Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that one of our former colleagues, the Honorable Graham P. Purcell, Jr., has passed away at the age of 92.

Graham Purcell was a larger-than-life figure who led a remarkable life of service. Whether it was as a soldier in World War II, a State judge, or a U.S. Congressman, he served with a strength of character and with a love of country that has provided an example and an inspiration for many people, including me. A man of deep faith, Graham possessed a generosity of spirit that extended to all aspects of his life. He was a member of the Greatest Generation that saved the world from totalitarianism and then came home to build the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. But Graham Purcell was also an individual who would stand out in any generation, rising from humble roots to help make history.

He was born in Archer County, Texas, on May 5, 1919. After high school, he enrolled in Texas A&M, but the war came, and shortly after Pearl Harbor he entered the Army, serving in Tunisia and in Italy, and earning, among other awards, the Silver Star. Even after he was discharged, he continued to serve in the Army Reserves for a number of years. When he returned from the war, he finished his degree at Texas A&M and then Baylor Law School. After practicing law for a few years, he was appointed judge for the 89th district court in Texas, and served from 1955 until 1962, when he resigned in order to run for Congress in a special election.

Serving in the House from January 1962 until January 1973, Congressman Purcell focused primarily on his work on the Agriculture Committee, serving as chairman of the Livestock Subcommittee. He also played a key role in the Congressional Prayer Breakfast, and served the people of North Texas with integrity and distinction for 11 years. After Congress, Graham practiced law and helped found a large law firm and then served as a visiting district judge in Texas. But in whatever capacity--soldier, judge, Congressman, citizen--Graham was committed to serving others. He and his wife, Nancy, just recently received an award for helping children in crisis in the Wichita Falls community.

Graham Purcell led a rich, full, remarkable life. How many others can say that they shook hands with Winston Churchill while serving as a soldier in Italy; had Vice President Johnson come pick him and his family up at the airport just after he was elected in a special election to take them to the Johnson home so they could stay for a while until they had a chance to find a place of their own; or, on the last night of President Kennedy's life spent more than an hour with him on the plane from Houston to Forth Worth, swapping stories back and forth, and then was in the motorcade the next day when President Kennedy was assassinated; or, made numerous trips back and forth to Vietnam to thank our soldiers for what they were doing there, always stopping at a burn unit along the way to make sure that those severely wounded would know that their country appreciated what they were doing; or, at age 92, just a few weeks ago, offer important guidance and advice to one of his successors about the importance of putting the country first ahead of party, ahead of personal considerations.

Although Graham loved history--and he certainly loved to regale family and friends with some of his amazing stories--he was also a person who was always looking forward. He was consumed by what kind of country would be left to his children and his grandchildren. And it was this focus on the common good that dominated his life story and really defined him as a man and as a public servant. He and his wife, Nancy, have 8 surviving children as well as 25 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren, all of whom benefited from his loving care and will miss him greatly.

Although Graham had many titles and roles in his life, he knew that first and foremost he was a child of God. It was from this perspective that he lived--and it is in this assurance that he now rests.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is always tempting to say we ought to have a plan, but I think the purpose of this amendment is clear. It is to drive us out of Afghanistan on an accelerated time frame without regard for the conditions on the ground. And that is not only a mistake in strategy and detrimental to our security interests; it actually increases the danger to our troops and to coalition troops as well.

Timelines undermine their efforts. It discourages your friends, because they know you're not going to be there very long, it encourages your enemies because that helps them plan their assault against you, and it ensures that anybody on the fence hedges their bets because they know that you're not going to be around for very long.

And, Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me at a time when our government is wanting President Karzai to make difficult decisions, it is not particularly helpful for the minority leader to go over there and tell him how tired we are. Is that persuasive? Does that help him make the tough decisions to end

corruption and to stand up the Afghan police? Somehow I don't think so.

Mr. Chairman, I want our troops to come home as soon as they possibly can too, but I do not want the considerable sacrifice of blood and treasure that they have expended to be thrown away because of political impatience. That was the exact concern that numerous servicemen voiced to me when I was there with Speaker Boehner last month. They worry that Washington would throw away the important progress they have fought and died for.

Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, in my district was a banquet to honor Armed Services Day. There were more than 1,200 veterans, people who are serving, the people who have served and their families. And numerous Gold Star families were there. The theme of the night was persistence. And you can tell from those families that have suffered the most and from those veterans that they did not want to have their sacrifice squandered away because of some Washington political compromise.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we need to learn from them and be inspired from them and reject this amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, Will Rogers was quoted as having said, ``It ain't so much what a man doesn't know that causes him so many problems but what he thinks he knows that just ain't so.'' And there have been so many arguments today and in the past about the V-22 that are just ain't so that I suggest that Members have some responsibility to learn the facts themselves.

Some of those facts are that as of February 2011, V-22 has exceeded 100,000 total flight hours since the program's inception. For the Marines, over the last 10 years the V-22 has the lowest Class A mishap rate of any currently fielded tactical rotor craft. The unrefueled combat radius of the V-22 is more than twice that of the helicopter it's replacing, and it flies at more than 100 miles an hour faster.

On March 22 this year it was V-22s that went in to rescue the Air Force pilot who went down over Libya. And the list goes on and on.

The V-22 is performing very well, previously in Iraq and right now in Afghanistan.

Madam Chair, I don't know if any of the Members are particularly interested in learning the ground truth of what's going on with the V- 22 or have talked with marines or Special Operations Forces about how it's performing; but I'd suggest if they want to know the real facts, they ought to go talk to the people who really fly it because that way they will learn about what is really happening.

A month ago, I did have the opportunity to fly in the V-22 in Afghanistan, and I did talk to the pilots about how it's performing, about any maintenance issues they had, and a whole variety of things-- all of which they thought was performing very, very well.

But, Madam Chair, the most memorable exchange I had was talking with a young marine who had lost a buddy of his because the helicopter that was trying to get his buddy to the hospital couldn't make it there to the hospital in that first hour after he was wounded. And that's the critical time. And this young marine told me, he said, I keep thinking that if we'd had the V-22s available at that time, my buddy might have made it there on time.

Now, the bottom line is this aircraft is saving lives; it is enabling our marines and special operators to do the mission that we've asked them to do. It is on-target as far as cost, production schedule, the rest. It is doing more than we expected, and such amendments to remove it at this stage are shortsighted at best.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, noting that it's not about where it's built, it's about saving lives and completing the mission, I would yield to my colleague from Texas, the ranking member of the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes, such time as he would consume.

Mr. Chairman, in addition, I think it should be pointed out that in the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress required that the Panel on Contracting Integrity review policies related to post-employment restrictions. Now that report is supposed to be delivered this summer.

It seems to me to be prudent that we listen to what we ordered them to tell us before we start making new restrictions and new requirements without even hearing what their report says.

So I appreciate the concerns that the gentlelady brings up on this issue. But as the chairman indicated, study after study related to our acquisition process talks about the difficulty of attracting top quality acquisition folks and yet the importance of having those very people.

I think it's very important, while we obviously must consider the ethical considerations, we also, just as obviously, have to consider whether we are attracting top quality talent or repelling top quality talent. And it would be very helpful for Congress to hold off and listen to the report that we have ordered them to give us before we start making additional legislation and additional requirements that could have severe adverse consequences in this area.

So, I think we should reject this amendment, listen to the report, see what it says, and see if and when additional action is needed after that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the bottom line here is that the American people have made their views on this subject quite clear, and their views are they do not want Guantanamo terrorists brought here to our homeland. And that view has been reflected in legislation that was passed even in an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress during the last term.

And I would suggest that there are good reasons that the American people feel that way, that they don't want terrorists brought here to our homeland. Part of that reason, I would suggest, is that the administration has not done a lot to promote confidence in its ability to handle these situations. They come up with one plan, they get criticism, and they back off. It's back and forth. And so we have had needless delays ever since this administration has been in office because, frankly, they have been inept when it comes to having a plan that deals with terrorists that the American people can trust.

Now, maybe if we had a different history there could be some greater confidence in giving greater options, as the gentleman wants to do, or to having some other possibilities. But we cannot rewrite history, and the trust is simply not there.

Instead, what we have are some rather petulant comments by the Attorney General saying that, well, they still want to close Guantanamo and they still want to try them in Article 3 courts even though the law is the other way and the opinion of the American people is clearly the other way. So I believe that the current law that we had in last year's bill should be the same policy for next year.

I do think it's important to point out that this only applies to the coming fiscal year. This is not a forever thing. But this does continue the ban on bringing terrorists here to our homeland for the coming fiscal year. If you're given the history of where we've been and where we are, that's what the American people want.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment because I believe that this is the wrong bill and it's the wrong time to consider it.

But I should say that there is no one in this House who has more respect from both sides of the aisle on cyber issues than the gentleman from Rhode Island. He and I, I know, started working together on cyber issues as far back as 2003. We continue to work together in leading the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, as well as both of us being members of the Intelligence Committee. But the gentleman from Rhode Island has clearly been one of the country's leaders on cyber, as he mentioned, cochairing the CSIS Commission on Cyber, which was a very important contribution to the proposals and the urgency with which this issue must be dealt.

And so I would say that he and I are in total agreement on the importance of this issue and the necessity of this country and this government and this Congress taking action on cyber. I would say he and I are largely in agreement on the things that should be done.

But having said that, I must remind everyone that just a few days ago the White House sent to Congress a substantial list of proposals on what it believes should be done on cybersecurity. I think the thing that makes the most sense is for us to take a little time and look at what the White House proposed, look at what the gentleman from Rhode Island has proposed, and I think there are some other suggestions out there that need to be considered and need to be in the mix.

It is certainly true that some sort of organizational reform may be needed here. But if so, it extends far beyond the Department of Defense, and that is the subject of this bill, which is one of the reasons I believe that this is an inappropriate place to take up the wide-ranging proposals that the gentleman from Rhode Island has put before us today.

As a matter of fact, other than the FISMA language, which I think there is widespread agreement needs to be updated, other than that, most of this other language that the gentleman has proposed is outside the Department of Defense and, therefore, I would suggest is not appropriate for this bill.

The other thing I've got to mention is that the gentleman's amendment does come at a cost and the offset of the amendment is to reduce the O&M funds from the Department of Defense by $1.5 billion. So, in effect, we are making the Department of Defense be the bill payer for the rest of the government to get its act together. And I think given our serious financial constraints in defense, given the appropriate equities involved, that that would be a mistake.

But I want to be clear that the gentleman from Rhode Island has been a, if not the, leader in the House on putting forward important proposals to improve our cybersecurity. I think his proposals definitely need to be seriously considered. But in this bill, it is inappropriate. And at this time, I also believe it would be premature.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that there are provisions in this bill related to cybersecurity. It is not as if we are doing nothing. Yet, as I noted in the comments I made in the general debate portion of this bill, there is much work ahead. I have no doubt the gentleman from Rhode Island, as well as the other Members interested in cyber, will be participating in that.

As I mentioned at the beginning, however, I believe this is not the proper bill nor the proper time to take up this very comprehensive, 55- page thoughtful amendment that the gentleman has offered.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there have clearly been a number of wild exaggerations and mischaracterizations about the effect of section 1034. If Members have any doubt about where the truth lies, I recommend you look at editorials in The Washington Post, the L. A. Times, The Wall Street Journal, all of which support modernizing and updating the authorization for the use of military force. They clearly debunk some of the wild accusations that have been made.

Let's take it back for just a second to the basics here. The current authorization for the use of military force passed this Congress on September 14, 2001. Now, smoke was still rising from the ruins of the Twin Towers in New York. The Taliban was still the Government of Afghanistan at that time. The Madrid train bombing, the London subway bombing, Indonesia nightclub bombing had yet to occur.

But Congress believed that action should be taken giving the President the authority to go after those who perpetrated 9/11, and the AUMF authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those whom he determines authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored them.

Now it is absolutely true, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) voted against that. I believe she was the only one. Everybody else supported that authorization, and that was a decade ago. It has not changed since then.

In the decade since, al Qaeda has changed. As a matter of fact, we have had testimony this year from the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center that the most serious threat to our homeland actually comes from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula headquartered in Yemen. They are the most serious threat now. With the death of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda will change more. But yet the language that passed September 14, 2001, has not changed.

One article noted that it is increasingly strained and artificial to tie everything the military is doing back to 9/11, and yet that's what the lawyers have to do now. They have to tie it all back to those attacks of September 11, 2001. Doing so depends upon the court interpretation of those lawyers' arguments. That's what our national security authority is dependent on at the moment.

I believe it's clear we have got to update the authority. The question is: How do we update it?

Now, here is one option. The gentleman said you remove all reference to 9/11. Well, we could add a list of other dates. We could say Congress gives the President the authority to go after those who aided, abetted, or committed the attacks of September 25, 2009, and the attacks of May 1, 2010--Times Square bombing, by the way, and the first one was the underwear bombing in Detroit--and the attacks of October 29, 2010. That was the attempted toner cartridge bombing attack. Most of those, by the way, we think came from AQAP.

The point is I don't think it's a very good way to legislate, to put a bunch of dates in there of the various attacks and the President is authorized to go over who did those various attacks. That's not a good way to do it.

A much better approach is to take the exact arguments this administration is using in court to justify what it's doing right now and saying, yes, we will take that language. It makes it clear. It's what we are doing now, but Congress will do it this time rather than rely on court interpretations of what they are doing.

So, somebody might ask, well, why bother if that's what they are doing now? You know, why do you mess with it? Well, number one, it's less time with the lawyers straining and stretching language to fit back to the attacks of September 11. I would say, number two, nearly everybody in this House is concerned about our relevance in authorizing the use of military force in various engagements.

Now, are we going to sit back there and stick our heads in the sand while the courts do all our work for us, or are we going to take action to reflect what's really happened?

It's time to take action now.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from California's commitment to deficit reduction, but I'm afraid that this particular amendment is short-sighted. In Afghanistan and elsewhere, more and more of what our troops are doing is living with, working with, and cooperating with the Afghans or the native peoples wherever they happen to be. Helping those peoples to defend themselves is far better and cheaper for us than having us defend them ourselves.

But a basic tenet to make that work is to understand the culture and the social dynamics of those various populations, which are different, of course, from one place to another. It is a basic tenet of counterinsurgency that you have to understand the population you are there to protect.

This program that the gentleman wants to eliminate is a significant research program to see if modeling that sort of social dynamics will work. And I would say to the gentleman that the Defense Science Board looked at this very program earlier this year and found that it was one of the emerging technologies where investment is likely to have the highest payoff--the highest payoff.

The report went further to say, consistent to some extent with what the gentleman was saying, that there is other work being done in this area. But the Defense Science Board found there is a major shortfall in the availability and maturity of these capabilities, and these simulations do not generalize to other environments and require further investment to make them useful for the next potential conflict.

So there is work being done in this area in a civilian context, but it does not automatically translate to the military context, and that is why the Defense Science Board says that this emerging technology is one investment likely to have the highest payoff.

And so the bottom line is that we need to pursue this to reduce the danger to our troops and to make sure that their work is more effective. This is a good investment by the Defense Science Board and I believe by other studies as well.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time remains for me?

Mr. Chairman, I would yield myself 30 seconds simply to say I understand the gentleman's argument. I would simply say the Defense Science Board has looked at this program, and it comes to a different conclusion. They believe this program has potentially the highest payoff, that it is unique and beyond what is happening in the civilian sector or other defense Departments. And that was February 2011 when the Defense Science Board report came out.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining time to the ranking member,

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Madam Chair, it is true that the Department of Defense ought to always be examining where we have troops deployed around the world, and that is appropriate for them. It is not appropriate, however, for us to arbitrarily tell them that they will have 30,000 troops in Europe, X number of troops in Asia and so forth.

I think that it is important to emphasize that among the important functions that our troops in Europe perform are joint training-- building partnership with our European partnerships. Just a few weeks ago, I was at the NATO SOF Training facility where European allies train with our Special Operations Forces before they have to actually be engaged in the battlefield in Afghanistan and elsewhere. That sort of joint training is made possible because our troops are there.

As the gentleman from Ohio mentioned, direct support of our deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya incredibly simplifies, or makes easier, our deployments for logistics and other transportation needs when we are able to base things in Europe and go from there rather than having to come all the way from the United States.

Madam Chair, I think we need to remind ourselves that, since 1945, when the U.S. has had substantial troop numbers in Europe, there has not been another general European war. Yet millions upon millions of people died in previous years because of those general European wars.

The other key point is that this amendment decreases end strength over a period of 5 years. That has real consequences for real soldiers and marines and sailors and airmen all across the world. As the gentleman mentioned, it means they are going to have to spend more time in deployments.

I thank the chairman for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the chairman of the committee and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership in shepherding a complex and important bill to this stage of the process. A 60-1 vote coming out of committee is a significant achievement and is a testament to the attitude of putting the national security interests of the whole country first, which has been the hallmark of this committee, and their leadership exemplifies the best of that in my opinion.

Mr. Chairman, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee is charged with looking ahead at those national security threats that are coming at us, and also helping to develop new capabilities to meet those threats. We oversee the Special Operations Command and counterterrorism efforts. Now, throughout the country, there is a greater appreciation, I think, for the capabilities within the Special Operations Command after the successful raid on Osama bin Laden, but I think it is important to emphasize that those folks in that command conduct that sort of raid just about every night somewhere with the same sort of precision and professionalism that the country now appreciates from the Osama bin Laden raid that got all of the attention. But they do much more.

They are also responsible for helping train and advise other militaries, building up the capacities of those governments to defend themselves, and they are doing very impressive work in all parts of the world, including Afghanistan where, among other things, they are helping to train the military and train local police to help provide security for individual villages. Our bill provides a modest funding increase for this command, as well as meeting some real unmet needs that they have.

Our part of the bill also deals with research that leads to future capabilities. In tight budgets, it is always tempting to cut research and development, science and technology programs, but it is a mistake to do so. In this budget, the funding for such programs at least holds steady with some added emphasis in some key areas that are important.

The largest dollar amount in this subcommittee's portion of the bill is with DOD IT and cyber. This area may actually be the preeminent area of emerging threats in warfare. This mark takes some important steps forward in dollars and policies. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all acknowledge that there is a lot more work for this Congress and for this country to do in the area of cybersecurity. Not all of it is military; most of it is not. But yet the military is affected, as are we all.

Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda is a changed organization; and with the death of Osama bin Laden, it will change further. But I think it is important to emphasize that this Congress must fulfill its responsibilities to affirm and update the authorization for the use of military force to deal with al Qaeda. There have been some wild exaggerations about the attempt to do so in that bill. I think if Members read the exact language and look at exactly what we are doing and why, that they will support it and agree that it is a fulfillment of our responsibility.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this week General Petraeus testified before Congress, and the essence of his testimony was that we are just now getting the necessary assets in place to make a difference in Afghanistan; that our troops and coalition partners are making a significant difference; that the progress is fragile and reversible; but that it is essential that we keep it up because vital national interests are at stake.

I fear that as time has passed over the last 10 years and so many other events come and go in our Nation's life, that it is all too easy to forget that this country was attacked on 9/11 and that 3,000 Americans lost their lives. And we could come to the floor and hold up their pictures and the pictures of their children, of those who were killed on that day by terrorists, the attacks that were launched from Afghanistan, that were planned in Afghanistan and directed from Afghanistan.

This Congress at the time voted virtually unanimously that we would take military action to go make sure that Afghanistan would no longer be used as a launching pad for attacks against us and that from Afghanistan, people would no longer come here to kill Americans. That is the reason we are still there today, and that is the purpose of our military actions there today.

It is true that we may have a hard time plugging all the holes that could develop somewhere in the world where terrorist groups could squirt out to, but it is also true, in my view, that if we don't plug this hole, if we don't fulfill the mission that we have set out to fulfill in Afghanistan, we are going to have more holes all over the world developing, because people will know that we are not serious about doing what we say, and our security will be severely affected if that happens.

There have clearly been ups and downs in our military efforts there, just as there were in Iraq. But I believe that from General Petraeus on down, we have our best. They deserve our support to fulfill the mission the country has given them.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the reason we have troops in Afghanistan is to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a sanctuary from which terrorists will launch attacks against us. For us to one day be able to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, the Afghan people have to be able to stand on their own two feet, and this fund is designed to help them do that.

The people there have to be able to resist the Taliban, al Qaeda and other groups that want to undermine their security and use Afghanistan once again as a terrorist base. This program, as has been mentioned, is a very high priority of our own military commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. Part of the reason it's one of his priorities is, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, this helps keep our own troops safe. When we are able to work with the Afghan people and develop the country, our troops in the country have a less danger opposing them. It is less likely that they will suffer some of the problems from the indigent population.

But the second reason General Petraeus believes this is very important is that it's an integral part of his counterinsurgency campaign plan. So to withdraw this money at this point makes his job more difficult and increases the danger to our troops. I don't think that makes sense at any level.

The other point I would make is this: As the gentleman from Washington said, this was a request from the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense for a fund that both agencies would work on. One of these days this government is going to have to get to interagency funds so that you don't have the State Department working on one hand, the Defense Department on another, other agencies doing their own thing. We have to have a combined effort, and this fund is at least a step in that direction. The interagency nature of it helps to prevent waste, abuse and misuse of these funds because you do have the extra oversight on its use. But I think the key point is--this is a question of our national security to help the Afghans stand on their own two feet, and I believe the amendment should be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to rise and express my respect and gratitude for a number of the senior members of this committee who will not be with us in the next Congress: the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my colleague from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and my friend from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder. Each of them have made innumerable contributions not only to the committee but to national security.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely appropriate to name a defense authorization bill after our chairman, Mr. Skelton, who, over the totality of his career, has made innumerable contributions not only to this body and to the committee, but to the national security of the country.

I think it is unfortunate that this particular bill has followed the tortured process it has in getting here. In some ways, it's unworthy of the contributions that the gentleman from Missouri has made over the course of his career. I think it is going to be very important for us moving forward to try to, just as we return the House to a more regular order where Members can make contributions, that the whole process of a defense authorization bill can return to a more regular order.

I'd like to just mention a couple of provisions. One was mentioned on bringing detainees here from Guantanamo. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to have that provision here, but we should remember that how we got here was a rash and irresponsible campaign promise by the President that he was going to close Guantanamo within the first year. And as the administration has tried to dodge and weave its way around keeping that promise, we have come to a virtual standstill on bringing those detainees through a judicial process. I hope that this bill is the first step towards making that happen, getting back to a regular judicial process for those detainees.

The other provision I want to mention is the acquisition reform, an important first step to be sure, but it will be very important for this committee also to follow it up and measure the effectiveness, because every dollar spent is critical to be effective.

I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan yielding.

Madam Speaker, I think it's important also to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan who has served on this committee for the last 8 years, including as chairman of the committee and, for the last 4 years, as the ranking member of the committee. The contributions he has made in that capacity to the country will never be fully known, but those of us on the committee I think do appreciate the considerable work that he has done and the contributions he has made.

It's unfortunate that the last bill on which he will help manage time on the floor is this bill. I don't see how any Member can come and congratulate ourselves on finally getting an intelligence authorization bill to the floor that doesn't even have a classified annex to it. It doesn't seem to me to be a real bill at all. Unfortunately, and through no fault of the chairman who has been struggling to get a bill to the floor for months--years, actually, more than a year; it is not his fault--but this is not a real bill.

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, the history of this bill is rather pitiful. It was reported out of the committee in June of 2009, but then for 8 months you couldn't find time to bring it to the floor. Now, why was that? It wasn't like we had a lot of other pressing business for 8 months that prevented this bill from coming to the floor. It was because the Speaker set off a firestorm and controversy about when she was briefed on interrogations and what she knew and when she knew it. And then to defend herself, she charged that the CIA lies to us or misleads us all the time.

Well, then the bill could not be brought to the floor because there had to be a way found to protect the Speaker. And so 8 months later it finally comes to the floor, and then it takes two rules to get it to the floor because there was a provision added in the manager's amendment, again to prosecute CIA people, to hold them to a higher standard of accountability than all the law enforcement folks around the country. So they had to go back to the drawing board.

Now, 7 months after that, we are brought this kind of a shell bill and asked to rubber-stamp on the last day of the session what the Senate has done. As I say, Madam Speaker, I don't think there's much to be proud of here.

On the notification provision that we've heard so much about, it does very little. And I think it is sad in a lot of ways that the majority walked away from the bipartisan, the truly bipartisan compromise of a couple years ago that would raise the bar and require any administration to give this Congress more information. Instead, we have this token language which does very little, and yet, Madam Speaker, as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center testified last week before the Senate, we have had more attempted attacks on our homeland over the past year than at any time since the attacks of 9/11.

So I think what is particularly unfortunate is what this bill does not do. This bill does nothing to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being brought here to the mainland of the United States, and yet tomorrow, the end of the fiscal year, tomorrow, all of the existing statutory prohibitions on bringing those terrorists here to the mainland expire. This bill was an opportunity to do something about that, and yet it does nothing.

This bill says nothing about releasing detainees who end up returning to the fight and come back attacking and sometimes killing our soldiers around the world.

This bill does nothing about foreign terrorists being told that they have the right to remain silent even before we get the information we need from them to prevent the next attack. Even though this House has voted on a bipartisan basis that they are not entitled to be told they can remain silent before we get the information we need, that's not in this bill.

This bill does nothing to try to resolve the issues of whether detainees should be tried in military or civilian courts, and yet those are some of the very issues that the American people want to see resolved.

For you see, Madam Speaker, for the last several months House Republicans have been listening to people and asking them what they would like to see done in Congress, and we've heard lots of information about not letting taxes go up, about restraining spending, repealing the health care bill, but on national security, the things we heard and the things that are in the Pledge to America talk about bringing detainees to the United States and about not letting them be released prematurely so that they return to the fight and not caring more about their rights than about the rights of the lives of Americans that we try to prevent.

We could do a lot better than this bill, Madam Speaker, and it should be rejected.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey that we do have an independent constitutional responsibility to obtain the information that is necessary for us to do our job, not just on covert action but on all information. That is one of the reasons I was so disappointed at this fig leaf notification provision which is in this bill.

Madam Speaker, there are all sorts of bad ideas that start coming out and can even pass one body or another unanimously at the end of a session, but this bill is not a real bill.

We have talked several times about the classified annex. What that means is a line-by-line description of the various intelligence programs and how much funding would go to each of them. That is the basic essence of an intelligence authorization bill, and yet that does not exist with this bill. That is what had bipartisan support over the last 1\1/2\ years as we have been working on it. But then, when it comes to the floor, that part suddenly gets dropped. What is left is just a rubber stamp of what the appropriators have done, and that does include the earmarks that the gentleman from Michigan talked about.

So instead of coming to fruition for the work that this committee has done for the past 1\1/2\ years, instead we get what the Senate will accept or are expected to rubber-stamp it over here and pretend we have done something. But we haven't. We haven't done the basic things that the American people want us to do to keep this country safe.

And I think it is true, as the chairman indicated, the American people do not want us to just say ``no.'' They want us to say ``no'' more often to bad ideas and wish this Congress had said ``no'' more often to a lot of the things that had actually gotten passed. But they want us to seriously address the issues about Guantanamo detainees, about Mirandizing terrorists, about making sure that terrorists are not released prematurely, keeping this country safe; yet this bill falls short. It is a disappointment.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that most Americans don't realize is to what extent the Speaker, through the Rules Committee, controls this House and even what we can vote on. She determines what bills will be brought here, even what amendments may be offered. And there are very few ways to get another issue even considered here.

But that's what this next vote is about. It's about trying to get a vote on a proposal that most people who went on the YouCut Web site this week have chosen as something that should at least get a vote.

Now the gentleman from Mississippi has a serious proposal on the floor. But there are other serious proposals which ought to be considered as well.

One of them is to cut the subsidy that goes to Amtrak's sleeper class service.

Madam Speaker, the facts are this. Sixteen percent of the people who ride Amtrak's long distance routes, 16 percent, choose the sleeper class service. Everybody else rides in coach, but the people who choose the sleeper class service, as the whip mentioned, get a private compartment, usually a private bathroom. They have turndown service where somebody comes and pulls back their sheets at night. They have unlimited meals in the dining car, all a very nice thing, but the problem is the taxpayers subsidize an average $396 per ticket for every one of those people who choose that sleeper class service. You add it all up and it ends up being actually more than $1 billion over 10 years that the taxpayers subsidize the people who choose the sleeper class service.

Now, our proposal doesn't eliminate that service. It doesn't change any Amtrak routes. It just says, if you're going to have that service, you ought to pay the cost of it. You ought to pay the cost of what you buy. I don't think that's terribly revolutionary, but it saves more than $1 billion to the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, in January I got to speak to a bunch of high school seniors in Randall High School in my district. At that time, their share of the national debt was about $39,000. Today, their share of the national debt is $42,739.

I think the next vote hinges on this question: Is it worth $1 billion of subsidies for sleeper class service to add to the debt that those high school seniors have to pay? That's the question the Members will answer with the next vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, who has been a very strong advocate for veterans and a respected voice in national security during the time that he has been in Congress. We will surely miss him in another year when he is no longer in our midst.

Madam Speaker, this is one of those issues that leaves people scratching their heads and saying, well, that doesn't make sense, because the way it works now is to be eligible for a State veterans home, a Gold Star parent must have lost all of their children. This bill will allow a parent to be eligible for a State veterans home if they have lost a child while serving in the military.

Now, there are 137 State veterans homes in all 50 States. Those States will still be able to determine the priority level about admissions. They still have to have 75 percent of their beds occupied by veterans. But the average occupancy rate now across the country is 86 percent. There is roughly 15 percent of empty beds in these homes, so this bill basically allows an added group of Gold Star parents who have lost a child while serving in the military to be eligible to fill those beds.

Essentially, there is no cost. The Department of Veterans Affairs has come back and said it will not cost the Federal Government anything. Our visits with the States have gotten the same result. It is supported by the American Legion, the VFW, and the Veterans Department.

Madam Speaker, I would say it has a practical benefit in that it gives an additional option for parents who have lost a child serving in the military, but in a larger sense, it gives a message of gratitude and support for the sacrifice that those parents have made.

I want to thank the chair and certainly the ranking member for bringing this to the floor. I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Vic Snyder, the gentleman from Arkansas, who was an original sponsor of this bill with me, as well as Senator Ensign, who brought this matter to my attention last year. He tried to resolve it last year and was not able to do so, but hopefully it can be solved this year. I thank the gentleman again for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I think the first and probably most important point to make on this amendment is that it does not belong on this bill and it imperils the whole bill.

This issue about whether to expand GAO's authority to be able to investigate the intelligence community, which has been an issue in the fiscal year 2010 intelligence authorization bill, has been the subject of veto threats from the administration and is one of, if not the reason, here 4 months before the end of the fiscal year we still do not have an intelligence authorization bill.

So it does not belong here. This is the DOD authorization bill. It is being discussed in another forum where it should, the intelligence authorization bill, and if it gets added to the DOD authorization bill, it puts in danger this entire bill because just today, the administration sent another email which confirmed the veto threat over this provision.

So however Members feel about the particular issue one way or another, I would suggest that you ought to be very careful about endangering the whole bill over this provision.

Second point I'd make is this is not a change to be taken lightly. As the gentlelady, my colleague on the Intelligence Committee mentioned, the GAO has not had this power, authority before since the modern intelligence community has existed. Congress after Congress of both parties, President after President of both parties have rejected this, I would suggest, for some very good reasons.

So this is not a step to be taken lightly.

I think the only argument one can make is that the current intelligence committees are incapable of performing their oversight responsibilities and therefore they have to get this other entity, GAO, in to help them do that. I don't agree with that position. I think the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are capable of performing their job. Now, I get frustrated. I don't agree with everything that the majority chooses to do, but I believe that the committee is perfectly capable of oversight of the intelligence community as we were tasked to do in the House rules and by statute.

These committees were created in the 1970s to fill a very unique role, and to undermine them by saying they are incapable of performing their job which, without bringing GAO and investigators and so forth, I think is a mistake.

I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment may undermine the role of the DNI at a time that is very sensitive for the role of the DNI. Because if you look at the amendment itself, it says the Comptroller General decides what he needs access to, has control over how these investigations will be conducted. Now, the amendment says that you can have discussions with the DNI, but the decision is with the Comptroller General, further undermining the DNI's control over classified material. I think that's a mistake.

There are other flaws, in my view, in this amendment. But the bottom line is it undermines the bill. It does not belong here. And it is a step that previous Congresses, previous Presidents have not chosen to take because of the sensitivity of the material and the unique role that the select committees on intelligence play.

Therefore, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will reject this amendment. I urge them to do so.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the distinguished Speaker about the importance of our role in national security and the importance of Congress' role in overseeing the intelligence community. I agree that national security is the first job of the Federal Government.

I also agree with both the gentleladies from California that oversight can be improved from the Congress. As a matter of fact, I've had legislation, which has not been allowed to be voted on the floor, to make clear the notification requirements and statute about what any administration must notify Congress about, the information it must give us.

I'd also have to point out that the 9/11 Commission made a number of very important recommendations on how we can improve oversight in this Congress. Unfortunately, that have not been adopted. Now, they adopted a kind of a hybrid panel of the Appropriations Committee, but that was not at all what the 9/11 Commission, the WMD Commission recommend we do to improve oversight.

I think we should focus on making our committees of oversight more effective rather than bringing in this other entity, the General Accounting Office, that has historically never had a role with the intelligence community, and that the President says he will veto the bill over if we allow it to happen.

Let's look at ourselves, improve ourselves first before we start bringing in others.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time since the modern Budget Act was passed in 1974, the House will not pass a budget this year, for the first time in 35 years.

This dereliction of duty is important for at least two reasons: One, a budget is the first and necessary step to control spending. Every household in the country knows that you have to get a budget together to know your income and expenses, to separate priorities, and to decide how you're going to spend precious resources. The same is true in Washington. And yet this year the American people and Congress and the administration will not have the opportunity to use that tool.

The second reason is that it just confirms the worst that people feel about Washington. People around the country already believe that too many Members of Congress care more about their own re-election than they do about solving the problems of the country. This just confirms that Members of the majority, at least, don't want to take tough votes, that they're more worried about their own political protection than they are about trying to do what's right and solve problems.

Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to not even try to pass a budget this year. The American people deserve better.