Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my constituents in Washington's Sixth District for supporting me over the last 36 years.

I want to thank Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer for supporting me as ranking Democratic member on the House Appropriations Committee, and most of all the Democratic Caucus for allowing me to chair the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and the Defense Subcommittee.

I want to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Bill Young for working together to restore regular order in the Appropriations Committee and strengthening America's military strength and especially supporting the men and women serving us in our services.

I will miss my colleagues in the House, but will remember my friends in this great institution, the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Washington, the Honorable Suzan K. DelBene, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

Her certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for the Washington congressional delegation to welcome our newest Member, Suzan DelBene, who had the distinction of winning not just one, but two elections last week.

She was elected in a special election to fill the remainder of Congressman Jay Inslee's term, and she was also elected last week to be the Representative of a newly configured First District in the 113th Congress.

Throughout her campaign, Suzan was able to successfully connect with voters because of her upbringing and because of her experience. She spoke to the struggles her parents went through in raising her family and of working her way through college. She earned a bachelor's degree from Reed College in Portland and received an MBA from the University of Washington.

Following her academic work, Suzan had a very successful career at Microsoft and at two high-tech startup companies, and then was appointed director of the Washington Department of Revenue. Suzan is a high-energy person, someone who will work well with our delegation and with all of our colleagues here in the House in the next Congress.

At this time, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington's Fourth Congressional District, Congressman Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, who joins me in welcoming our newest Member.

I now yield to Suzan DelBene to address the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the United States Capitol Historical Society, which is celebrating 50 years of history and service to the United States Capitol.

Congressman Fred Schwengel, Senator Hubert Humphrey, and a group of 15 other Members of Congress, historians, and civic and business leaders organized the United States Capitol Historical Society on July 17, 1962. Fifty years later, the USCHS continues to fulfill its mission by teaching the public about the founding, growth and significance of the Capitol of the United States as a tangible symbol of its representative form of government.

Convinced that an understanding of history was inextricably linked with responsible citizenship, the founders of the United States Capitol Historical Society adopted a mission statement committing the nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization to the role of ``history teacher to the nation.''

More than 50 years after its founding, the Society continues to develop new and creative ways to bring the fascinating story of the Capitol to the public's attention. Among its tools are educational tours, scholarly symposia, observances of historic events, enhancement and preservation of the Capitol's collection of art and artifacts, sponsorship of research, the sale of publications and mementos of an historical nature, and assistance to Congressional and other Capitol offices.

The partnership of the USCHS with the National Archives and Old Town Trolley in the We the People Constitution program is particularly innovative. The Society has committed to working toward seeing every eighth grade student in the Washington, DC public schools tour ``monumental'' Washington to learn about the U.S. Constitution. This educational tour's sole purpose is to help students understand their place in American history and their role in the process of government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a great organization dedicated to preserving the history of the most recognizable symbol of representative government in the world, the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Kelly M. Laurel for her exceptional dedication to duty and service to the United States Army and to the United States of America. Lieutenant Colonel Kelly Laurel will be transitioning from her present assignment as the Senior Army Budget Congressional Liaison for the Army (SAFM-BUL) to work on the Secretary of the Army's Strategic Initiatives Group.

A native of Laredo, Texas, Lieutenant Colonel Kelly Laurel enlisted in the Wyoming Air National Guard in 1989 and completed Air Force Basic Military Training and Medical Records Technician Training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. She later joined the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Weber State University, where she completed a bachelor's degree in Microbiology and Chemistry in May 1993. Upon her graduation she was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Medical Service Corps in the Army Reserve. The following year she opted to enter the active duty Army.

Lieutenant Colonel Laurel's assignments have been diverse, including Medical Platoon Leader, 61st Area Support Medical Company; Adjutant, 1st Medical Group; Budget Officer, 13th Corps Support Command; and Company Executive Officer, 502d Medical Company (Dental Service), all at Fort Hood, Texas. In Korea, she served as a Company Commander, for Headquarters, 52d Medical Evacuation Battalion; and later Chief of the Management Division, 18th Medical Command. In Germany, she served as the Chief Financial Officer for the Heidelberg Medical Activity. She was then assigned to Office of the Surgeon General where she served as the Senior Budget Analyst, Chief of the Financial Health Policy Division and as a Congressional Affairs Coordinating Officer. In addition to her regular duties, she also served as the Deputy Consultant for Comptrollers for over three years, where she assisted in recruitment, career development and assignments for all MSC Comptrollers.

Lieutenant Colonel Laurel has worked diligently throughout her career to help the Army and take care of our nation's men and women in uniform. As a Senior Legislative Liaison she worked directly with the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to educate and inform Senators, Representatives, and staff about medical issues, soldier issues and various programs.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with Lieutenant Colonel Kelly Laurel during her time as a legislative liaison. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Lieutenant Colonel Kelly Laurel for a lifetime of service to her country. We wish Kelly, her husband Raymond, and her children Alex, Isabella, Zachary and Daniel all the best as they continue their journey in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Commander Marc A. Hone, as he prepares to retire after 21 years of service to the United States Navy and to the United States of America.

I have worked with Commander Hone personally over the past 4 years-- first in 2009, when he was a Defense Legislative Fellow assigned to my office, and then for 3 years as an Appropriations Liaison in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller). I would like to share with you some highlights of Marc's career.

Commander Hone graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1991 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Political Science. After commissioning, nuclear operator and submarine training, he reported to his first ship, USS Hammerhead (SSN 663), where he served as Reactor Control and Fire Control Assistant. After taking the ship to inactivation at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the Shipyard in my district in Bremerton, he transferred to USS Atlanta (SSN 712) as the Chemical and Radiological Control Assistant where he qualified as a Nuclear Engineer Officer. He later served at sea as Navigator and Operations Officer on USS Olympia (SSN 717), completing two deployments to the Western Pacific and Arabian Gulf.

