Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to commend the gentleman for his statement. It's an outstanding statement. You covered this very comprehensively, especially the part about infrastructure. There was a $688 billion wastewater backlog during the Bush administration. We should be putting people to work on those kinds of projects. The gentleman is absolutely right, and I appreciate him being here late in the evening to support my amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to commend the gentleman for an incredibly comprehensive, thoughtful, and credible presentation.

You mentioned the bald eagle. Just a few weeks ago, my grandchildren were out at Hood Canal, where I live, and on the beach three bald eagles came down and landed. It was one of the most remarkable things I have ever seen. And I just want to thank the gentleman for his support, his cosponsorship of this amendment. And I appreciate your credibility and your forthrightness.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I will do this very briefly.

As I recall, from 1995 to 2007, the other side--the majority party today--was the majority party then, and I don't remember any great effort on the Endangered Species Act. I welcome it. I welcome that any act can be made better. Now you guys are in charge again, and you have another opportunity. I believe Mr. Bishop has been on the committee for quite a long time. I'm going to go look in his reform bill in the Record to see what has been happening here.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington State, from the Natural Resources Committee.

Former Senator Kempthorne worked on it.

Reclaiming my time, because I can't go on forever, I just would say nobody is stopping you. Hold your hearings. Have your meetings. Bring up the witnesses, but don't stop listing 260 candidate species until you get the job done.

I yield to the gentleman.

I want to be involved in this.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho, my good friend and the chairman and former ranking member, one of the best ranking members I've ever had.

I yield to the ranking member.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

No one is objecting. I agree. We should look at how to improve the ESA. I don't like to hear these examples of where the process has not been able to be worked out. I have had to go through this as you have in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, salmon, et cetera. Now, those are starting to recover. We're making some progress, but I still believe we can make this act better.

I just think by taking out the ability to list and to have critical habitat, we're risking some of these species that are close to extinction.

And remember this: it's also about biodiversity, the web of life. We don't know how all of these things relate and whether something can be created, a medicine that could save lives in the future. And that's why trying to protect these species is an important thing.

It's important for civilization, for humanity. We're creatures here, too. We depend on a lot of other animals in order to survive. And so this goes beyond just a legislative ``it's difficult.'' This is down and dirty. This is very important. This is very important to survival.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

We'll fix it in conference.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Colin Powell was there to thank all of the troops that had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of the wounded warriors were there as well.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and I hope we can defeat this unneeded amendment.

Madam Chair, we don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment, and it is usually the protocol to give one to the minority.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

I withdraw my point of order, but would like to ask a question of the gentleman from Arizona.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

In your amendment, it says:

funds made available and all that follows through that period--but-- and insert a charter school as that term is defined in section 1141 of the Education Amendments of 1978.

Would you tell us what that definition is, please.

So you have no idea what this amendment means?

How do you know that if you don't know what the language is?

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to state my opposition to H.R. 2584, the FY 2012 Interior and Environment appropriations bill.

But before I state the reasons for my strong opposition, I want to, again recognize Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran and their staffs for all the hard work that was necessary to put together the FY 2012 Interior and Environment appropriations bill. I also want to repeat my gratitude to the majority for being inclusive when developing this bill.

That being said, however, the low allocation foisted on the Interior Subcommittee made it impossible to develop a bill that is responsible and reasonable, so it is no surprise that the resulting bill will harm the environment and our ongoing efforts to preserve America's natural heritage. Two key examples of this potential damage are that the bill includes the lowest level of spending in the Land and Water Conservation Fund in more than 40 years, and funding levels for EPA not seen in more than a decade.

Overall, the allocation for the bill is 7 percent below the amount enacted in the current year, a level that will have a negative impact on our natural resource agencies and on the Environmental Protection Agency. After the EPA took a substantial cut of 16 percent in the current fiscal year, 2011, the Republican majority is now proposing a further reduction in the agency's budget of 18 percent. You add that together, it's a 34-percent reduction in just this year.

This bill would substantially diminish the capacity of EPA to carry out its responsibilities, which may actually be the goal of some of my colleagues on the other side. But the repercussions will be felt across the Nation, including an ever-growing backlog of water treatment infrastructure projects and a decline in air and water quality.

As was pointed out in a recent Washington Post article, the vast majority of the EPA's funds pass through to States and localities that are already squeezed by budget cuts.

These infrastructure projects create jobs in communities all across the country and provide one of the most basic services taxpayers expect--clean water. The Bush administration's EPA administrator estimated that there was a $688 billion nationwide backlog of clean water infrastructure projects, and that total is even larger today. That backlog will not disappear if we just ignore it, but as we have seen in so many cases this year, the majority has decided to push this problem further down the road.

In addition to the clearly insufficient levels of funding across the board in this legislation, we were surprised that the majority also included a wish list of special interest riders to the bill that will handcuff the EPA and the Department of the Interior. These types of riders are largely ideological, have no impact on deficit reduction, and will be rejected by the Senate and the President, hopefully.

It seems that special interest riders have become the new earmarks-- and I support earmarks. This bill was made even worse when the majority adopted more special interest riders with amendments that were approved at full committee, and I fear that there will be more policy amendments offered on the floor as we consider this bill.

One of the riders is language that would effectively block any funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service for new listings under the Endangered Species Act. As Mr. Moran said, there are 260 candidate species waiting to be listed, and they will not receive the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

Here is the situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service faces in the administration of the ESA. Speaking of that 260, of that total, there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. The spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to protect these declining species. And remember, if you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct, thus making recovery impossible.

I also will be strongly supporting the amendments that aim to remove these riders. These amendments include an attempt to protect Grand Canyon National Park and the folks who depend on the Colorado River for drinking water from the potential danger from new uranium mines. Another amendment that I strongly support will increase funding for sanitation facilities for Native American communities.

In closing, I do want to reiterate my praise expressed at subcommittee mark for Chairman Simpson, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cole and other subcommittee members for the funding levels for programs serving American Indians. It is gratifying that this subcommittee's bipartisan commitment to tribal programs forged over the last few years has been continued by the new majority.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I support my friend from Virginia's (Mr. Moran) amendment which would increase funding for the Indian Health Service sanitary facilities construction program. The amendment would provide $18 million for this important health program, which would bring the funding level back up to the enacted level for this year. The offset for this increase comes from a couple of programs that help support the private sector energy and livestock industries.

