to our troops there, if you talk to our general, they don't want us to pull the rug out from under them.

Years ago, there were a group of planes that were lost off the coast of Florida and they were heading back toward the coastline and they lost their communications. Everything within them kept telling them turn around, turn around, you're heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, right before they reached the shoreline they did turn around and they ended up going back out to sea and getting lost.

We have a timetable of 2014 that both our troops and the Afghans are working together to make that 2014 deadline. The last thing we want to do is pull that rug out from them now. And I know the temptation to say let's quit, we've put a lot of investment in there, it's too hard, let's turn around, but we need to be cautious that we don't do it too quickly because Afghanistan is different than the rest of the world, because the two greatest dangers we face in the world today are Iran getting nuclear weapons and extremists taking over nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Afghanistan is the bridge that could connect both of those.

It's important, Mr. Chairman, that we not quit. Ask our troops. We have invested too much in lives, time, and money. Let's not turn back now. Let's get the job done--2014 is going to be here soon enough.

Madam Chairman, I am always reluctant to oppose my good friend from Arizona, even when he is wrong, and he is dead wrong tonight.

As you heard him mention, there was a billion dollar savings. If that billion dollars hadn't been there, he would have been telling us all, can't you find $100 million, can't you find $200 million? But they find $1 billion, and no good deed goes unpunished.

And, basically, Madam Chairman, the purpose of this fund is to make sure we are doing the tough choices. And he is right; these Members look every day at the priorities we need for the Department of Defense.

Let me just tell you one of those, shipbuilding. You and I today are living in a world for the first time where the Chinese have more ships in their Navy than we have in our Navy. The independent panel says we need 346 ships in our fleet, the Navy says 313, but their plan doesn't even get us there.

And so I am proud of the fact that we come together and say let's find savings in one area so we can put them in priorities such as shipbuilding. We ought not to cut these funds. It will be a disincentive for the Department of Defense to find those savings in the future.

I would like to first thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in bringing this very bipartisan bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, over the last several months, the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee has attempted to answer one question: Are we ready? I believe this bill makes several significant improvements to the readiness posture of our Armed Forces and remedies many of the shortfalls that we found.

The bill takes several steps to ensure that U.S. troops are properly trained

and their equipment is properly maintained so they can succeed in their missions and have the facilities and services they deserve when they return home.

It also makes needed adjustments to civilian personnel policies and service contracting, and promotes energy security, and ensures that projects offer the best return on investment to the taxpayer.

The bill fully supports the President's request for expanded training as dwell times increase, the continued reset of combat-damaged Army and Marine Corps equipment, and military construction and family housing.

The legislation also makes notable investments in Navy ship and aircraft depot maintenance, facility sustainment and modernization, Army base operations, Guard and Reserve flight training, and Air Force weapon systems sustainment.

To increase the readiness of our depots, the bill includes several of the recommendations included in the study on the future capability of the Department of Defense maintenance depots, directed by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Mr. Chairman, we have no greater responsibility than to ensure our men and women in uniform are fully trained, equipped and ready for the challenges they face every day. I believe this bill fulfills that commitment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work.

Mr. Speaker, if I had been present on February 28, 2011, I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 394, H.R. 347, and H.R. 368.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that this is an amendment that the Congressional Budget Office has said is cost neutral, so we are not talking about revenue coming in or going out. The second thing about this amendment is that it is not dispositive--it doesn't ultimately make a decision. The third thing is that this is an amendment that is supported, not only by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, but by every single subcommittee chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

So what does it do?

It simply states that, before we turn out the lights on the men and women who, without question, have the most expertise and experience and who have had the legal authority to assemble the teams to fight our wars and to respond to our national emergencies, we are going to know who will replace them.

Any time this Nation faces a crisis, there are two observations that always emerge. First, we realize how ineffective our government agencies are in assembling cross-agency teams to respond to that crisis. Second, we realize how good our military is at putting those teams together.

One of the reasons for our military's success is that, for over a decade, whether we go to war or defend our homeland, the military does it as a team. They can bring together a Coast Guard cutter, Army Special Ops units, a marine expeditionary unit, an Air Force squadron, a Navy carrier group, Reserve units, and when needed, even allied partners in a combined response that we call ``jointness.''