Marc also served with distinction in a variety of assignments ashore: as a Flag Aide to the President of the Board of Inspection and Survey; as the Staff Warfare Officer (Submarines) for the British Royal Navy's Maritime Battle Staff in Portsmouth, United Kingdom; as the Executive Officer of Submarine Learning Facility, Norfolk; and as the Deputy Director of Fleet Training at U.S. Fleet Forces Command. In 2007, he served as a Counter IED Liaison Officer in Kabul, Afghanistan-- supporting our Embassy and the U.S. military headquarters located there.

After completing a Defense Legislative Fellowship, Commander Hone reported to his current assignment as a Congressional Liaison, managing a diverse portfolio containing the Submarine Warfare, Intelligence, and Navy Energy accounts. For 3 years, Marc has demonstrated exceptional leadership and foresight, engaging Members of the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Subcommittee Staff to provide information essential to resourcing the Navy for its role as the world's preeminent sea power. In an increasingly difficult budget environment, Commander Hone provided essential support in shepherding three Navy budgets through the appropriations process. Marc served the Navy and our Nation with integrity, insight and dedication. My office, the Subcommittee Staff, and I have found him to be a pleasure to work with and all respect his professionalism.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in saying thank you to Commander Marc A. Hone for his extraordinary dedication to duty and steadfast service to this country throughout his distinguished career. We wish Marc, his wife Marie, and his daughters Natasha and Katarina ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he leaves the Naval Service.

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

While I would prefer to be doing our regular appropriation bills, I support this continuing resolution. H.J. Res. 117 avoids a government shutdown by continuing the full range of Federal activities at last year's rate of operations, plus six-tenths of 1 percent. The CR also preserves the agreement on spending levels and the reforms in budgeting for disaster relief as set out in the Budget Control Act.

On defense, the CR caps overseas contingency operations at the President's request for FY 2013 at $88.5 billion instead of continuing last year's level of $115.1 billion, a reduction of $26.6 billion.

The CR grants some flexibility for transferring funds within OCO since last year's priorities do not meet this year's defense needs in the region. Beyond that, however, the CR is stringent on defense. DOD requested limited authority for new starts and changes in production and procurement rates. Those requests were all denied.

The CR includes only a handful of spending anomalies, providing additional funding only where absolutely necessary.

Wildland fire suppression receives more funds than last year's level. The Interior Department and the Forest Service have already spent all of their FY12 fire suppression funding, in addition to $400 million that was reprogrammed to respond to a harsh fire season.

VA operating expenses are also increased because disability claims are expected to increase significantly in FY 2013 as more vets return.

Without an increase above last year's level, the launch schedule for the weather satellites would be delayed, causing significant gaps in data collection essential for severe weather forecasting.

Increases are provided for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, child nutrition, and Commodity Supplemental Food program, which all need additional funds to meet current caseloads.

There are even fewer extensions of expiring authorizations. Only those affecting spending are addressed.

The CR includes a 6-month clean extension of TANF. Without the extension, cash assistance and work support for working families would stop at the start of FY 2013.

The CR also specifies the LIHEAP State allocation formula to ensure that States receive adequate funding for the winter heating season.

I must mention two concerns.

First, I am very disappointed that we have yet to enact a single FY13 bill in the Congress even though we passed seven bills in the House of Representatives. I know Chairman Rogers shares my disappointment. A CR is not a replacement for the appropriations process. Federal agencies need much more direction than what is provided in a CR, and I believe this measure serves to underscore the need for timely, regular appropriation bills.

Lastly, I am deeply concerned that the threat of a sequester inhibits current economic growth and slows job

creation. The sooner we deal with all the fiscal cliff issues, the sooner our economic recovery will be strengthened. Just yesterday, Moody's threatened a potential downgrade of the U.S. Government's credit rating in 2013 unless Congress averts the fiscal cliff. I wish we could turn off sequestration in this CR and enact a balanced package of deficit reduction to replace it. Unfortunately, any serious discussion seems impossible until after the election.

As Chairman Rogers said, this is a streamlined CR, free of any new riders and negotiated in a bipartisan fashion. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I want to commend the chairman for working so hard and being so diligent in his efforts to restore regular order in the appropriation process, and I concur in his judgment that we should try to put together an omnibus between now and the holidays in order to get our work done this year. That would be the best course of action, rather than waiting until March.

Again, let's vote for this CR and do our work and get it done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who's the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding on this vital matter, and I completely concur with his stated clarification on this CR's

funding and language regarding cybersecurity.

I strongly supported the inclusion of this anomaly, and see it as essential but also limited in scope to only the securing of our vulnerable Federal civilian networks. This provision does not intrude upon the authorizers' jurisdiction or enable a new executive order in any way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the chairman for his very kind remarks. It has been a deep pleasure working with you and your very able staff. I think one of the reasons for the success of trying to restore regular order is that we've had good staff cooperation at all levels. I want to thank our staff, both the majority and minority, for their excellent work.

It has been a great pleasure working with you. Again, let's hope we can convince people that we should get our work done so when we come back in the lame duck session we can finally put the omnibus bill together for 2013 and get this accomplished. I know that's what the chairman wants and that that's what I want, but I appreciate his kind remarks. I appreciate his courtesy and his leadership of our committee. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. This amendment is being offered for purely political reasons.

As the gentleman knows, the Defense of Marriage Act is already current law. Despite the successful repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell last year under DOMA, same-sex military spouses are not entitled to the same benefits as other married couples. This amendment only seeks to divide this House. He knows that current law already prohibits same-sex spouses from independently shopping at military commissaries, using base gyms, or benefiting from subsidized dental and health care.

I do believe we should have the debate of the effects of DOMA on our servicemembers and their families, but introducing this contentious and discriminatory amendment to this bill is not the place. I urge my colleagues to oppose this divisive amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Frankly, we don't have any problem with this amendment. I would be very surprised if the administration would give any classified information to the Russian Government. Now, maybe the gentleman knows something that I don't know. And I understand that there was an inadvertent comment suggesting that after the election there may be a better opportunity to work between the two governments. Those things are said at times. But I have no personal information that anyone is saying that we're going to give them this information. So I personally think it would be a mistake to give it to them unless it was declassified so the American people would know what the information was.

But in this case, just to be sure, I'm willing to go along with the gentleman's amendment. We have to be very careful here with classified information, there's no question about that. There's been some concern expressed about classified information being released to the public, which is another questionable activity.

I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have had a chance to talk to the distinguished chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Young of Florida, about this issue. I can tell you, based on long experience, that no one cares more about our wounded warriors and also of those who have lost their lives and are coming home for the last time.

I think the way that the Department of Defense handles this is appropriate. They are trying to get these bodies back to the parents or to the families as expeditiously as possible. Obviously, Congress doesn't tell them how to do this. Obviously, we fund that program. I just appreciate Mr. Young's history of concern about our troops. I know that he stood up to a journalist, as most of us have had to do from time to time, who thinks he knows all the answers but who has not gotten all of the information.

As was suggested, the decisions about how to do this from Dover to the home are made by the Department of Defense. I think that it is done appropriately, and I think it is done in a dignified way and in a way that all of us can be proud of. So I appreciate what Mr. Young has done here. I just want him to know that I support him and will be glad to talk to any reporter.

I see the distinguished chairman of the authorizing committee is here as well. Maybe it's necessary to have another meeting and to bring in some of the senior Members of the House and those who are leaders in defense to talk to this reporter and to try to make him understand how this actually functions.

I just want my good friend Mr. Young to know that we support him. This is not something that he has day-to-day responsibility for, and he should not be blamed in any way. Again, we just know that he and his wife, Beverly, have been such great supporters of the troops, so to have any insinuation here is just not appropriate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I agree with my colleague and look forward to working with you on this issue. Our National Guard and Humvee ambulances must have the cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment and capabilities needed to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and homeland security emergencies. This should be given careful thought when the Department of Defense makes future purchases. I might point out that this probably comes in other procurement for the Army, but also that the committee has provided $2 billion in National Guard equipment so that this money goes through and the National Guard actually gets to decide what that equipment is.

We look forward to working with you, with the Army, and the National Guard to see if there's an answer to this problem.

I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I support the amendment as well, and I appreciate the work of my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro on this issue.

There are some reasons why these Mi-17 helicopters are sold to the Afghans. It's not just a blunder. It's because of the altitude of the country. There is a legitimate national security issue here that has to be addressed, and I think we do have helicopters, maybe not Black Hawks, but CH-47s, that can go to a higher altitude. I don't know how much more expensive they are or anything about it.

But I just want to point out that, because I don't want people to have the impression that they just did this maliciously. There were some legitimate reasons for this.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Very unique.

There ought to be a competition. I mean, there is no reason that this should be sole-sourced. There should be an opportunity for American contractors to compete, and one thing we're going to have to work on is logistics and their ability to handle equipment. That's a very weak point right now with the Afghan military.

In that respect I am totally supportive of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

As you know, the New START, or strategic arms reduction, is a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia. On December 22, 2010, the Senate increased our national security by providing its advice and consent to ratification of the New START Treaty with Russia. With the New START Treaty, the United States and Russia will have another important element supporting our reset relationship and expanding our bilateral cooperation on a wide range of issues.

As the President said during the end of the last Congress, the treaty is a national security imperative as well as a cornerstone of our relations with Russia. Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within 7 years from the date the treaty entered into force. Each party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of the strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the treaty.

We should carry out our commitment to the New START treaty and not restrict our country's obligation to implement it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I would say to the gentleman, if there is one thing--and I stand here as a member of this subcommittee for 34 years--that we can reduce, it's strategic weapons. We have never used one, except in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And we can have a credible deterrent with a much smaller force. In fact, I agree with General Cartwright that we could use our strategic ballistic missile submarines and our long-range bombers, the B-2s and hopefully a new bomber, and reduce dramatically the number of land-based ICBMs.

We simply don't need, and we can't afford to have and continue to produce all of these nuclear weapons that will, more than likely, never be used. They are a good deterrent and they have been an effective deterrent. Thank God for that. But the Cold War is over, and we are in a position today where we must reduce the size of our nuclear weapons force.

I yield to the gentleman. I've been here a long time. I went through all the arms control debates, and I know something about this subject.

Regaining my time, just for a second, I worked to convert the B-2 bomber from a nuclear weapon carrier to a conventional carrier. Do you know why a conventional bomber is, I think, more of a deterrent than a nuclear bomber? Because with a conventional bomber, you can use bombs. You can go in, and with the JDAMs that we put on those bombers, in one sortie, you could take out 16 targets. That is real deterrence. And that is having a conventional force that is usable.

Nuclear weapons are not going to be used, and that's why both sides can have a much smaller force. We can bring the number of nuclear weapons down. At some point, it becomes ridiculous to have that many warheads when there aren't that many targets, and we're not going to use them.

I know the gentleman is all wrought up about this and protecting our great deterrent, which has been a very valuable thing to our national security. But I have to tell you, if there is one thing that we can reduce by agreement with the Russians, it is nuclear weapons.

I will yield to the gentleman again if he wants to say anything else.

It isn't used every day. It's available every day.

I yield.

I reclaim my time.

You don't need thousands of these weapons. A couple hundred, frankly, could take out Iran and almost any country you can imagine. So, again, we can't afford to do everything. We are in an era where we're dealing with terrorists, and we need to have special forces that can be utilized. We need to have these very effective drones. We need to look at the threats that are out there today and equip our military accordingly.

This is not our responsibility. The Senate handles advice and consent on treaties. We should stay out of this. In my judgment, this amendment is unnecessary.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Would you explain--you say here you have these two brigades, except pursuant to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Could you explain what the impact of this is, the treaty commitments here?

It says:

None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be

available to continue the deployment beyond fiscal year 2013

of the 170th Infantry Brigade in Baumholder and the 172nd

Infantry Brigade in Grafenwoehr, except pursuant to article 5

of the North----

Is there some commitment in the North Atlantic Treaty that requires us to have these two brigades there?

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I believe that this amendment is unnecessary because the Department of Defense is currently in the process of reducing the number of troops in Europe. The Department has already announced the closure of Army garrisons in Schweinfurt, Bamberg, and Heidelberg by fiscal year 2015.

Furthermore, the Department has begun the process of deactivating two infantry brigades, the 170th Infantry Brigade and the 172nd Infantry Brigade, each with 3,850 soldiers. I think this is what the gentleman intends. In addition, the U.S. Army in Europe will see a reduction of approximately 2,500 soldiers from enabling units over the next 5 years.

Reducing end strength of any military service is an art form, as projecting future needs for future conflicts is a very difficult task. Reducing end strength should be part of a deliberate and thoughtful plan that incorporates current and future national security needs of the Nation.

I believe adding an arbitrary cap to the number of servicemembers assigned to Europe could put our national security at risk. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I was a very strong proponent of the C-17 even when Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach was building this airplane. I had a chance to go there when they were doing the wooden mock-ups and when they brought in the load masters, who made it such that the plane was built in a way that it could load cargo faster than any other airplane in history. We have 54 of these at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the great State of Washington. We are very proud of the C-17. It is now built by the Boeing Company.

I just want you to know that we are a very strong proponent. We had some great work done in the nineties in upgrading the software when we had major software issues. We also had a dramatic workforce out there that really used all of the tools of lean production. So the C-17 is a very high priority, and we will certainly do everything we can.

I wish we'd built more of them, frankly, while we had the line open, but we did everything we could. We are at a point now where the line is closing down except for foreign sales. We have a number of foreign sales; and if at some point we need to come back to it, I certainly would be open to that.

Will the gentleman yield?

This has been a subject I've been very interested in as former chairman of the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee where we have to fund the efforts for firefighting, which are very massive.

I have tried to work with the Defense Department. The biggest problem we face is that OMB, when you want to lease these airplanes--we're looking mainly at the C-130J here--lease them for firefighting purposes and then have them deployed with the National Guard in California or somewhere on the west coast, you get into the fact that if you try to lease them, the budget control people want to put the whole burden on the first year. This is why leasing has become difficult. We've got to work out a way to get these airplanes.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I'm very interested in this, and I want to talk to my good friend about this. I would like to work with you on it.

I yield to the gentleman.

I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I want the gentlelady to know that we worked with Mr. Young on a number of insertions of report language in the report because of our concern about this issue as well. This is something where we always have to be vigilant because the people kind of forget what the legal responsibilities are. These are statutory responsibilities.

I appreciate the gentlelady from California bringing this to our attention. We'll work with her on this issue.

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

The New START Treaty limits the total number of weapon delivery vehicles by 2017. According to the Air Force, they are funded for New START implementation, but are awaiting final force structure decisions to determine numbers of weapon delivery vehicles to be reduced in FY 13.

We should carry out our obligation under the New START Treaty and not restrict the Department's obligation to implement it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I want to make it clear to my colleagues just what we're talking about. Under the New START we will have 520 ICBMs with 420 warheads. We will have 60 bombers, 42 B-52s and 18 B-2s that are nuclear capable, and they have many warheads. We have 240 sub-launched missiles. The number of subs are not restricted, but we have 14 Trident submarines.

I would, with all due respect, just say this, this is one area where we can, if we can come down on a mutual agreement with the Russians to a lower level, we can save ourselves the money of not having to replace all of these weapons systems. A lot of very thoughtful people have looked at this issue, and they believe that the two most survivable legs of the triad are the ballistic missile submarines and the bombers. The land-based missiles are vulnerable. Now, we had great debates over the MX missile. We got into how many RVs coming in to take out an existing missile, usually it's two, so the enemy would be using up weapons.

But the point of it all is, the last thing that we're going to be using is nuclear weapons. It just is not going to happen; it would destroy the world. So we can come down to a lower level and still have a credible deterrent. We can't afford to do everything.

The most important thing today, I think, is to build up our Special Forces, build up our intelligence capabilities, and look at the threats that we're facing out there with al Qaeda and the terrorists. Frankly, nuclear weapons are a relic of the Cold War, and we should bring down the size of this.

General Cartwright, one of the most thoughtful former members of the Joint Chiefs, has suggested that we go to a DYAD, just having ballistic missile submarines and bombers. That's something that we should consider. The Markey amendment would have started us in a way of reducing the number of land-based missiles.

I just think it's not right for us to get in the middle of this. The Senate had long hearings. They went through a process of ratification. This treaty was ratified by the United States Senate.

Again, I just think if there is one area where we can make some reductions, it's in the area of nuclear weapons. We're just not going to need as many as we've had in the past, and we can have great deterrents at a lower level. I hope we can reach that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I can assure the gentleman from New Jersey that the committee intends to fund those programs that most effectively minimize suicides. And I'd point out that in most of these situations, this money is going to be competitively awarded. But I'm sure that the gentleman's New Jersey program will compete very well.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from New Jersey has my assurance we will work with him on this issue. And I would just say that our chairman has been a great leader on this issue. No one has done more than Bill Young on this. I look forward to working with him and trying to make sure that this program is completely and thoroughly evaluated by the Army, by the National Guard, and by the VA.

Will the gentleman yield?

I, too, echo the gentleman's interest in the field of directed energy and solid-state laser technology. With the threats and environment that the warfighter and the intelligence community are facing, the addition of new technologies that provide a tactical and strategic edge should be examined more rigorously.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this issue and look forward to working with him.

I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Young.

I rise to seek the chairman's support in addressing an issue of which he is deeply and painfully aware: the rapidly increasing numbers of cases of amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injury suffered by our brave young men and women returning from combat theaters. Of course, these conditions can have a devastating impact on military dependents. They are also having an increasingly devastating impact on the military health care system that serves our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and their families.

There is no one who has worked harder than the chairman of our subcommittee to ensure that the very best medical care is available to the 9 million Americans who have earned the benefits of our military health care system. Yet I remain concerned that newer, innovative practices are not being sufficiently integrated into the military medical system.

One such innovative practice is systems medicine. By more rapidly and accurately quantifying wellness and deciphering disease, systems medicine will promote translational research by linking the Department's research and development programs, initiatives, and laboratories with its clinical care programs, initiatives and facilities.

I ask the chairman to join me in urging the Department to implement systems medicine into the medical practices of all service branches.

To facilitate the training of DOD medical personnel in systems medicine, the Defense Department should consider systems medicine pilot projects that address post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and amputee health, along with other high-priority concerns that impact all aspects of total readiness, including mental resilience.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The three of you have grayer hair than I do, and that means you have wisdom and experience along with it.

I just want to say that I've enjoyed working with all three of you. Bill Young and I have worked together for many years. Jerry Lewis and I have worked together many years. We've taken many trips to Afghanistan and Iraq to try to be with the troops and find out what was going on. We've had a good group.

It bothers me greatly when there's this sense out there that we can't work together. This committee works together. I'm proud of that, and I'm proud to be associated with my colleagues.

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

One issue that didn't come up today was this question of what are we going to do at the end of this year with sequestration, and there was some discussion of an amendment that didn't happen because of points of order and other possible reasons.

I really believe that somehow we've got to avoid sequestration and that collectively we've got to work together in the next several months, because I honestly believe that the economy of this country will be severely and adversely affected if we allow sequestration not just for defense, which we're talking about here today, but for the other part of the government, the discretionary domestic part of the government. We have got to avoid this.

I would love to see an agreement reached between the parties and between the leadership so that we can get an agreement that is fair and balanced and equitable. I think with the four of us and a couple of others I can think of, I think we could put something like that together. Somehow it's got to happen, because the consequences to defense--and not only to defense, but the economy of the country is at stake here.

The CBO says that the difference in growth, if we do sequestration, if we don't deal with the tax issue, will go from 4.4 percent to 5 percent. It is a 4\1/2\ percent difference in economic growth. That means unemployment will be greater. That means the deficit will be greater. The whole idea of the Budget Control Act was to get the deficit under control.

Again, I hope that we will all continue to think about how we can come up with a solution that's bipartisan, bicameral. We have got to work with the administration. From a national security and a defense perspective, there is nothing more treacherous out there than sequestration. We've got to avoid it.

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

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense bill.

I first want to thank Chairman Young for his very generous comments about my service on the Defense Subcommittee. And he is absolutely right, we have always, no matter who was chairman or which party was in control, we've always, on a bipartisan basis, worked to take care of the needs of our troops to make sure that we were properly funded in equipment and to do it on the basis of what was right and what was necessary. I appreciate his leadership of this subcommittee, and I wish him well as we finish up this year.

This bill continues the Defense Subcommittee's long tradition, as I mentioned, of bipartisanship and finding common ground as members work together, under Mr. Young's leadership, to provide for the Department of Defense. I'm pleased to report that the subcommittee has again crafted a bill that places national security and the needs of U.S. servicemembers above partisan politics.

I strongly support the priorities set in this bill. The bill supports our troops. It includes funding for the third consecutive year to replace inadequate schools owned by local educational authorities and the Department of Education that are located on military installations.

It includes $40 million above the request for Impact Aid.

It includes $125 million above the request for traumatic brain injury and psychological health, as well as an additional $20 million above the request for suicide prevention and outreach.

And the bill has a total of $1.2 billion in Defense Health Program research and development, $545 million above the request.

The bill continues the committee's longstanding support for peer- reviewed breast cancer research, peer-reviewed prostate cancer research, vision research, spinal cord research, and many other medical research initiatives.

The bill supports the Guard and Reserve. It includes funding to pause force structure reductions and aircraft retirements proposed by the Air Force that would affect Air Guard and Reserve units across the country.

And the bill contains $2 billion for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account.

The bill supports today's equipment needs and develops tomorrow's technology. It supports Secretary Panetta's strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific region by including robust funding for shipbuilding and the Patriot missile defense system.

The bill supports DOD's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance needs by providing the resources for Global Hawk UAVs.

The bill addresses the Navy's strike fighter shortfall by funding F- 18 Hornets and providing advance procurement for F-18G electronic attack aircraft.

The bill provides for ground equipment such as the Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and HMMWV modernization. This funding provides for Army equipment needs, including the Guard and Reserve, and helps maintain a stable industrial base.

The bill includes $250 million for the Rapid Innovation Fund that will continue the committee's efforts, started in 2011, to promote innovative research and defense technologies among small businesses; and the bill includes funding above the request for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense activities, including $680 million for Iron Dome.

The bill funds operations in Afghanistan consistent with the President's plan to wind down our presence as agreed to in the Lisbon Accord of 2010 and this year's NATO summit in Chicago.

The bill also includes important restrictions on DOD activities. The bill prohibits permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or Afghanistan and prohibits U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources. The bill prohibits the torture of detainees. The bill prohibits training foreign military forces if these forces are known to commit gross violations of human rights. And the bill limits reimbursements to Pakistan until the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, certifies that Pakistan is working cooperatively with the U.S. against terrorist activity.

While I support the funding level and priorities included in this bill, I must also express my objection, not to Mr. Young, but to the majority decision to renege on the bipartisan agreement reached less than a year ago in the Budget Control Act. I believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation; and in the near term, it introduces uncertainty in our appropriations process that imperils our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner.

Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a considerable amount of time in the appropriations process if we simply returned to the agreement reached last year in August, the $1.047 trillion allocation level for this year, a level which even the Republican other body leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up.

Despite this reservation, I want to congratulate Chairman Young for producing a bill that meets the most pressing needs of the Department of Defense, and for doing so in the best tradition of the Appropriations Committee.

And I must say that I feel we have one of the best staffs on the whole Hill. And I know Paul and Tom have worked together when Paul was the clerk and Tom was representing Mr. Young as the ranking member. And the cooperation of all the staff members has been extraordinary, and they've worked very hard to prepare this bill for the floor, and I want to congratulate them on their good efforts.

Also, I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his efforts to restore regular order. I think it's outstanding that we have had this bill in a subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, now brought to the floor under an open rule. This is the way this committee should operate, and I appreciate his efforts to provide that leadership.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a very senior member of the Appropriations Committee and a member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Congresswoman Kaptur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He and I were in the same class together and enjoyed many spirited debates on national security issues. I consider him to be a good friend and someone who cares a great deal about these issues.

We have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. Is the chairman going to close?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to discuss the costs of the security clearance process.

Will the gentleman yield?

To my good friend from California, I appreciate the attention that you bring to this issue. It seems that this is a commonsense thing that the Department can do to save millions of dollars with no negative impact to the security clearance process. Requiring DOD security reinvestigators to use the Automated Continuing Evaluation System, ACES, tool will preserve national security despite the tight budget constraints that the DOD is facing.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment seeks to add more funding to purchase equipment vital to the disaster mission of the Air National Guard.

Recently, forest fires have been devastating Colorado, and the Air National Guard has been fighting alongside the Forest Service. The Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, or MAFFS, provides emergency capability to supplement existing commercial tanker support on wildland fires. This system aids the Forest Service. When all other air tankers are activated but further assistance is needed, the Forest Service can request help from the Air Force's MAFFS unit, who can be ready in a few hours notice with this modular system.

When the Air National Guard adds the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System to their C-130 aircraft, they are adding another capability to their aircraft. Creating a dual-mission aircraft without major modifications to an existing piece of equipment is efficient and cost effective.

Quite frankly, we need to get new C-130Js for the Guard. I hope that we can do that. That's been a problem we've had with OMB over the scoring on this, whether you can lease them or buy them. This is an interim step, which is a good one, and I think we should accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I would also support the gentleman in efforts to find another less objectionable source for the funding.

Will the chairman yield?

I agree with the chairman. This Gulf War Illness has been something that bothered me a great deal. This was a very difficult diagnosis, what was causing this. But I think an additional investment here is worthy, and I think we should accept the amendment. I'm glad the chairman accepts it.

Will the gentleman yield?

With all due respect, we have accepted the gentleman's previous amendment. On this one we have already added $20 million to the budget for this purpose, and we will, if necessary, go higher in conference because of the gentleman's concern, the chairman's concern, and my concern. But to totally eliminate funding for the Pentagon Channel, I think, is a mistake. There's very valuable information that is received by the military, by the Congress, by everybody who watches this thing.

It's the source of the amendment. So I would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw the amendment and then work with us and we will do the best we can to get to a higher level in conference.

This has become the issue of this war, when more people are dying of suicide than are in combat. We don't want to lose any lives. It means that there is a serious problem. And we want to work with you to address that.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time just for the moment, the point is we have also added money for traumatic brain injury, for posttraumatic stress disorder. Our subcommittee has been at the forefront of providing additional resources beyond the administration's request for a number of years, since this has become a major issue. But I would just ask the gentleman to try to work with us on this one because of the source issue, and we'll work together and do the best we can.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I commend my friend from Rhode Island for his efforts in this regard, and I just hope that this research will be successful. I know with his leadership, it will be.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to concur. I think this is a deserving amendment. We cannot do enough on these issues because this is going to have a lifetime effect on these people; and the more we do, as they come home, and even before they go to find out who is susceptible, this is critically important and will save us a lot of money.

We will accept the amendment on our side.

The committee recognizes the serious trouble of traumatic brain injury, as you just noted, and related conditions; and I'm happy to work with the gentleman from New Jersey to improve understanding of this important issue as we confer with the other body and work with our majority Members here who are deeply concerned, as we are, about this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I concur with the chairman and want to say to the gentleman from Minnesota, we appreciate his service to the country. You know a lot more about this than some of us who were not in the service, and we appreciate your leadership on this issue.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. I think it's well-thought-out, and I hope it has the desired effect. I congratulate her on offering it.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Rapid Innovation Fund was authorized and appropriated by Congress in 2011 to allow innovative small businesses to compete for funding within the Department of

Defense. It is a competitive, merit-based program designed to accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies into military systems.

Last fall, each service and the OSBP issued broad agency announcements to solicit proposals for the first round of funding worth $500 million. Of the 3,554 white papers received, 514 received high priority or strong evaluations, valued at about $700 million.

This bill provides an additional $250 million for this successful program for small businesses that are interested in working with the Department of Defense. Also, this money can be used for joint urgent operational needs. This is when the commanders in the field say that they need something in an urgent way, and this money is available for that kind of requirement.

So, again, the gentleman raises a lot of insinuations that this was done because of doing away with the earmarks. It was done because we feel that small businesses in this country have a lot to offer the Defense Department. Not all of the innovations come from Lockheed and Boeing and General Dynamics. A lot of the innovation comes from smaller businesses who are, in essence, going to be cut out. We already have an existing program, the SBIR program, which we wanted to enhance so that small businesses would have a place to go so they could compete, where we would be doing this on a merits basis, that we would be doing it on the services saying these are areas where we need additional work.

So I'm somewhat surprised that the gentleman would oppose something like this, knowing, I'm certain, he's an advocate for small businesses in our country. I think this is a good program and one that should be supported on a bipartisan basis.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I really appreciate what the gentleman just said. Another thing here, the gentleman is saying they should just rush out and spend this money. I don't mind a thorough, professional way of going about this, and to take some time to make sure they've got this right is what we want them to do.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman for his amendment, and we gladly support it.

Will the chairman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts here and my colleague from Washington State who I know has an abiding concern about this, as I do.

This is a tragedy when more people are dying from suicide than are in combat. I know the Army has tried. General Corelli made an enormous effort to try to find the answers, and it's a serious, difficult problem. And a lot of it relies on trying to deal with these people before they go over so that you can find the ones that are going to be susceptible or have problems going in. It's just a very difficult problem.

I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to compliment the gentleman on listening to what we discussed in the last go-around and then taking a hard look at land- based ICBMs, which I believe have always been the most vulnerable part of the triad. The most invulnerable part, of course, is our ballistic missile submarine--and bombers are second--but the land-based ICBMs are vulnerable. There is no question about that, and I do believe we can reduce the amount of money we are spending on strategic forces. I think the focus should be, as General Cartwright has suggested, on reducing the ICBMs.

So this is a way to start this debate, and I am going to support the gentleman's amendment today.

I recall--and you might remember--that we had a great discussion about synergism, about the synergy of the three legs of the triad giving some protection to the land-based missiles.

I agree with the gentleman's overall premise that we don't need as many nuclear weapons. I can remember John Lehman--famous for his 600- ship Navy--always saying to me, if you want to cut something, cut the submarines, and go ahead with the aircraft carriers and more airplanes because they're conventional weapons and, therefore, more usable.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

So what you are saying is you have got to have a competitive procedure.

This is, I think, what we tried to do a few years ago on defense-related--with private companies is to have a competitive procedure, which I agree with. I think the gentleman is right on this. I appreciate his amendment.

I object.

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The House has spoken on this issue repeatedly. There's been a very substantial majority in favor of retaining Davis-Bacon and opposing the gentleman's amendment.

Some Members continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House record of supporting the protection on labor standards. I have been a longtime supporter of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. It helps ensure that local projects provide local jobs with affordable middle class wages.

The law protects the government from contractors trying to win Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent workers. And we have seen time and time again where you have prevailing wages. The State of Washington has its own prevailing wage standard in our State; and we find that on these projects, you get better work and the work is done at a higher quality.

So, again, I oppose this amendment. And as I said, we have had several votes on this this year, and every time it's been defeated. I hope that we can again defeat the King amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker. Today I am proud to be introducing the Wild Olympics Wilderness & Wild and Scenic River Act of 2012, which will provide critical protection of key forested areas and rivers in the State of Washington. This bill, a result of more than two years of work by my staff and the staff of Washington Senator Patty Murray, is a consensus effort that adds critical protection for sources of clean drinking water and preserves critical salmon and steelhead habitat. It creates more than 126,000 acres of new wilderness on the Olympic National Forest and designates 19 new Wild and Scenic Rivers and their tributaries in the National Forest, in Olympic National Park and on Washington Department of Natural Resources land.

I am particularly proud that the final version of this bill that is being introduced today has evolved through a long consultative process that included extensive local community input from Tribes, conservation groups, timber communities, business leaders, shellfish growers, farmers, local elected officials, hunters, anglers, mountain bikers, hikers, federal and state land managers and the general public. The result, in my judgment, is a common sense solution that offers permanent protection to some of the most spectacular of the Olympic Peninsula's public lands--without having a significant impact on timber jobs or recreational access.

In our great state of Washington, Mr. Speaker, we cherish the ability of our citizens to have access to the natural beauty of our region, especially areas that remain pristine and

undisturbed. Our challenge as leaders of a growing population has been to assure that the most sensitive of these areas are protected from development so that future generations--our kids and their kids--have the same ability that we have had to see the magnificent vistas and enjoy the benefits of a clean environment. The Wild Olympics Wilderness & Wild and Scenic River Act of 2012 represents an important incremental step in assuring the protection of additional roadless areas in Washington, and I will be working with my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee to urge timely consideration of this legislation.

First of all, I would like to pass along my appreciation to Chairman Crenshaw and to Ranking Member Honda for their willingness to work together in a very bipartisan manner. I also would like to commend the staffs of the majority and minority for their efforts in bringing this bill where we are today.

This bill's allocation is just slightly below last year's and is well within the range of what would have been expected had the majority stuck to the discretionary number agreed to in the

Budget Control Act. But for the most part, this bill has been protected from Ryan budget austerity.

Many programs and agencies important to the operation of Congress have been spared from harmful cuts. Support agencies, such as the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Government Accountability Office are all adequately funded, which will allow them to continue operating without further reductions in staff or services. However, it is important to note that not every account has been spared.

As we all know, the Architect of the Capitol is in the middle of an extensive restoration effort. This bill's allocation does not provide the funds needed to begin the second phase of that effort but, rather, cuts the Architect of the Capitol significantly below last year's funding level. As I'd mentioned during the committee markup, I'd rather the dome remain a monument to our Nation's greatness than become a symbol for shortsighted austerity.

Will the gentleman yield?

If we have another Member, could we go out of order by unanimous consent? Is that a problem?

Apparently, we would have to go back in the House and ask unanimous consent if we wanted to go out of order on this. Maybe it's just better to wait for the gentleman from Arizona to get here.

Since we're here, what is the plan for phase two of the Capitol, of the dome restoration? How does the chairman see this?

I thought it was.

There is no emergency requirement here? I mean, this work is work that can be done over a staged period of time, and there is no real serious problem that could have an adverse effect on the Capitol, is there?

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

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gosar

I thank the gentleman.

Just so we have a historical perspective of what we're talking about here today, the United States Botanic Garden is rooted in the Nation's heritage. During the late 18th century, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and

James Madison shared the dream of a national Botanic Garden and were instrumental in establishing one on The National Mall in 1820.

It just seems to me that even though we're in difficult fiscal times--and I could make an argument that we should be spending money on projects to put people to work, including the dome. But this has a historic significance to our country--George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

To me, we can find $1.23 million to do the repair work that is necessary to keep this in good condition for the American people. This is a priority. I hope that we will all resoundingly defeat the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have an accurate copy of the amendment, and we feel like we're at a disadvantage. This thing has been rewritten, and we don't have the final draft.

Thank you.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Just very briefly, we're confused again because the gentlelady is referring to section 1 of her previous amendment, which is now taken out.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

It just seems to me that, we shouldn't be doing an amendment

here on the floor when we really don't have all the information before us. Your side is in charge of Homeland Security. Peter King is the very able chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. There ought to be hearings on this issue if, in fact, TSA people are overstepping their bounds.

But to come here on the floor and try to cut off all funding, when we have no idea--the gentlelady had to rewrite her amendment several times, for God knows what reason. I mean, this is hardly the way to legislate.

So I urge the defeat of this scratchy little amendment, and let's go to Peter King and Bennie Thompson and ask them to hold hearings on this. Do this responsibly.

This amendment will be dropped. It isn't going anywhere, frankly, so you might as well face the fact that when we get to conference this is gone. The Senate will never agree to it. The administration would never agree to it, and they shouldn't.

If you want to do something that's constructive, go to the Homeland Security Committee and let them deal with it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

ICE itself has raised concerns about the cost effectiveness of the 287(g) program. With all due respect, this sounds like a program that both sides think isn't working that well. We ought to get rid of it. We could put this up on your wall as one of the things you've killed.

For example, under the 287(g) task force model, it costs $13,322 to apprehend one alien and $19,941 to remove them. If you compare that, as the distinguished ranking member did, with the Secure Communities program, it costs ICE $649 to apprehend one alien and $1,321 to remove them. That is more than 10 times less than the 287(g) task force model.

I would be glad to yield to my distinguished friend from Oklahoma to answer why you would want to keep the more expensive program if the Secure Communities program is working.

Reclaiming my time, again, I would just ask the gentleman to contemplate that if we have a Secure Communities program that is dealing with this same issue and doing it at 10 times less for the taxpayers and this 287(g) program has had the inspector general all over it, why wouldn't we get rid of it if it is that expensive to do and use Secure Communities? This is just a commonsense thought here.

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

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

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

If I can ask the chairman a question on this, it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the purchase, operation, or maintenance of armed unmanned aerial vehicles; is this from Homeland Security? Is this prohibition on Homeland Security?

Has there ever been any plan to buy armed drones by Homeland Security?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The only thing I would say to my friend is, if you know where all these programs are, you ought to cut the programs and not do an across-the-board cut. That is the easy way out.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to associate myself with the gentleman's comments and the chairman's comments on this amendment. We're talking here about homeland security, and we have been hit before. And we can't have a meat-ax, across-the-board approach. We would certainly oppose it if the other side was attempting to do it, and we have to have the same kind of discipline on our side.

I suggest, in good faith, to the gentleman from Colorado, if you've got all these reports and all these things about various programs that aren't functioning, offer amendments on each of those programs, and then we can vote on them and make a discerning decision. But just going across the board, I think, is the easy way out, and I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

In my own State of Washington, we had Ahmed Ressam, the millennium bomber. He came across from Victoria on a ferryboat, and as he was going through the search procedures, he showed anxiety. Because of that, he was sent over for a secondary screening. He got out of his car and ran, and he was captured, actually, by former prosecutor Dan Clem from Kitsap County, my home county. This is an example. This was a guy who was going to go to Los Angeles and blow up Los Angeles' LAX Airport. Because of his behavior and the alertness of the officers to know that this person was showing signs of anxiety, we were able to thwart that.

So I'm with the chairman and the ranking member here. Let's not do something precipitous. Let's defeat, as we always do, the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to my good friend from Colorado. He will tell us more about the alternate reality, I think.

Reclaiming my time, do you think they deserve a trial? Do these people deserve a trial.

I mean, there has to be some kind of legal process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The amendment prohibits funds for the Wind Powering America program, which has been funded since 1999 to increase information-sharing in support of expanding domestic wind power.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I appreciate my colleague's continued efforts to stop inappropriate or wasteful Federal spending. However, there is a distinction between improper and proper Federal activities, and I believe this amendment would eliminate an example of the latter.

I agree with my colleague that the government should not be funding the deployment of proven technologies, and for that reason we have significantly ramped back the wind energy program. In fact, our bill cuts the program by 25 percent and focuses the remaining funds on unproven technologies not yet in the market, like offshore wind. I know they don't have any of that in Arizona, but we have significant offshore wind in Washington State.

There is also a proper Federal role for facilitating the free flow of information where market failures prevent the efficient operation of free markets. In this case, a small program facilitates the free flow of information collected by national laboratories, such as resource maps and detailed wind data. Programs like this use small amounts of Federal funds to fix a market failure and get government out of the way so that our private sector can get to the work of creating manufacturing and construction jobs here at home.

We can talk about which specific parts of this program should be cut, but I cannot support its complete elimination, and I must oppose the amendment.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Visclosky.

Again, the gentleman from Arizona would eliminate this entire program; we think that is overstepping.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend from Alaska for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue.

The dramatic reduction in the Arctic sea ice that is happening at the North Pole is leading to substantial growth in activity in the Arctic region.

The Coast Guard in the High Latitude Study determined that it needs a minimum of three heavy and three medium icebreakers to meet its statutory mission. This bill includes funding to start the design phase of a new heavy icebreaker; however, it will not enter service until 2020 at the earliest. Until then, there will be only one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, and one medium icebreaker in operation. This is clearly not enough for the Coast Guard to accomplish its mission. And given the age of the Polar Star, which entered service in the 1970s, the possibility of a breakdown or extended maintenance period is significant, which would leave us without any serviceable heavy icebreaker at all.

As my friend has noted, the Polar Sea, the Coast Guard's second heavy icebreaker, has been decommissioned and is awaiting the final orders to scrap it. Given our rapidly growing need in the polar region, I worry that the Coast Guard is not considering other options for the Polar Sea.

Personally, I think a compelling case can be made for directing the Coast Guard to make the investment and put it back into service. But, at the very least, the Coast Guard needs to take time to review alternatives. In my judgment, it would be a shame to scrap such a potentially useful asset when there is so much evidence before us that we need more immediate icebreaking capacity.

My friend from Alaska has noted that he and I had been considering working on language that would direct the Coast Guard to consider alternatives but that such an amendment would be subject to a point of order.

I am glad the gentleman will be able to work on the issue on a bill pending

before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I want to indicate to him that I share his commitment to ensuring that the Nation's icebreaking needs are met and will continue to work with him to ensure that the Coast Guard considers all available options for the Polar Sea.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just like to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I feel these programs are very important and that there have been major cuts made in the last 2 years, as I understand it, and that this would just be another major cut on top of this.

To my friend from Georgia, austerity isn't helping England, it isn't helping France, it isn't helping Greece, and it's not going to help the United States. We need the recovery here at home. That's what we need-- not mindless cutting and slashing of the budget that will throw people out of work and not create jobs for the American people.

Austerity has failed. I think it's time for the majority to wake up and recognize that.