I think this amendment is a very good deal for the American taxpayer. And, by the way, if you've ever been out in Indian country, one of the problems that they have is a lack of sanitary facilities. I can think of the Skokomish Indians in my district in Mason County, Washington, where they have a very serious need for new sanitary facilities. And across Indian country, this is still a major problem. In fact, there was a group of scientists a few years ago who were asked, What was the greatest thing that happened in the 20th century to improve health care? They came up with sewers and sanitary facilities as the thing that improved health care around the world the most substantially.

The Indian Health Service program to construct sanitary facilities that would benefit from this amendment improves the lives of some of our poorest fellow citizens. The Indian Health Service program provides funding for people who often lack basic sanitary facilities, such as the delivery of potable water to their homes. For me, the choice is simple. I urge my colleagues to choose to help provide basic sanitation to Native Americans by making small cuts to programs that assist the energy and livestock industries. This is a good amendment and should be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to commend Chairman Simpson for opposing this

amendment. This is an amendment that goes way too far. This bill is $3.8 billion, almost $4 billion below what the President requested. It's $2 billion below the FY11 level, which we just passed a few months ago, and it would have a devastating effect on our environment.

When I hear people talk about growing the economy by cutting the budget, I wonder what school of economics they attended. In fact, there was an outstanding article just a few weeks ago in The New York Times that really laid out the basic problem we have in this economy, and that is that consumer spending has dropped by 7 percent. Normally, in previous recessions, it only went down 3 percent.

So then when you cut State and local government funding, when you cut Federal funding, you make a bad situation worse in terms of consumption. And that is why the economy has slowed down, and that's why it's not going to go up as a result of these kinds of reckless cuts being offered by the other side.

Let me give you one example. The former EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, from New Jersey, did a study of what the backlog on wastewater treatment facilities was. And it was $688 billion, and this was in 2002. It's definitely gone up.

And yet we're slashing, and would slash again, the amount of money for the Clean Water Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Those are exactly the programs that we should be plussing up in order to get people back to work. It's infrastructure. That's one thing we used to be able to agree on, both Democrats and Republicans in this House, that we need infrastructure work. This will put people to work.

How are you going to get the deficit down? Not by slashing government spending. You're going to get it by putting people back to work. When you put them back to work, they start paying taxes, they start buying goods, and that will drive down the deficit. It will drive down unemployment.

This reckless amendment from the gentleman from Kansas, again, would make this bad situation even worse in terms of job creation. So I am pleased that the majority is resisting this ill-thought-out amendment, and I urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I support this amendment.

I can think back to when I was going to the University of Washington, when Lake Washington, which is between Seattle and Bellevue, was completely polluted and you couldn't swim in it. The people there bonded themselves and completely restored the lake. Today, that is some of the most valuable property in the entire Pacific Northwest.

So these urban water initiatives are critically important for the environment and for the health of the people of those areas.

I think this is a modest amendment, and I urge our colleagues to accept it.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Moran

I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California, for yielding to me, and I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw, Chairman Rogers, and the staff on both sides for what they have been able to do to accommodate some of the priorities of Democratic Members as they have assembled the bill.

This bill would fund the legislative branch, minus the Senate, at $3.3 billion. This represents a 6.4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2011 and a 9 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010.

I appreciate the overview that Congressman Honda has provided. And at this point, I would simply like to join him in expressing serious concern on behalf of our colleagues regarding security for our district offices and for official events involving Members as well as the general public. After the tragic shooting in Tucson, the Congress was

left to reevaluate security in Members' districts. While it is of utmost importance to ensure that citizens continue to have access to their Representatives in Congress, the Tucson event is a reminder that we must be vigilant in providing security to Members, to our staffs, and to our constituents who attend our events.

The effort by the House to improve district security after the shooting put much of the burden on the Members' offices, including the payment for that security. As Members' office budgets are being cut for the second time in a year, there has to be reconsideration of that policy, perhaps with an eye towards a more centralized approach to security.

While we have not seen specific estimates of the costs involved here, it would clearly represent a substantial expense, especially if the budget of the Secret Service is used as a guide. The Capitol Police appropriations recommended in this bill is $340 million, equal to the fiscal year 2011 level. The Capitol Police protect the entire Capitol Complex, with primary security responsibilities for 541 Members of Congress, Resident Commissioners, and Delegates. By comparison, the House-passed Secret Service appropriation bill included over $1 billion for the protection of 50 to 70 individuals, including the President.

If the Capitol Police are going to be required to assess more threats against Members and take a more active role in district security, the Capitol Police budget should reflect these increased demands. Conversely, if Members' individual office budgets are going to continue to assume these additional security costs, their budget should somehow reflect this responsibility.

Again, I thank the ranking member for his work on the bill and the chairman and Mr. Rogers and our staff. We have a great staff, and they do great work for this institution.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I just wanted to have the American people understand why we are opposing this amendment.

``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.

``In continuous operation and open to the public since 1850, the Botanic Garden moved to its present location in 1933, a complex located along the north and south sides of Independence Avenue bordered by First Street and Third Street. The garden includes the Conservatory; the National Garden, which opened in 2006; and Bartholdi Park, which was created in 1932. A plant production and support facility opened in Anacostia in 1933 includes greenhouse bays and maintenance shops.''

This is a very important thing to the American people when they come here from all over the country. They want to see the garden, the Botanic Garden, and I just feel that we have to figure a way to fund this and to take care of the facility. This was a dream of the Founders of this Republic, and I think we should honor that dream and we

should defeat both of these amendments and do the work that's necessary to keep it in a first-class condition for the American people.

Will the ranking member yield?

I just want to add my support for this effort. This is not a perfect bill, but I want to say how much I appreciate working with Congressman Frelinghuysen, especially on modernization of our new reactor for the follow-on Trident submarine. This is an enormously important program, and the chairman has worked with us to make sure that the funding is appropriate and timely so that we can keep this program on track. And for that, I appreciate it. To all the staff and Chairman Rogers, thank you for regular order and staying with this. Fortunately we were able to get a unanimous consent agreement.

Will the gentleman yield?

I rise in opposition to this amendment, too. The bill would provide $100 million for ARPA-E, which is already $80 million less than FY 2011 funding--and of course we have to take into account the amendment that was just passed--and $450 million below the President's budget request.

ARPA-E is a promising new program that can drive innovation to support our scientific competitiveness. As I stated previously in my opening statement, ARPA-E has shown potential as a new organizational model. And I am disappointed that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic and organizational problems in other existing applied programs, which was an element of the justification used for ARPA-E.

ARPA-E is modeled on DARPA. And as the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, DARPA has been one of the great leaders of innovation in the national security area.

So again, I'm sorry to say it, but I think we have to defeat the Flake amendment.

Close.

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

I would just point out that there are no amendments left on our side that I know of, and I hope that your side can be more expeditious. Thank you. Some of us have important ball games to go to.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the City of Tacoma for ensuring that sustainable policies and business practices are considered in utility operations and all departmental decisions. I was gratified to see that the City of Tacoma has partnered with the Institute for Environmental Research and Education and local businesses to become a ``Life-Cycle City''--making a formal commitment to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts of goods and services. Those environmental costs added up over time are significant to our constituents and I commend Tacoma's efforts to ensure that we are making the best possible investments with taxpayer dollars while being responsible stewards of our environment.

Will the gentleman yield?

We don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment. If we are going to start out this way without cooperating----

We would like to have it.

Will the gentleman yield?

The restoration of the Florida Everglades has been one of our five national priorities. And I, too, want to compliment the gentleman for his support. We have moved forward with the Tamiami bridge and other important projects. This is a program of national significance, and I concur with the chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I held hearings when I was chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, brought in the Federal agencies, and every one of them testified that they could already see signs of the effects of climate change: one was a longer fire season; one was more drought; one was more variations in weather; and, most importantly, to the Corps of Engineers, that the seas are rising at a rate more rapidly than at any time in the last 3,000 years.

Now, this is serious stuff that affects the planet. I'm glad the gentleman who chaired the committee on this took time to be here.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

There also is another aspect of this that some people don't recognize, and that is ocean acidification, which is upon us. A significant amount of carbon dioxide goes into the oceans. And that's why getting a handle on this and trying to control CO2 emissions is so very important. And when it goes into the ocean, it has a negative effect on coral and it has a negative effect on oysters. It has a negative effect on anything in a shell. In fact, there is the phytoplankton which is one of the crucial elements for salmon, 60 percent of the food for salmon. If the acidity rate gets as high, the pH rate drops and the acidity goes up, those fish will be adversely affected.

I want to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, and then I will yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's statement.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

What I worry about is how many of our people live on the coast of this country who could be directly impacted by rising sea levels. And the seas have gone up more rapidly in this last 50 years than it has in the last 3,000 years. Somebody's got to take this seriously. Obviously, there are some on the other side who are in denial. The gentleman said it quite correctly. They don't believe that this is real. It is real.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

If they don't take into account Corps of Engineers projects on the possibilities that the seas are going to rise, I mean, this could be catastrophic. It could be another Katrina.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman talks about the Potomac. I have been here for many, many years. I was on the staff in the other body. And at the time--and this was probably in the mid-seventies when what the gentleman says was an issue.

What time are you talking about?

This was more recent?

I was just going to say the reason we got the thing cleaned up was because of the Clean Water Act. That's how the Potomac got cleaned up.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

Does the gentleman not believe, as I do, that the Potomac River is far better today in terms of water quality because of the Clean Water Act?

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

There were rivers, particularly in Pennsylvania, where they, in fact, did that.

And it was lit on fire. And then the Clean Water Act was passed by Congress, and guess who signed it? Richard Milhous Nixon. He signed that bill. He signed the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Policy Act. I mean, in those days there were Republicans who cared about the environment.

Bill Ruckelshaus, Bill Agee.

And to hear this discussion over there about the Clean Water Act is really amazing. And this amendment, your amendment would improve it, would protect the environment, clarify the Supreme Court decisions so that we can get on with it and to make the waters of our country swimmable, fishable and drinkable.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, why don't you, as chairman, do you have jurisdiction over this or is this the Commerce Committee?

Which one?

Well, you know, you Republicans are in the majority now. You are the chairman of a major committee. Why don't you have your committee system hold a hearing?

We don't--you know, the fact is what you are trying to do in this appropriations bill is so egregious that we have to use an amendment to fix it.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, again, the regulatory process hasn't even been completed. People are still sending in comments, and so to use a blunt tool and put this prohibition in here doesn't allow the process to work to make sure we can clarify the Supreme Court decision.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time just for a second, the gentleman may be better off in the long term by letting the process work. And if it does then clarify between navigable and nonnavigable, that would be important to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman.

Let's work together to clarify it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

First of all, the President has made a very strong case for our military action in Libya. I think, as Commander in Chief, he has the authority. We had a U.N. resolution, the NATO allies were involved and so was the Arab League.

There is another option. The other option is the War Powers Act. And I hope at some point the President will ask for congressional support of his initiative in Libya.

The idea that we're going to pull out of this unilaterally and undermine the NATO alliance I think is a terrible mistake. Although I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Ohio, I'm strongly opposed to his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Before I begin, I want to say that I have great respect for Congressman Cole, who serves on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He is one of our most thoughtful members.

The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures.''

This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with NATO, which is also playing a major role in this. We will undoubtedly require support in the future in our dealings with NATO, and we get support in Afghanistan today.

I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the costs of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in the defense and foreign affairs-related committees as well as here on the House floor. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can overthrow Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I demand a recorded vote.

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

I believe this is an important debate in the House today as we, appropriately, exercise congressional oversight of the use of force and the costs associated with our engagement in Libya.

In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. air power and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate, and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. In March, the President clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this military action. Now if I were advising the President, I would have said send up a resolution and get approval from the House and the Senate. There is no question that would have been the preferred course of action.

The U.S. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of Muammar al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising, inspired by the ``Arab Spring'' movement, was to use force against civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the United Nations action. While the direct U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the NATO operation.

When I hear many of my colleagues speak in favor of abandoning this cause, I believe it is important to reflect on the fundamental reason why we are concerned here. This is the same individual, Muammar al Qadhafi, who had been planning terrorist actions against United States citizens and others for decades. This is the same terrorist leader against whom President Ronald Reagan authorized a military strike in 1986--and he didn't ask Congress for approval--following the bombings in Berlin and definitive proof of Qadhafi's involvement in other terrorist activity. At that time, President Reagan publicly denounced Qadhafi as the ``Mad Dog of the Middle East'' who espoused the goal of world revolution.

Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that President Reagan started.

Now, just to make it clear, the administration, when they sent up their report under the Boehner amendment, I believe, they did list out the military cost for the operation. Daily operations up to June 3 were $313.7 million; munitions, $398.3 million; global lift and sustain, $1.6 million. The subtotal for military operations was $713.6 million. And then the drawdown of DOD supplies, $1.3 million; humanitarian assistance, $1 million; for a total of $715.9 million.

Now munitions come out of the munition funds; daily operations come out of O&M funds for the Army and the Navy. The estimate by September 30, 2011, is that daily operations will total $618 million; munitions, $450 million; global lift and sustain, $10 million; for a total of $1.078 billion. Drawdown of DOD supplies would be $25 million and humanitarian assistance of $1 million, for a total of $1.104 billion. I think that is a pretty clear indication.

Now, our chairman is absolutely correct. They have not asked for a supplemental here. They are going to use existing funds that we have already appropriated to take care of this operation. And of course we would all like to see this thing resolved as quickly as possible, and a political settlement may be possible. But I think it would be wrong to undermine the President and our country and our involvement with NATO and with the U.N. and with our Arab allies on this subject.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Amash-Kucinich amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

On March 19, 2011, coalition forces launched Operation Odyssey Dawn to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi. Operation Odyssey Dawn ended on March 31, 2011, and transitioned to the NATO-led Operation Unified Protector, which continues today.

Operation Odyssey Dawn has ceased operations; therefore part of this amendment is no longer relevant. However, the NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and to protect the people of Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League, and it followed resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.''

This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future and who have been our partners since 1949. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can defeat Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I also appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and I will work with you on seeing if we can talk to the military to use environmental restoration funds if your amendment doesn't succeed.

I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

Issues such as the Defense of Marriage Act represent policy questions that are not suited to appropriation bills. Indeed, this amendment does not address any specific program funding matter addressed in the bill now before the House.

To the extent that this amendment has any connection to the Department of Defense, I believe that such a policy issue is appropriately addressed within the domain of the House Armed Services Committee. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

And I thank you, Mr. Berman, for your comments and agree that such programs that support university programs promoting Middle East conferences and task forces on arms control, regional security, and other issues

for Arab, Israeli, and other officials are important and beneficial. I hope the Department of Defense funds such programs accordingly, and I will work with the gentleman to ensure that that happens.

Will the chairman yield?

I, too, agree with the chairman. This is one of those situations where I think we have to step in and take action for our troops. This is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment follows the Lee amendment and the Garamendi amendment in cutting about $17.1 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operation Fund. I myself feel that we could be reducing our troop levels faster, but I don't think we should take the money out at this point until we have a better understanding of the pace of the withdrawal.

Now, we know the President's plan is 10,000 this year and another 23,000 next year. And so there will be some savings in the overseas contingency account as those troops come home. But I think it's too early to make a decision on that. Better left to do it in conference, where we can make a reasoned judgment and talk to the Pentagon and the Congressional Research Service so that we have a better idea of how much savings this will be. I feel that this is premature at this point. The other two amendments were soundly defeated, and I think the same fate will be here.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

That's even worse. I would doubly oppose the gentleman's amendment on that part of it. So let's defeat this amendment, as we defeated the others.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We will be glad to accept the amendment. We appreciate your hard work in this effort.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill to breach the War Powers Act. However, the proponents hope this language will compel the administration to change our response to the crisis in Libya.

I oppose the amendment on two different grounds. First, the language of the amendment cannot possibly deliver what the proponents claim. Second, what the proponents hope to accomplish would harm the efforts of our allies, working against our national interests and benefiting Qadhafi.

The language can't deliver on the proponents' promises for two reasons. First, the amendment restricts the use of funds in this bill, but none of the $118.7 billion in the overseas contingency portion of the bill are designated for Libya. Second, the language merely requires compliance with the War Powers Act, but the heart of the proponents' difference with the President is a matter of interpretation about what constitutes compliance. The amendment takes us no closer to a resolution of that difference.

I would oppose the amendment even if the language could accomplish what the proponents hope for. To further restrict our role in Libya puts us on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the Arab Spring. It would hinder the efforts of our allies, if not making NATO's mission impossible and prolonging Qadhafi's tenuous hold on power.

To address the matter of Libya, I believe that language--similar to the language introduced in the other body by Senators Kerry and McCain, is the appropriate course of action at this time--this language preserves the understanding between the administration and Congress that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time, and it requires regular and detailed reports from the administration to the Congress.

Now I must say that I, too, agree that the President would always be better served, as President Bush did and President Clinton, to come to Congress to get approval of the authorization. But to unilaterally overturn an effort that includes NATO, the Arab League, and the United Nations saying that this horrific act would take place against the people of Libya, is just, I think, a big mistake, and it would undermine U.S. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when NATO was established. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support the Pakistani military. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, and approximately $1.3 billion is provided through Coalition Support Funds.

The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund provides for the training and equipping of Pakistani forces specifically to aid U.S. counterterrorism objectives. Coalition Support Funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani military for operations which generally support U.S. counterterrorism objectives.

In the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. Special Forces, serious questions have arisen about Pakistan's reliability as a strategic partner, and I agree with the gentleman from California that this has raised serious questions here in the United States about the reliability of one of our partners. And also, there are questions about President Karzai in Afghanistan as well.

Now, the relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult. It reminds me a great deal, during World War II, of our relationship with the Soviet Union, Russia. That was a difficult relationship, but it was essential at that time. And it is essential at this point. This relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism, and the Pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to this mission, which we need to do more of on the federally administered tribal areas and in Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban leadership exists. And we need them to let us bring our Special Forces into Pakistan.

Now, a complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region.

In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the United States to continue positive engagement, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I cannot say for certain. I don't think there is anything in this bill that I know of, any provision that provides funding directly to the ISI. Now, there may be. As the gentleman knows, there are other avenues in the intelligence world. But I don't know of anything specifically in this bill. And the ISI, I have just as much trouble with them as you do. But I don't think that we have anything specifically in the bill that funds them.

No, I don't think there is any prohibition in this bill.

Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not insist on my point of order.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi has caused an international outcry, and the people of Libya have asked for our help. The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League, and it followed resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.''

The amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this could materially harm our relationship with our NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future, and our NATO alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy dating back to its formation in 1949.

I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, but I would point out that the administration did send up a detailed document that shows the money that has been spent thus far and what will be spent through the end of this fiscal year. We should let the mission with our NATO allies continue so we can replace Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. And I would just remind everyone that in 1986 President Reagan authorized a military strike following the bombings in Berlin and definitive proof of Qadhafi's involvement in other terrorist activities. At the time, President Reagan publicly denounced Qadhafi, the ``Mad Dog of the Middle East who espoused the goal of world revolution.''

Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that President Ronald Reagan started.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to accept the amendment, and I too think it's a good amendment and a good idea.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I would just say to the gentleman that the B-2 bomber has been used also on several of these military operations that we've used, and the B-2 is a stealthy airplane. We only have 20. As a member of the committee, I offered the multiyear purchase agreement so we could buy the B-1s. And we had a unanimous vote, I think, in our committee on that. It was very bipartisan.

I agree with the gentleman that we don't have enough bombers. That's why I'm so strongly committed to the next-generation bomber. But as has been pointed out, that's going to be several years away. We tried to add some money this year to accelerate that because we do need a follow-on bomber.

Yes, I yield.

Reclaiming my time, we only have 20 stealthy bombers. That's what some people don't understand. And the ability to penetrate China or the Soviet Union or wherever we might have to penetrate at some point, North Korea, we would be vulnerable with the B-52s and the B-1s to surface-to-air missiles.

So making sure that we get a high-quality stealthy airplane to follow the B-2 is a matter of national importance. I support the amendment.

I yield back my time.

I will work with the gentlelady on the Defense Department's plan to ensure adequate mental health services for our servicemembers.

Will the gentlelady continue to yield?

I would point out that the chairman of this committee, Mr. Young, and his wife, Beverly, have been some of the strongest advocates for our Wounded Warriors and he has led the fight in our committee to increase the funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. So our committee has been very committed to this. It is one of our highest priorities.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Department of Defense alone is the largest single energy consumer in the world. Its leadership in this arena is critical to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues. Section 526 provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to play a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate change.

This provision has spurred development of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy jets at supersonic speeds. It's a testament to American ingenuity. Unfortunately, section 526 is under assault by those who disagree with advanced biofuels production. They'd like us to continue our dependence on the fuels of the past. That's the wrong path to take. It's unsustainable and won't lead to the energy security we need.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. The more the public knows about where the money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is.

The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given to third-party entities.

Opposition exists for this effort because some believe this additional information could be used nefariously to create some kind of enemies list, like during the Nixon administration.

They argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate against them. Using the opposition's logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed.

These provisions are fine as they are written. The information is required to be provided already in law. And the executive order that the amendment would circumvent certainly enhances the quality of that information.

Disclosure is good because disclosure of campaign contributions to candidates is good. Disclosure of companies making these disclosures is good. And I just worry that we have a situation here where companies or major entities could make enormous contributions secretly, and that's what we are trying to avoid. And the President's executive order is an attempt to do that. We already know that the Boeings, the Lockheeds, the General Dynamics and the Northrop Grummans all make campaign contributions, and they are all disclosed. What's wrong with disclosure?

I urge a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the chairman and stand ready to work with the gentleman--and I commend him for the work that he's been doing over the years--to reach out to all regions of the country to bring the best and brightest into the military academies.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman was quite good at making the cases against this amendment, but I will have to reiterate some of the things. First of all, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill provides an additional $250 million to improve or replace inadequate schools located on Department of Defense bases that are operated by Local Education Authorities and the Department of Education. Most of these are run by the local authorities.

The Army has identified 80 Local Education Authority-operated schools

within the continental United States that are inadequate because of poor conditions or a lack of capacity to accommodate the number of students enrolled. Initial funding in the fiscal year 2011 bill will address approximately 13 of these schools.

Nearly 42,000 school-aged dependents of U.S. service personnel are enrolled in schools on DOD bases that are owned and operated by either LEAs or the U.S. Department of Education. The recommendation is based on former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's remarks to military spouses at a May 8, 2010, town hall meeting at Fort Riley, Kansas. The Secretary then called me as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee last year and said, Norm, we've got to do something about these schools. We have these young men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them worried about their children because some of these schools, if there was a hurricane, if there was an earthquake, if there was a lahar from Mount Rainier, these schools could go down.

I have walked out there and seen these schools at Joint Base Lewis- McChord. And one of the conditions, if you are going to get money here, is that you must take over the school. The local school districts are going to have to take them over from this point forward. So we will get out of the responsibility, but we have to bring these schools up to code and standards and rebuild most of them. This list was developed by the Army, and then the Navy and Air Force and Marine Corps also were involved.

The former Secretary indicated that his plan to improve schools requires congressional approval. Caring for the dependents of U.S. service personnel is a vital contributor to military quality of life and represents a prudent investment in our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Let me also say in the military construction bill there was $463 million for schools that are owned by the Department of Defense. Many of these schools are overseas, in other countries; and yet we are putting $463 million into those schools. At the same time, the gentleman from Arizona wants to deny the young people of our country schools that they could go into. There is one in Arizona. The gentleman is running for the other body. I think he would be concerned about the school in Arizona that may not get funded if this amendment passes. And I hope the people of Arizona remember it, because the people of Washington State will certainly remember it. This is a bad amendment. We should defeat it.

I will not yield.

I yield back the balance of my time.

They don't have any money. The Department of Education can't fund this because the new majority is taking a lot of the money out of the Department of Education that they would use for this purpose, and they don't have the money. That's why the Secretary called us and said--and this is Fort Riley, Kansas, one of your side, a school in the district of a Republican Member--and he said we've got to do something.

We didn't say we will do this on a partisan basis. We said, hey, these men and women in these Stryker brigades are over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the last thing we need to do is have them be worried about their children in these schools that could go down if we had an earthquake. And we have had all these natural disasters all over this country. And I just say to the gentleman this is the most ridiculous amendment I have heard of yet. And he has had some lulus. And I just hope we can defeat this amendment so the people of this country will know we care about our kids serving in the military and their families.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think the gentleman from Illinois brings up a very important issue, and I too look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that classified data is protected from misuse and theft. Cybersecurity may be the most important defense issue that we face in the coming years. The Department of Defense itself is hit 250,000 times per hour, which is unbelievable, but it's true. And so we need to work on this, and I'm glad the gentleman has taken an interest in this important subject.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The allocation for the Defense bill has already been reduced

by $9 billion. Funding for the research and development title of the bill has been reduced from the 2011 level by nearly $2 billion. Further reductions risk harming critical technology development needed to keep current weapons relevant and needed to develop next generation weapons and technologies required to maintain the U.S. edge in military technologies.

The reduction would adversely affect many systems now in development, including the Joint Strike Fighter, where we certainly do not want to fall behind, advanced submarine development, the long-range strike program, missile defense program, further development of precision weapons systems and many others.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Nine billion below the President's request.

Last year we were $17 billion below last year, $9 billion this year. So we're making some serious cuts in this budget.

No. This one won't make the top 10.

We're working the list up, so I will share it with the gentleman down in the gym.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I will work with the gentlelady on DOD lung cancer research. We have $10.2 million in the budget this year, and money for other forms of cancer and treatment efforts, in light of the serious problems facing military members. This is a very serious problem, and I am glad that you have called it to our attention, and I look forward to working with you on this important issue.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The amendment would prohibit DOD from developing or manufacturing a newly designed flight suit

for members of the Armed Forces. In November of 2010, the Air Force awarded a $99.4 million contract over 7 years to research, develop, and manufacture the flight suit. The November award ended a nearly 3-year competitive bidding process.

The Air Force requires that the new flight suit must protect airmen from flames, all kinds of weather, chemical attacks or radiation, and high gravity that can cause air members to black out. So I urge rejection of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I rise in opposition to any amendment that seeks to delay the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Some in the majority continue to try to legislate this issue even though the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in December.

As of last month, more than 1 million U.S. servicemembers--roughly half of our Armed Forces--have been trained on the new law allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Our military leaders, lead by Admiral Mullen, have stated that they have

seen no adverse impact on the force and that training is going very well. The current expectation is that all members of the active and reserve military force will be trained by mid-August.

Last month, Secretary Gates indicated in an interview with the Associated Press that he sees no roadblocks to ending the ban on openly gay military service. Current Secretary Panetta said that he would work closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assess whether the elements for certification in the law are met before approving the repeal.

Our servicemembers deserve the right to serve their country no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Currently, gay and lesbian servicemembers are forced to live under the constant threat of being forced out of the military because of the misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that seeks to delay implementation.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman.

I think we agree that it is vitally important to save money in the Joint Strike Fighter Program where it is possible to do so without negatively impacting performance or schedule. The Joint Program Office and the services which will use the Joint Strike Fighter are to be commended for any efforts to identify potential reductions in program costs. As an example, the Air Force is currently in the process of validating an earlier internal study of ejection seat options for its variant of the aircraft.

Would the chairman agree that if studies like this one make a sound business case that savings will result, then the Air Force's judgment about how its aircraft can be made more cost effectively equipped should be informed by that conclusion?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him on this and other matters in our oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I am going to read this amendment: ``None of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract that allows the contractor to use amounts paid to the contractor under such contract to pay a tax to the Afghan Ministry of Finance.''

I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Washington State for being able to work so tirelessly to get this amendment perfected. It's very clear what her intent is, and we are prepared on our side to accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment would realign 10 million from defense-wide accounts to support additional work within the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. The program was established in 1990 and is jointly planned and executed by the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies and industry.

The program improves DOD mission readiness and environmental performance by providing new scientific knowledge and cost-effective technologies in the areas of environmental restoration, munitions response, resource conservation, and weapons systems and platforms.

SERDP enhances military operations, improves military systems' effectiveness, enhances military training and readiness, sustains DOD's training and test ranges and installation infrastructure, and helps ensure the safety and welfare of military personnel and their dependents by eliminating or reducing the generation of pollution and use of hazardous materials and reducing the cost of remedial actions.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in very strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The decrease appears to be directed at funding provided in operation and maintenance defense-wide for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The operation and maintenance defense-wide account received a thorough review during the committee process

and has already been reduced by $258 million from the budget request.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense account has similarly been reduced by $36.4 million based on a detailed review of specific programs within this account. Adjustments have been made to duplicative efforts and to programs that were poorly justified.

Further reductions risk harm to operations in the defense-wide account such as special operations activities; education programs like the National Defense University and the Defense Acquisition University; and organizations that perform basic operational functions like finance and human resources.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Unfortunately, that is not the way the gentleman wrote his amendment; so I would stand with my provision which says further reductions risk harm to operations in the defense-wide account.

So if you take 10 percent out of the account, it is going to affect Special Operations activities; education programs like the National Defense University, Defense Acquisition University--and Lord knows, we need help in acquisition; and organizations that perform basic operational functions like finance and human resources. I stand by my statement.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Regrettably, I have to oppose this amendment. My good friend from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, is one of our most thoughtful Members and has been a leader on environmental issues. But in this case, we have already doubled the funding for this. I think this is unnecessary at this time. We have to constrain spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have followed this issue closely ever since the gulf war, and I feel that the gentleman has made a very compelling case. I think we should add this money, and the offset is acceptable. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Kucinich amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I would just point out that the committee has added $125 million this year and $454 million over the last several years, going back to when Mr. Murtha

and I were chairmen. So we completely concur that this is an important issue. The gentlelady has made a very compelling case. I rise in support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I appreciate the sincerity and the gentlelady's commitment to these programs. I have been a supporter of these programs over the years. Triple-negative breast cancer is a very, very aggressive and difficult type of cancer. As the Department goes through its work, peer-reviewed research, we will bring this up next year in our hearings and ask them what they're doing about this.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Army's environmental research program develops technologies that support the long-term sustainment of Army training and testing activities by improving the Army's ability to comply with the requirements of Federal, State, and local environmental and health laws and reducing the cost of this compliance.

The program develops technologies to decontaminate or neutralize Army unique hazardous and toxic waste at sites containing waste ammunition, explosives, heavy metals, propellants, chemical munitions, and other organic contaminants. This research concentrates on technology to avoid the potential for future hazardous waste problems by reducing hazardous waste generation through process modification and control, materials recycling, and substitution.

This program also supports military readiness by developing technologies to predict and mitigate range and maneuver constraints associated with current and emerging weapon systems, doctrine, and regulations. This program supports both DOD and environmental stewardship and military requirements. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

HIV poses a threat to military personnel in terms of readiness and force protection, and may affect the stability and security of many nation states.

American troops deployed to areas of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa and Asia face an increased risk of exposure to the HIV virus. Targeted research into prevention of infection, treatment, and cures is needed to reduce this threat to U.S. military personnel, protect U.S. military readiness, and decrease treatment costs for the Department of Defense health infrastructure.

The bill provides a total of $24 million above the request, including $8 million in the defense health program and $16 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, related to HIV/AIDS research. This funding will enhance efforts to prevent new HIV infections in the military, develop better tests and treatment options for military personnel and health care beneficiaries, and provide for a comprehensive program of research and development on preventive HIV vaccines. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Many environmental laws, regulations, and policies impose restrictions on Navy vessels, aircraft, and facilities that would impede Navy operations if not met. The Navy must be able to conduct its national security mission in compliance with applicable environmental requirements in the U.S. and abroad without compromising performance, safety, or health, while simultaneously minimizing the cost of compliance.

This program develops and evaluates processes, hardware, systems, and operational procedures which allow the Navy to operate in U.S., foreign, and international waters, air, space, and

land areas while complying with environmental laws, regulations, Executive orders, policies, and international agreements. Projects funded in this program support Navy compliance with the Clean Water Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and numerous others.

I come from an area where the Navy operates very effectively in the State of Washington, and these kinds of onboard waste disposal are absolutely critical; because when you serve on a nuclear submarine, you are out there for many, many days, and you have got to have things onboard ship as well to deal with these kinds of problems.

So I think this is in the best interests of the Navy, and I urge a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

NATO funding in this bill should not be curtailed because the U.S. and the NATO nations are one another's closest partners, and the NATO alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy dating back to its formation in 1949. While the alliance must evolve in light of changing world events, there is no other practical option to structure U.S. strategic and security cooperation with our European allies.

For all NATO nations, the alliance allows for security capabilities and a structure to control operations that the allies on their own could not afford to maintain. Active participation in NATO also allows the U.S. to pursue defenses against emerging threats, such as implementation of improved missile defense capabilities. To maintain its commitment to NATO, the U.S. must continue to contribute funding to NATO programs.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's not a fighter; it's a bomber.

It's a much different type of airplane.

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

First of all, I have to again correct the record here that the President of the United States, OMB and Defense Department requested $197 million.

Our committee held hearings with the Air Force and found, from a lot of dialogue with the three companies that are competing, that we might be able to accelerate this bomber replacement program if we could get an additional $100 million. So the President requested $197 million, and we added $100 million to that because we see that this program is vitally important.

Now, I led the fight many years ago in the House on the B-2 bomber, and my colleagues got very tired of listening to me on this. But we started with that program at 125 bombers, and we wound up with only 20. So we need another stealth bomber, which can reach around the world as we have seen the B-2 do just recently.

This is a very high priority of the Air Force. I mean, next to tankers, the replacement of the bomber and along with the Joint Strike Fighter, are going to be the top priorities for the Air Force. So this would be a catastrophic blow to terminate this program.

And though I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Vermont, I would say that I would stay with the committee, which unanimously supported this program, has always supported modernization of our strategic bombers and our strategic modernization of our submarines, which are two of the major issues that our committee is dealing with.

So, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

NATO funding in this bill should not be curtailed because the United States and the NATO nations are one another's closest partners, and the NATO alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy dating back to the formation in 1949 during the Truman administration. While the alliance must evolve in light of changing world events, there is no other practical option to structure U.S. strategic and security cooperation with our European allies.

For all NATO nations, the alliance allows for security capabilities and a structure to control operations that the allies on their own could not afford or maintain. Active participation in NATO also allows the U.S. to pursue defenses against emerging threats such as implementation of improved missile defense capabilities.

To maintain its commitment to NATO, the United States must continue its contribution to all aspects of the NATO program, including research and development activities.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am so thrilled that the gentleman from Florida has an amendment that I can support. I join with you, and I urge everyone to support the gentleman's amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman explained to me that the $10 million would not be part of the government program, that this would give people with traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, an option to go to the private sector?

What about TRICARE, which is a private company?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

We accept the amendment too.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

This amendment would repeal section 8015 of the bill, which in various forms has been included in the bill for the past 14 years.

This section requires that, before work is contracted out, the Department of Defense must conduct a formal cost comparison to determine whether privatization would actually save money. The section also provides an exemption to ease contracting with businesses owned by disadvantaged persons, qualified nonprofit entities for disadvantaged persons, or businesses owned by Native Americans. In cases where outsourcing is appropriate, one of the fundamental reasons would be to lower government operating costs.

Requiring the DOD to actually conduct this analysis under the A-76 review is reasonable and should be included in this bill, so I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I must say we have done these A-76 reviews across the country, and many times we find that the government entity reorganizes itself and can actually do the work at a lesser cost than the private sector.

And the other problem with this whole thing is, once the private sector gets it, the costs go right through the roof.

So you need to have an analysis done after contracting out is done to make sure that you're not getting ripped off. So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentlemen's amendment strikes section 8101 from the bill. This section provides that the Defense Department must certify compliance with a fiscal year 2008 law which requires DOD to provide an inventory of its service contracts, review those contracts, and then integrate those results into the budget process before using the OMB Circular A-76 privatization process. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

This provision is included in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. It requires that DOD exercise responsible stewardship over its contractors by providing an inventory of such contractors, a review of associated contracts, and an explanation of how these contracts are integrated into the budget. The provision requires the Department of Defense to maintain better accountability of the thousands of contractors performing services for the Department every day, and therefore maintain better accountability of funds. Striking this section releases the Department from this responsibility.

And I must tell the gentleman from Texas, who is a good friend, that we had a terrific problem getting the Department of Defense to even be able to tell us how many contractors they have. We had this problem in Iraq, we had this problem in Afghanistan, and we are still struggling. Now they give us a quarterly report of how many contractors and how many contract employees there are.

I have always believed in the A-76 review process. In fact, I had an amendment probably 25 years ago that said after you do A-76, if you contract out to the private company--if they win the competition between the government unit and the private sector--that you have to keep on analyzing what has happened to the cost. And what we found was, as soon as the thing was contracted out, the prices started to go up until we had an auditing process that looked into it. That process was taken out I think in the nineties. So we didn't have this mechanism to ensure that we were getting the best deal. And there were problems associated with pensions. Could you compare government pensions with private sector pensions?

A lot of this was worked out. But the idea of not being accountable, not having these companies, not having the government, the Defense Department know how many service contractors it has and how much. And if we are going to reduce spending, we have got to know that. We have got to understand that. And I hope that we could continue to work on this problem, because the idea that Congress doesn't get the information that is necessary to know how many people we have contracted out to is, I think, ridiculous. And I think Congress has to insist that we get this information.

I yield, of course.

I think the A-76 process has been a worthy one. Sometimes the contractor wins, and sometimes the unit of government reorganizes itself, and they compete, and it comes out that the government wins. So I think the A-76 process has worked. I hate to see us get rid of that.

Now, the other thing is, I think the Department has to do a better job of accountability, of being able to report how many civilian employees, how many military employees, how many contractors.

That is what I am trying to get to. I think the idea that they can submit their budget but not be able to tell us how many contractors there are, how many contract employees there are, is just ridiculous.

Yes, I yield.

I agree with the gentleman. If we can get a better deal, let's try to get a better deal. If we can do it less expensively, we can do it less expensively.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

And I do this very reluctantly, but I'm glad that the sponsor of the amendment has arrived, and we will let her talk about this.

Section 8127 limits spending for military bands to $200 million for fiscal year 2012. Now, that is a lot of money and I'm a person who believes in music, believes in our bands. I have been at Fort Lewis out in my part of the country, now Joint Base Lewis-McChord, for many ceremonies. And there's no question about it; the music really does add to the whole event. But we are in a very tough fiscal period here.

During the full committee markup, this was agreed to by a voice vote. The amendment parallels similar language included in section 599(c) in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. So we've had the authorization committee look at it, we've had the Appropriations Committee look at it, and I think that we ought to support the position that came out of the full committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support the Pakistani military. Of this amount, 1.1 billion is for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund and approximately 1.3 billion is provided through Coalition Support Funds.

The Pakistani Counterinsurgency Fund provides for the training and equipping of Pakistani forces specifically to aid U.S. counterterrorism objectives. Coalition Support Funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani military for operations which generally support U.S. counterterrorism objectives.

In the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. Special Forces, serious questions have arisen about Pakistan's reliability as a strategic partner. And I must say that I agree with much of what the gentleman from Texas has just said.

The relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult, but maintaining the relationship is essential. This relationship helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism, and the Pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within their own borders to this mission.

A complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts with their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region, and we must remember that they are also a nuclear power.

In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the U.S. to continue to try and engage Pakistan.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the amendment, and urge that we accept it.

I yield to the chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the gentleman on this particular amendment. I think we should vote it down.

I can completely understand the gentleman's concern here. I want the gentleman to know that I am prepared to work with him on this to see if we can talk to the powers that be over in the Pentagon. Hopefully, they can accept Secretary McHugh's recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Hastings amendment.

In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. airpower and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. The United States' effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of Muammar Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising, inspired by the Arab Spring, was to use force against civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the U.N. action.

In March, the President clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this military action. While the direct U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the NATO operation. In this Chamber today, we are considering both the resolution authorizing the continued use of limited U.S. involvement in this effort or our immediate withdrawal from it.

While I believe it would have been more appropriate for the President, under the terms of the War Powers Act, to come to Congress earlier, I believe the language offered by Hastings of Florida, similar to the language introduced in the other body by Senators McCain and Kerry, is the appropriate course of action at this time.

The language preserves the understanding between the administration and Congress that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time and were not asked for by the rebels.

The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by Mr. Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this action would be unwise and that it would materially harm our relationship with NATO allies.

And when I hear many of my colleagues on the other side of the House

Chamber speaking in favor of abandoning the cause, I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan who attacked Libya with air power and called Qadhafi the ``mad dog of the Middle East.''

The strict limitation of funds in the resolution offered by Mr. Rooney of Florida would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this action would be unwise, and that it could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we will undoubtedly require support in the future. It would also undermine the worldwide effort to protect the people of Libya.

Now in this amendment, there are exceptions: search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning. I asked the majority if they would put in suppression, because you can't conduct these other missions without suppression, and if we don't have the ability to suppress enemy air defenses, the allies will not be able to continue the bombing campaign. So all of these things that the gentleman says he wants to do and have exceptions for will be undermined by not having suppression.

Today's F-18 Growlers go in on these missions and they suppress the enemy radars so that the bombing can continue. So I think this is fatally flawed because of the lack of suppression, and I feel that we now have to vote against this because of that fact. I tried to offer this as an amendment, but I was told that they weren't interested.

I just hope you understand that you are undermining this mission and you are undermining NATO. This deserves to be defeated.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

Wouldn't you feel better if we could add, as a fifth item in this list of things, suppression of enemy air defenses? The reason I say that is I think we're going to have a difficult time doing any of these other missions unless we have suppression.

I was just over there at Aviano and Sigonella, and we were told by the Navy that the allies do not have enough suppression to be able to continue to do these bombing missions without U.S. help. I think it would help if we could clarify that that is not somehow abandoned.