It is a competitive advantage for which no nation in the world can rival us; yet, as hard as it is to believe, it is an advantage we did not have just 20 years ago.

One of the reasons we have that advantage is that, for over a decade, a single group has had the legal authority to bring those teams together, and that was the Joint Forces Command. They have assembled the majority of our forces in Iraq, a majority in Afghanistan; they've had control of over 80 percent of our continental U.S.-based combat- ready conventional forces; and they've assembled our military teams for our national disasters.

On August 9, 2010, the Secretary of Defense announced he was closing that command allegedly to save money; but the next day, when the Pentagon briefers came, they were asked by the House Armed Services staff one question: How much money will you save?

Their answer was, ``Not a clue.'' We don't have a clue.

For days, weeks, months, Members have been asking how much this is going to save and who is going to be able to put teams together when this

command is gone. The Pentagon's response has been deafeningly silent. It is not because they are bad people; it's just because they don't know the answer.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says the answers to those questions are too important for us not to wait until September 30, which is all this amendment does, to give our committees and this body the chance to get the answers and to make sure we do not go back 20 years.

If there is any Member in this room who can answer even the most basic core question presented by this closure, which is who will ultimately have the legal authority and expertise to put together the teams we need to fight our wars and respond to our crises, then you can vote with good conscience against this amendment; but you cannot, because nobody at the Pentagon can answer that question either.

Mr. Chairman, this Nation deserves a better answer than ``we don't have a clue,'' and this amendment gives them a chance to find that answer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would ask the gentleman if all this amendment does is give us until September 30 to answer those questions. All the leases are in effect. They can't be changed until that period of time, so we are not talking about cost. But this is the question I would ask the gentleman:

You mentioned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had the authority to be that joint provider and to allocate those troops. But I would ask the gentlemen if, in fact, they do have that authority, because Goldwater- Nichols and the reauthorization act expressly prohibited them from being able to do that. And so I would ask the gentleman if it doesn't make sense, at least before we cut out the lights, regardless of the ultimate decision you make, to make absolutely sure we know who is going to be able to have that authority before we make that final decision.

May I inquire how much time I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the Congressman from the Second District of Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

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

Mr. Chairman, since 2006 the taxpayers have entrusted the Department of Defense with over $2.5 trillion, and the law has required that the Department of Defense make sure that they allow the taxpayers to know where that money is being spent by providing audited financial statements. Yet in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, it was established recently that no such audited financial statements were filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010, and that none would be filed this year.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Defense testified that compliance with the law was, in fact, a priority and that they had had a plan at the Department of Defense. But when you put up the Web site just 2 days ago from the Department of Defense, it showed very clearly that the plan that they had 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 said that they would have completely filed clean audited statements by 2010.

They were only 100 percent off, because according to the testimony right now, the records at the Department of Defense are so bad that less than 5 percent of all of the monies given to the Department of Defense are in an audit-ready position.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have heard some draconian efforts to try to get them into compliance. This is no such effort.

What this simply does is to recognize that we give $2 million in the funds set forth in this amendment that are basically party funds. They are funds for dinners. They are funds for entertainment. They are funds that have no impact directly on our warfighter. And what this amendment simply does is to take away those funds, Mr. Chairman.

And our thought is that if we take away those funds until we have compliance with those audited financial statements that the taxpayers deserve, we will give a strong incentive to make sure that we get that compliance and we are not 100 percent off.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, my good friend mentioned that we need to put something in regulations or statutes to make the Department of Defense comply. We have done that. They have had it in statute. The law requires that they do it, and we have had it in there, and they have just failed to do it 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and they won't do it this year. And they admit that they are not a bit closer.

The second thing is, we mentioned unintended consequences. There are no unintended consequences with this amendment. We intend the consequences. You got to stop the partying until you do what the taxpayers are entitled to have required by the law, and that is just account for where the money is going. We can't determine how much we're going to spend on defense if we don't know where those dollars are going.

I hope we will adopt this amendment.

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

Offered By: Mr. Forbes

Amendment No. 145: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Forbes

Amendment No. 146: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: