Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
PRUDENTENS SAYS THE U.S. SHOULD
NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION FOR
THE REBUILDING EFFORTS IT IS
PAYING FOR.
AND THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE
GETTING AT WITH THIS AMENDMENT.
I THINK THE POINT
THAT YOU HAVE RAISED IS A VERY
VALID POINT AND SOMETHING THAT'S
VERY GOOD DISCUSSION MATTER.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE BELIEVE THAT
IT IS AUTHORIZING AN
APPROPRIATION AS THE CHAIR HAS
CONFIRMED.
BUT THAT PROBABLY, THE CONCERN
FAR MORE THAN THE PHILOSOPHICAL
CONCERN.
SO I THINK IF YOU AND THE
GENTLEMAN COULD WORK ON OTHER
LANGUAGE AND MAKE ANOTHER RUN ON
IT, BUT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE SYMPATHIES
WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU RAISE A
VERY VALID POINT.
I WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE.
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLELADY YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
DESK, AMENDMENT NUMBER 4.
THE CLERK WILL
REDESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4,
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM OKLAHOMA.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OKLAHOMA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
IN APRIL, A DRAFT
EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS CIRCULATED
THAT WOULD REQUIRE ALL COMPANIES
BIDDING ON FEDERAL CONTRACTS TO
DISCLOSE ALL FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS.
IF ENACTED, THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER
WOULD EFFECTIVELY POLITICIZE THE
FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS IN
MY OPINION.
COMPANIES WOULDN'T BE MERELY
JUDGED BY THE MERITS OF THEIR
PAST PERFORMANCE, BY THEIR
CAPABILITY TO DO THE JOB BUT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS
OF WHO THEY GAVE MONEY TO OR
AGAINST.
THIS WOULD CLEARLY CHILL THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT
TO DONATE TO PARTICULAR PARTIES,
CANDIDATES AND CAUSES OF ONE'S
CHOICE AND I THINK, FRANKLY,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER -- PROPOSED
DO.
EXECUTIVE ORDER IS INTENDED TO
MY AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY
PROHIBIT FUNDS FROM THIS ACT FOR
BEING USED TO IMPLEMENT SUCH AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE EXISTING
FEDERAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LAW IN ANY WAY.
DOESN'T PREVENT THE DISCLOSURE
OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT
SIMPLY SAYS WE WON'T SPEND MONEY
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
FROM THIS BILL TO REQUIRE
INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED
ALONG WITH BIDS FOR FEDERAL
CONTRACTS.
THIS HOUSE HAS AGREED TO THIS
CONCEPT ON THREE PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS.
ONCE IN A BILL, ONCE IN AN
AMENDMENT TO THE DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT AND ONCE IN AN
AMENDMENT TO THE DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
FINALLY, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT
CONGRESS HAS REJECTED AN EFFORT
TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THIS PROPOSED
EXECUTIVE ORDER INTENDS TO DO
WHEN IT FAILED TO PASS THE
DISCLOSE ACT IN 2010.
MR. CHAIRMAN, PAY TO PLAY HAS NO
CONTRACT.
PLACE IN THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
AND WE SHOULD TO KEEP POLITICS
OUT OF THE SELECTION OF VENDORS
AND BUSINESSES AND CONTRACTORS
TO GO ABOUT DOING FEDERAL WORK.
AMENDMENT.
I WOULD URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE
AND I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TODAY TO THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
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
THAT THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
COULD BE USED 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 P.A.C.'S
AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO GOVERNMENTS
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
SIMPLY ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF
THAT INFORMATION.
I MEAN, WE SHOULD -- YOU KNOW
DISCLOSURE IS GOOD.
DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS, TO CANDIDATES IS
GOOD.
COULD DISCLOSURE OF COMPANIES
MAKING THESE DISCLOSURES IS
GOOD.
AND I JUST WORRY WE'RE HAVING A
SITUATION HERE WHERE, YOU KNOW,
THEY -- 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 AND THE BOEINGS,
LOCKHEEDS, THEY ALL MAKE
CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEY ARE ALL
DISCLOSED.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH DISCLOSURE.
I URGE A NO ON THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY DOES
MOVE US IN THAT DIRECTION AND
WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO MR. COLE
AND ASK HIM TO CLARIFY THAT -- I
WANT TO CONFIRM.
I WOULD SAY TO MY GOOD
FRIEND FROM WASHINGTON, WHOM I
RESPECT AS MUCH AS I DO ANYBODY
IN THIS CONGRESS.
THE INTENT HERE IS TO MAKE SURE
WE NEVER LINK POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS WITH THE AWARDING
OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
IF WE WANT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
DISCLOSURE, THE CONGRESS HAS IN
ITS ABILITY TO DO THAT AND WE
CONSIDERED SOMETHING LIKE THIS
IN 2010 AND DECIDED IT WAS
INAPPROPRIATE.
NOW IT'S TIME FOR MY FRIENDS ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WERE
IN OF BOTH HOUSES AS WELL AS THE
PRESIDENCY.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BUT
ADDRESS IT.
THIS IS AN INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, FRANKLY, IS
DOOR.
LEGISLATING THROUGH THE BACK
IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LAWS IN
THE UNITED STATES, THAT NEEDS TO
BE DONE HERE, NOT BY EXECUTIVE
FIAT.
AND TO LINK IT WITH THE
CONTRACTING PROCESS IS
INEVITABLY GOING TO RAISE
QUESTIONS, CREATE FEARS AND
DOUBTS AND CHILL POLITICAL
SPEECH.
LET'S KEEP CONTRACTING AND THE
AWARDING OF CONTRACTS BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SEPARATE FROM PARTISAN POLITICAL
CONSIDERATIONS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS.
I THINK WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF
AND I THANK MY FRIEND FROM
GEORGIA FOR YIELDING.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
THE GENTLELADY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I JUST LISTENED WITH
GREAT CURIOSITY TO THE COMMENTS
THAT WERE MADE ABOUT THE
SO-CALLED INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATION.
I DON'T SEE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE BRINGING FORWARD
LEGISLATION THAT YOU HAVE THE
POWER TO PASS GIVEN THE NUMBER
OF VOTES THAT YOU HAVE FOR FULL
DISCLOSURE.
IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO A DRAFT
EXECUTIVE ORDER, IF YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO MY COMING TO THE
FLOOR AND BLOCKING EVERY TIME I
AN AMENDMENT FOR
DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY,
CHANGE IT.
YOU WERE FOR IT BEFORE YOU WENT
AGAINST IT -- THE REPUBLICANS
WERE.
THAT'S WHAT THE RECORD IS.
SO I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO
REPRESENTATIVE COLE'S AMENDMENT,
WHICH BLOCKS DISCLOSURE OF
CONTRACTOR POLITICAL SPENDING.
NOW, THIS IS NOT TO CREATE ANY
KIND OF LIST, YOU KNOW.
YOU CAN COME UP WITH ALL KINDS
OF THINGS ABOUT WHY YOU ARE
AGAINST SOMETHING AND THEN TRY
AND LABEL IT.
THIS IS ABOUT DISCLOSURE.
THIS IS ABOUT SUNSHINE.
THIS IS ABOUT DISINFECT ANT AND
YOU'RE AGAINST IT AND THAT'S A
BAD PLACE TO BE AND THAT'S THE
WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.
THE DRAFT OF THE PRESIDENT'S
ORDER WOULD REQUIRE DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTORS WHO
DO BUSINESS WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
NOW, ANY BUSINESS THAT DOES
BUSINESS WITH THE FEDERAL
DOLLARS.
GOVERNMENT IS PAID WITH TAXPAYER
WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND
DISCLOSURE RELATIVE TO THOSE
DOLLARS?
THIS AMENDMENT -- YOUR AMENDMENT
WOULD PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE, WHICH
I THINK IS THE EXACT WRONG THING
TO DO.
WE SHOULD OPPOSE ANY AMENDMENT.
WE SHOULD OPPOSE ANY AMENDMENT,
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, THAT'S
DESIGNED TO KEEP THE PUBLIC LESS
INFORMED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO
THEIR TAX DOLLARS.
WE KNOW WHO SUPPORTS THIS
AMENDMENT.
IT'S THE AMERICAN LEAGUE OF
LOBBYISTS.
THE LOBBYISTS FOR THE LOBBYIST.
SURPRISE.
.
SURPRISE.
WE SHOULD BE FIGHTING FOR THE
TAXPAYER, NOT FOR THE UBER
SUPERLOBBYISTS.
WE ARE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC
WHAT WITH WE HERE FOR?
INTEREST, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND
YET THERE IS AN AMENDMENT ON
THE FLOOR THAT WOULD DESTROY
ANY ATTEMPT AT DISCLOSURE.
AGAIN, I REMEMBER WHEN THE
REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED
DISCLOSURE, WHEN WE WANTED
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS,
REPUBLICANS SAID NO.
WE NEED DISCLOSURE INSTEAD.
NOW THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR
DISCLOSURE, YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
IT.
AS I SAID, YOU WERE FOR IT.
NOW YOU'RE AGAINST IT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE VERY
CLEAR ON THIS LATE LAST YEAR
WHEN THERE WAS A CBS/"NEW YORK
TIMES" POLL, AND THAT POLL
FOUND THAT 92% OF AMERICANS
SUPPORT REQUIRING OUTSIDE
GROUPS TO DISCLOSE HOW MUCH
MONEY THEY HAVE RAISED, WHERE
IT CAME FROM AND HOW IT WAS
USED.
NOW, WE'RE GOING DIRECTLY TO
TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
THOSE THAT DO BUSINESS WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IT'S VERY SIMPLE TO DISCLOSE.
WE SHOULD BE LISTENING TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I WOULD
ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS IS A BAD AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.
IT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR SYSTEM.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S WHY THE
PEOPLE SENT US HERE AND OF ALL
THINGS TO BE STOMPING ON AND
TRYING TO SNUFF OUT, DISCLOSURE
I YIELD BACK.
SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF THEM.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
TIME.
YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HER
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA.
SO MANY AS IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
A RECORDED VOTE IS
REQUESTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA WILL BE
POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
THE CLERK WILL
AT THE DESK.
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AN AMENDMENT OFFERED
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD BY
MR. FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED FOR
IT'S A TEST OF
WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF THIS
BODY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY.
FORTUNATELY I THINK FOR ALL
CONCERNED, THE OATH WE TAKE AT
THE BEGINNING OF THIS SECTION
DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO SPECIFIC
STATEMENTS.
SO THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THIS
WILL PROBABLY UNFORTUNATELY
SHOW GREAT GAP BETWEEN WHAT
PEOPLE SAY AND WHAT THEY VOTE
WILL HAVE NO CONSEQUENCES OTHER
THAN THE PUBLIC KNOWING IT.
WE ARE AT A TIME OF AUSTERITY.
WE ARE AT A TIME WHEN IMPORTANT
PROGRAMS, VALID PROGRAMS ARE
BEING CUT BACK, AND WE WERE
TOLD BY SOME, EVERYTHING'S ON
THE TABLE.
ALL THOSE METAPHORS THAT IS
SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH
EVERYTHING.
AND THEN WE GET THIS
APPROPRIATION FROM THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE FOR
THE MILITARY BUDGET, AND A TIME
WHEN WE'RE CUTTING POLICE
OFFICERS ON THE STREETS OF OUR
CITIES, CUTTING BACKFIRE
FIGHTERS, WE'RE CUTTING BACK
MAINTENANCE OF HIGHWAYS, OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES TO
REPLACE OLD BRIDGES, WHEN WE
ARE CUTTING IN ALMOST EVERY
COMPASS -- CAPACITY, THE
MILITARY BUDGET GETS A $17
BILLION INCREASE FROM THIS
FISCAL YEAR TO THE NEXT.
A $17 BILLION INCREASE IN THE
MILITARY BUDGET SIMPLY DOES NOT
FIT WITH THIS ARGUMENT THAT WE
ARE PUTTING EVERYTHING ON THE
TABLE.
YES, THEY SAY THAT PUTTING --
THEY'RE PUTTING EVERYTHING ON
THE TABLE BUT THERE'S A PROBLEM
WITH THE PREP SIGNIFICANCE
HERE, NOT THE PROPOSITION, THE
PREP SIGNIFICANCE.
THE MILITARY BUDGET IS NOT ON
THE TABLE.
THE MILITARY BUDGET IS AT THE
TABLE AND IT'S EATING EVERYBODY
ELSE'S LUNCH.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD
BY SOME ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE
THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO GO TO
THE AID OF THOSE FELLOW
CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN THE
VICTIMS OF NATURAL DISASTERS,
WHO HAVE SUFFERED ENORMOUS
PHYSICAL AND ALSO THEREFORE
PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE FROM
TORNADOES, FROM FLOODS UNLESS
WE FIND THE CUTS ELSEWHERE.
BUT IF WE WERE NOT INCREASING
THE MILITARY BUDGET BY $17
BILLION OVER THIS YEAR THEN
THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO DO
THAT AND YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO
WORRY ABOUT THIS AID.
MY COLLEAGUES, THIS IS
CO-AUTHORED BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. CAMPBELL,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA, MR. JONES, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. PAUL,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY,
MR. HOLT, THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
WISCONSIN, MS. MOORE.
WE ARE BEING VERY MODERATE
HERE.
WE ARE NOT SAYING DON'T GIVE
THE PENTAGON ANY MORE MONEY.
THIS AMENDMENT REDUCES BY 50%
THE INCREASE FOR THE PENTAGON.
WE ARE ACCEPTING $8.5 BILLION.
BY THE WAY, THIS DOES NOT
AFFECT THE WARS IN IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN.
IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME, MAYBE
THIS WAS SAID EARLIER, THE
BUDGET FOR AFGHANISTAN, WHICH
WE REFUSE TO CUT RELUCTANTLY,
REGRET PLEA, WAS VOTED OUT OF
THE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE
PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED A 10,000
TROOP REDUCTION.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT WAS
KIDDING HE WOULD BRING DOWN
10,000 TROOPS, WE FUNDED 10,000
TROOPS THAT WON'T BE THERE NEXT
YEAR.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
WE'RE SAYING TO THE PENTAGON,
YOU FIND IT.
DON'T CUT MILITARY PERSONNEL,
DON'T CUT HEALTH BUT PERHAPS
SOME OF THE BASES WE MAINTAIN
OVERSEAS, SOME OF THE SUBSIDIES
WE GIVE TO NATO, LIP SERVICES
PAID HERE TO AN ALLIANCE IN
WHICH THE BUDGET IS BASED.
UNFORTUNATELY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
HAVE TO SAY IT'S TRIVIAL.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND
MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE, THEY ARE THE
ENABLERS OF ONE OF THE GREAT
WELFARE DEPENDENCIES IN THE
HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
THE ABILITY OF WEALTHY EUROPEAN
NATIONS 61 YEARS AFTER THE
FOUNDATION OF NATO TO GET
SUBSIDIZED BY AMERICA.
SO THEN MILITARY BUDGET CAN BE
A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OURS AS
PERCENTAGES OF THE G.D.P. SO
THEY CAN PROVIDE MORE SERVICES,
BETTER RAIL, BETTER HEALTH
CARE, EARLIER RETIREMENT FOR
THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
THIS SAYS TO THE PENTAGON NOT
THAT WE'RE GOING TO CUT YOU,
THIS GIVES THEM A GREATER THAN
1% INCREASE AT A TIME WHEN
EVERYONE ELSE IS BEING CUT AND
IT MEANS NOTHING TO THE
PENTAGON.
LET'S LOOK AT THE BASIS WE HAVE
-- BASES WE HAVE ALL OVER THE
WORLD.
YES, THERE IS INEFFICIENCY.
YOU CAN'T MAN INEFFICIENCIES
FROM THE OUTSIDE WHEN YOU GIVE
THE ENTITY IN QUESTION THE
ABILITY TO SPEND WITHOUT LIMIT.
YOU'LL NEVER GET EFFICIENCY,
MR. CHAIRMAN OF THE PENTAGON,
THAT WE DON'T SUBJECT IT WITH
THE SAME KIND OF FISCAL
DISCIPLINE.
AND IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT THE
PENTAGON IS A GREAT,
ANTICIPATION HERE.
WE ARE GOING TO BE TELLING -- A
GREAT EXCEPTION HERE.
WE ARE GOING TO BE TELLING THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, RECONSTRUCTION
OF PROJECT THAT HELP WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION, WE'RE GOING TO
CUT BACK ON FIREFIGHTERS, WE
ARE GOING TO QUIBBLE OVER
FINANCIAL DISASTER RELIEF BUT
GIVE THE PENTAGON $17 BILLION
ADDITIONAL THAT WE CANNOT
AFFORD.
THE TIME OF THE
GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD AND RISE IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT
TO OFFER SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE THAN MY FRIEND FROM
MASSACHUSETTS DOES ON THE TREND
LINE OF DEFENSE SPENDING.
LOOKING AT THE LONG TERM,
DEFENSE SPENDING IS OVER TIME
COME DOWN PRETTY DRAMATICALLY
AS A PERCENT OF OUR GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT.
1960, THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD
WAR, WE SPENT ABOUT 9% OF THE
G.D.P. ON DEFENSE.
1980 IN THE GREAT REAGAN
DEFENSE BUILDUP IT WAS ABOUT
6%.
IT FELL AS LOW AS ABOUT 3.5% ON
THE EVIL OF 9/11.
IT'S BARELY 5% OR IN THAT RANGE
SO THIS BY HISTORICAL
TODAY.
STANDARDS, PARTICULARLY SINCE
1940, WE DO NOT SPEND A LARGE
ON DEFENSE.
PORTION OF THE NATIONAL WEALTH
BY THE WAY, THE SAME THING IS
TRUE OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET.
IN 1960, ABOUT 50% OF THE
FEDERAL BUDGET WAS DEFENSE
SPENDING.
IT WAS ABOUT 33% IN 1980.
IT'S ABOUT 18% OR 19% TODAY.
CERTAINLY A LOT OF MONEY AND
THAT'S NOT CERTAINLY THE WAY TO
JUDGE MILITARY SPENDING.
IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE
FEDERAL BUDGET OR THE WEALTH OF
THE COUNTRY, DEFENSE HAS BEEN
COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING A
BARGAIN COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS
OF THE BUDGET.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT
FRANKLY THIS DEFENSE
SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE
ADMINISTRATION HAVE WORKED TO
FIND ADDITIONAL ECONOMIES.
SECRETARY GATES MADE $78
BILLION IN REDUCTIONS OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS, AND THIS
BUDGET ITSELF IS BELOW WHAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ASKED US TO APPROPRIATE BY $9
BILLION.
IN ADDITION, THE SECRETARY HAS
LAID OUT A PATH FROM ADDITIONAL
$400 BILLION WORTH OF SAVINGS.
I THINK MOST AMERICANS WOULD BE
SHOCKED TO FIND OUT WE'RE
ENGAGED IN TWO OR THREE WARS,
DEPENDING HOW YOU WANT TO COULD
YOU TELL IT, WITH AN ARMY THAT
IS ALMOST 40% SMALLER THAN IT
WAS IN 1992.
SO I YIELD TO SOMEONE IN TERMS
OF FINDING SAVINGS IN DEFENSE.
I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE CLEAR AS
A PERCENTAGE OF OUR NATIONAL
WEALTH AND OUR NATIONAL BUDGET,
WHAT WE SPEND ON DEFENSE HAS
COME DOWN.
AND, FRANKLY, WE OUGHT TO
REMEMBER WE ARE AT WAR, WE ARE
IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST PLACE TO
CUT, ALTHOUGH CUT WE HAVE.
IN MY OPINION, I THINK IT'S THE
LAST PLACE THAT WE OUGHT TO
CUT.
AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT MY
FRIEND PROPOSES I THINK WOULD
BE TERRIFIC.
IT WOULD BE REDUCING AND
CANCELING TRAINING FOR
RETURNING TROOPS, CANCELING
NAVY TRAINING, EXERCISES,
REDUCING AIR FORCE FLIGHT
TRAINING, DELAYING AND
CANCELING MAINTENANCE OF
AIRCRAFT, SHIPS AND VEHICLES,
DELAYING IMPORTANT SAFETY AND
QUALITY OF LIFE REPAIR.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR US TO
EMBARK ON ADDITIONAL CUTS ON
TOP OF THE RESTRAINTS IN
SPENDING THAT WE'VE ALREADY
DONE AS A HOUSE.
I WOULD URGE THE REJECTION OF
MY FRIEND'S AMENDMENT, AND I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE REWICK
SIT NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE TO SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
YOU KNOW, ALL OF WASHINGTON
INSIDE THE BELTWAY IS ABUZZ OF
HOW MUCH WE CAN SAVE BY CUTTING
FEDERAL SPENDING.
AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, MR. FRANK, SAID
TO US THIS AMENDMENT IS A TEST.
WHERE WE PUT EVERY FEDERAL
AGENCY'S BUDGET ON THE TABLE TO
CONTROL SPENDING AND REDUCE
DEBT OR ARE THERE PRIVILEGED
CATEGORIES?
WILL WE CONTINUE DOWN
THE PATH OF TRYING TO BALANCE
THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE
POOR, THE DISABLED,
SCHOOLCHILDREN AND SENIORS?
THE PENTAGON SPENDING BILL
BEFORE US, SOME $650 BILLION,
NEARLY 2/3 OF A TRILLION
DOLLARS, IS ABOUT EQUAL TO ALL
MILITARY SPENDING OF ALL THE
REST OF THE WORLD.
ALL OF OUR ALLIES, ALL OF OUR
POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES, AND ALL
OF THE COUNTRIES THAT AMERICANS
RARELY THINK ABOUT ALL PUT
TOGETHER.
THE AMENDMENT THAT MR. FRANK
AND I AND SOME OF OUR
COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE ARE OFFERING TODAY IS
TRULY A MODEST PROPOSAL.
IT WOULD SIMPLY CUT THE RATE OF
INCREASE IN PENTAGON SPENDING.
INSTEAD OF ALLOWING A $17
BILLION INCREASE OVER THIS
YEAR'S LEVEL IT WOULD CUT THAT
INCROWS IN HALF JUST TO SEE IF
WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
NOW, MY COLLEAGUE, MR. COLE,
PUTS THIS I THINK IN THE WRONG
CONTEXT.
I MEAN, WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT,
SURE, IN 1960 IT WAS A LARGER
PART OF THE BUDGET.
THAT'S BEFORE WE HAD MEDICARE,
BEFORE WE HAD A LOT OF
PROGRAMS.
BUT WHEN YOU ASK YOURSELF, IS
OUR MILITARY STRUCTURED TO DEAL
WITH THE PROBLEMS THIS COUNTRY
FACES AND TO EXPECT FROM OTHER
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD THEIR
SHARE OF WHAT MUST BE DONE, THE
ANSWER SURELY IS THIS IS AN
UNSUSTAINABLE SIZE.
THIS AMENDMENT WAS BORN OUT OF
A SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS THAT
MR. FRANK, MR. PAUL, MR. JONES
AND SOME OTHER MEMBERS AND I
HAVE HAD OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.
RECENTLY WE SENT A JOINT LETTER
THAT OUTLINED OUR CONCERNS
ABOUT THE STATE OF OUR SPENDING
ON NATIONAL SECURITY.
WE POINT OUT NOT ONLY THE
EXCESSIVE UNQUESTIONED OVERALL
SIZE OF MILITARY SPENDING BUT
ALSO THAT THIS IS A RESULT OF
THE MILITARY THAT IS INDEED A
REMNANT OF THE COLD WAR, TO GO
BACK TO MR. COLE'S COMMENTS,
AND IT BEARS FAR MORE THAN OUR
SHARE OF KEEPING THE PEACE.
AND TO OVERWHELM THE SOVIET
UNION MORE THAN TO DEAL WITH
TODAY'S ACTUAL THREATS TO OUR
SECURITY.
TO TAKE ONE EXAMPLE THAT THE
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS AMENDMENT
MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME ON
BUT WE MIGHT ASK, WHY DO WE
NEED A REPLACEMENT FOR THE B-2
BOMBER?
IT WAS NOT THE B-2 BOMBER OR
ANY BOMBER THAT KILLED OSAMA
BIN LADEN BUT U.S. SPECIAL
OPERATIONS.
BUYING NEW NUCLEAR BOMBERS
WOULD SIMPLY BE A FORM OF I
THINK DEFENSE SECTOR CORPORATE
WELFARE TO PROTECT AGAINST A
THREAT THAT WENT AWAY DECADES
AGO.
. I COULD CITE DISCONNECTS,
ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IS LIBYA.
AS WE NOTE IN OUR LETTER, IT HAD
BEEN WIDELY REPORTED IN THE
PRESS THAT ENGLAND AND FRANCE
HAVE BEEN PRESSING THE UNITED
STATES TO RESUME ITS EARLIER
ROLE IN LIBYA, BECAUSE THEY HAVE
BEEN UNABLE TO ASSUME IT
THEMSELVES.
THE EXPLANATION IS THAT ONLY
AMERICA HAS THE CAPACITY TO
RESPOND.
OUR POINT PRECISELY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER NATIONS
IN THE WORLD TO GROW INTO AN
OVERDEPENDENCE ON AMERICA'S
MILITARY AND AMERICA'S TAX
DOLLARS AND THE EXPENDITURE OF
AMERICAN MONEY AND LIVES, FAR
BEYOND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR
OUR SHARE OF WORLD PEACEKEEPING.
ALL OF US WHO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT WANT TO PROTECT OUR
COUNTRY.
THAT'S PRECISELY WHY WE HAVE
OFFERED OUR PROPOSAL AND THIS
AMENDMENT, TO PUT OURSELVES ON
MILITARY.
TRACK FOR A BETTER STRUCTURED
SPENDING MONEY ON COLD-WAR-ERA
WEAPONS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF
MISGUIDED, NEEDLESSLY EXPENSIVE
PRIORITIES.
IF THE HOUSE CANNOT EVEN PASS AN
AMENDMENT THAT SIMPLY CUTS THE
RATE OF INCREASE IN PENTAGON
SPENDING, IT WILL NOT PASS AN
AMENDMENT THAT ACTUALLY MAKE THE
KINDS OF CUTS THAT ARE TRULY
NECESSARY TO RESTRUCTURE OUR
DEFENSE TO MEET THE REAL THREATS
WE FACE AND TO ACHIEVE THE
BUDGET SAVINGS THAT WE MUST
SECURE FOR OUR FINANCIAL FUTURE.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS MODEST FIRST STEP TO REIN
OUR OUT-OF-CONTROL DEFENSE
BUDGET.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THE AMENDMENT.
THIS IS A MODEST AMENDMENT.
I WISH THE CUT WERE GREATER THAN
THE CUT BEING PROPOSED HERE
BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY IN
THIS CHAMBER KNOWS THAT THERE IS
A GREAT DEAL OF WASTE AND ABUSE
SPENDING.
THAT EXISTS WITHIN OUR MILITARY
WE HAVE NO BID DEFENSE CONTRACTS
AND WE GO RIGHT DOWN THAT ROAD
OF ALL THE CONTRACTS THAT WE
HAVE GIVEN OUT AND HOW WASTEFUL
THEY ARE BEEN AND STILL
PRESERVING WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT
ARE PART OF THE COLD WAR AND
THERE ARE SAVINGS TO BE HAD
WITHIN THE MILITARY.
THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE,
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NATIONAL
SECURITY AND NATIONAL STRENGTH,
WE OUGHT TO BE TALKING ABOUT
MAKING SURE THE PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY CAN EARN A DECENT
LIVING.
JOBS.
NATIONAL SECURITY SHOULD MEAN
IT SHOULD MEAN THE STRENGTH OF
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, THE QUALITY
OF OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM, WHICH
WE ARE NEGLECTING, WHICH MY
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE WANT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET
BY CUTTING THOSE PROGRAMS THAT
PROVIDE OUR STRENGTH, OUR
ECONOMIC STRENGTH.
WHEN YOU GO HOME TO YOUR
DISTRICTS, THE FIRST THING THAT
PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ARE
JOBS IS ECONOMIC SECURITY.
CREATE JOBS.
WHY AREN'T WE DOING MORE TO
WHY AREN'T WE TALKING MORE ABOUT
JOBS HERE IN THE CAPITOL.
I MAKE THOSE TWO POINTS BECAUSE
I THINK THIS AMENDMENT IS A
MODEST AMENDMENT THAT MOVES US
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND MOVES
THE DISCUSSION IN A BETTER
DIRECTION.
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE
YIELD MY TIME TO THE AUTHOR.
THEY GET AN INCREASE,
IF YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT, APPARENTLY YOU
BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE 101 1/2%
AT THE CURRENT LEVEL, WE WOULD
SAY 1 1/2% INCREASE.
PEOPLE PAY LIP SERVICE WHETHER
THERE ARE SOME INEFFICIENCIES
AND WON'T GET AT THEM UNLESS
THERE ARE LIMITED SPENDING.
THE VERY ODD NOTION WE SHOULD
DECIDE TO SPEND ON THE MILITARY
TODAY BY USING A STANDARD WHAT
THE SITUATION WAS 51 YEARS AGO.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
51 YEARS AGO, GERMANY WAS
DIVIDED.
THE COMMUNIST CONTROLLED POLAND,
EAST GERMANY AND OUR WESTERN
ALLIES WERE POOR AND STILL
RECOVERING FROM 1945.
THIS IS APPARENTLY -- OH, THE
SOVIET UNION WAS VERY STRONG.
THAT'S PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.
THIS BUDGET OUT OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, WHICH
IS ALSO INCORRECT ON THIS, ACTS
AS IF IT WAS STILL 1960.
THE FACT IS, THAT IT IS NO
LONGER APPROPRIATE FOR THE REST
OF THE WORLD TO EXPECT US TO PUT
OUT SO MUCH OF THE BURDEN.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA
SAID, WE HAVE TO CUT THIS HERE
AND THAT HERE.
WHY?
WHY DON'T WE CUT SOME OF THE
MONEY WE SPEND IN EUROPE AND
JAPAN TO OTHER WEALTHY AND
SECURE NATIONS?
THIS AMENDMENT TELLS THE
PENTAGON, YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO
GET HALF OF THE $17 BILLION
INCREASE.
SPENDING.
YOU DECIDE WHERE TO STOP
WELL, ARE THEY UNABLE TO STOP
SPENDING OVERSEAS?
FOREIGN AID IS UNPOPULAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO HELP POOR
CHILDREN AND FIGHT DISEASE BUT
THE BIGGEST FOREIGN AID PROGRAM
IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD IS
THE AMERICAN MILITARY BUDGET AND
IT'S FOREIGN AID FOR THE
WEALTHY.
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
PERCENTAGES OF THE G.D.P., WHAT
ABOUT GERMANY, WHAT ABOUT
ENGLAND, FRANCE, DENMARK,
NETHERLANDS, NONE OF WHOM SPENDS
AS MUCH AS HALF OF A PERCENTAGE
WAS DO.
WHAT WE HAVE NOW HERE IS --
APPARENTLY THE HOUSE IS GOING TO
DECIDE.
WHEN THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO
FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND OTHER
NEEDS WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
AND DEFICIT IS THE GREATEST
THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY,
MIKE MULLEN IS SAYING THAT, DO
MEANS?
THE MEMBERS UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT
THAT MEANS YOU DON'T EVEN CUT
THE PENTAGON OR LEVEL-FUND THEM
BUT DON'T GIVE THEM $17 BILLION
AT A TIME WHEN YOU ARE REQUIRING
CUTS IN A VERY IMPORTANT
PROGRAM.
I WILL CLOSE BY SAYING, THIS IS
A HOUSE WHICH SAYS WE CAN'T
AFFORD TO GO TO THE AID OF OUR
FELLOW CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN
DEVASTATED BY DISASTERS IN THE
SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THIS
COUNTRY UNLESS WE MAKE CUTS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU GIVE THE
PENTAGON AN ADDITIONAL $17
BILLION, YOU EXACERBATE THAT
DILEMMA AND MAKE IT HARDER TO
FUND THE FUNDS.
WE WANT TO KEEP THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE SAFE.
I WANT TO KEEP THEM SAFE FROM
UNSOUND BRIDGES, FROM FIRES THAT
CAN'T BE EFFECTIVELY COMBATED,
FROM FOOD THAT ISN'T ADEQUATELY
TESTED, FROM DISEASES --
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
INDIANA IS RECOGNIZED.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN.
WE ARE CUTTING BACK
ON HEALTH RESEARCH.
THE NOTION THAT THE ONLY DANGER
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS A
SOVIET UNION WHICH COLLAPSED 20
YEARS AGO OR OTHER BASES SUCH AS
THAT AND IGNORES THE NEED FOR
BETTER PUBLIC SAFETY HERE,
BETTER PUBLIC HEALTH HERE,
RESEARCH ON DISEASE, PROTECTION
AGAINST DISASTERS, BECAUSE IT'S
ONE THING TO GO TO THE AID TO
PEOPLE AFTER THE DISASTER, BUT
LET'S REBUILD INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT WILL DIMINISH IT.
ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
GOING TO SAY, THAT, NO, WE
DIDN'T REALLY MEAN.
NO, THE PENTAGON IS NOT SUBJECT
TO FISCAL DISCIPLINE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA IS
SAYING THERE ARE CUTS.
THIS IS A $17 BILLION INCREASE.
HOW CAN THAT BE A CUT?
IT MAY BE A CUT FROM A $30
BILLION INCREASE AND A $30
BILLION INCREASE IS A CUT FROM A
$200 BILLION INCREASE, BUT IT'S
NOT A CUT.
SO THE QUESTION IS NOT ONLY ARE
WE GOING TO TREAT THE PENTAGON
MORE GENEROUSLY WITH LESS
DISCIPLINE THAN ANY OTHER
ENTITY, WE HAVE CONCEDED THAT,
WE ARE ONLY ASKING THAT YOU CUT
IN HALF TO THE EXTENT WHICH YOU
ARE GOING TO TELL AMERICAN
CITIES TO LAY OFF COPS AND SAY
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE
DISASTER RELIEF.
YOU ARE GOING TO CUT HEALTH
RESEARCH, CUT FOOD INSPECTION,
CUT FIRE SERVICE, CUT THE
AMERICA.
RECONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGES IN
BUT BILLIONS AND BILLIONS, TENS
OF BILLIONS WILL BE SPENT IN
WESTERN EUROPE AND OUR ALLIES
THAT NEEDED IT 51 YEARS AGO BUT
DON'T NEED IT TODAY.
AND IN JAPAN WHERE WE ARE
SUBSIDIZING THEIR MILITARY
BUDGETS -- AND BY THE WAY, LET
ME CLOSE WITH THIS.
WE TALK ABOUT COMPETITION IN
THINGS THAT COUNT.
OUR ABILITY TO SPEND MONEY ON
COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO PROVIDE
AID SO PEOPLE CAN BECOME
SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS, OUR
ABILITY TO DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY,
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE HAMPERED
BY THE DRAIN ON RESOURCES WE GET
FROM SPENDING MILITARY DOLLARS
IMPRECISELY THOSE COUNTRY WITH
WHICH WE ARE COMPETING, ENGLAND
AND GERMANY AND FRANCE AND THE
NETHERLANDS AND DENMARK AND
JAPAN CAN ALL SPEND MORE ON
THEIR EDUCATION, ON THEIR
TECHNOLOGY, ON THOSE AREAS WHERE
WE ARE COMPETITIVE IN A FRIENDLY
WAY, BECAUSE WE ALLOW THEM TO
KEEP THEIR MILITARY BUDGET TO A
MUCH LOWER PERCENTAGE OF G.
DMPLE P. THAN OURS.
AND THAT'S THE RELEVANT MEASURE.
SO WE HAVE A TEST.
ARE MEMBERS SO CAUGHT UP IN THE
HISTORY -- AND AGAIN I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OKLAHOMA FOR
HELPING MAKE THE POINT.
1960 IS HIS REFERENCE POINT.
WELL, STAY WITH THE CONCERNS OF
1960 AND USE THAT AS A REFERENCE
POINT AND THINGS AREN'T GOING TO
LOOK GOOD IN 2011.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
INDIANA FOR YIELDING.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M
HAVING A HARD TIME BELIEVING
WHAT I'M HEARING IN THIS CHAMBER
DEFENSE.
WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL
YOU DON'T GET A BOOK KEEPER OR
AN ACCOUNTANT TO MAKE SOME
SLIGHT OF HAND NUMBER TO COME UP
WITH A DEFENSE NUMBER.
IT'S NOT HOW YOU DO IT.
THE WAY YOU DO IT IS DECIDE WHAT
IS THE THREAT.
WHAT IS THE THREAT IN AMERICA?
OVERSEAS?
WHAT IS THREATENING OUR ALLIES
WHAT IS OUR THREATENING OUR
TROOPS OR BUSINESSES AROUND THE
WORLD?
BESIDES WHAT THAT THREAT IS AND
THEN DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO
MEET THAT THREAT AND THAT'S HOW
NUMBER.
YOU COME UP WITH A DEFENSE
I'M NOT GO TO GO YIELD.
YOU HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME.
JUST IMAGINE, WE ARE GOING BACK
TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THIS
SLASHING DEFENSE, GETTING THE
VICTORY FUND AND HANGAR QUEENS
ARE AIRPLANES THAT CAN'T FLY
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENGINES
OR DON'T HAVE PARTS.
IN ORDER TO MAKE ONE AIRPLANE
FLY, THEY HAD TO TAKE APART TWO
OR THREE OTHERS AND GET THE
PARTS TO MAKE ONE AIRPLANE FLY.
IF YOU NEED THREE OR FOUR
AIRPLANES IN THE AIR BUT ONLY
ONE FLIES, SOMEBODY IS IN
TROUBLE.
WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO THE
DAYS OF THE HANGAR QUEEN.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE TROOPS?
IN COMBAT, FACING A VICIOUS
ENEMY.
AND IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE
THEY HAVEN'T EXPERIENCE WHAT
THEY ARE ABOUT TO EXPERIENCE
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET THAT FAR
IN OUR TRAINING, BECAUSE THE
TRAINING WAS CURTAILED.
WHEN WE START CUTTING BACK THE
MONEY, YOU START CUTTING BACK
THE TRAINING AND THE FLYING
HOURS, START CUTTING BACK THE
ABILITY OF THAT SOLDIER TO REACH
OUT AND SAY, HEY, I KNOW EXACTLY
HOW TO DO THIS BECAUSE I WAS
TRAINED PROPERLY.
DON'T CUT THE TRAINING.
DON'T DO IT.
DON'T CUT OUR READINESS BY
CUTTING TRAINING.
DON'T CUT OUR READINESS BY
HAVING HANGARS FULL OF HANGAR
QUEENS THAT CAN'T FLY OR GARAGES
FULL OF VEHICLES THAT CAN'T RUN
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SPARE
PARTS.
THIS IS JUST NOT GOOD DEFENSE.
YOU DON'T MAKE YOUR DEFENSE
DECISIONS BASED ON SOME MAGICAL
SCHEME OR SOME SOLUTION THAT AN
ACCOUNTANT MIGHT COME UP WITH.
YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL
ABOUT WHAT THE THREAT IS.
WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE PEARL
HASHORS OR 9/11'S OR ANY MORE
ATTACKS ON THE PENTAGON.
WE WEREN'T WELL ENOUGH PREPARED
THEN WITH OUR INTELLIGENCE.
WE HAVE TO INVEST ENOUGH IN
INTELLIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE STOP THOSE THINGS BEFORE IT
HAPPENS.
DEFENSE IS NOT SOMETHING TO
STAND UP AND SAY, I'M A COST
CUTTER.
ALL OF US ARE COST CUTTERS IN
OUR OWN WAY.
SOME OF US JUST HAVE DIFFERENT
PRIORITIES FOR WHAT THOSE COSTS
OUGHT TO BE CUT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT AMENDMENT.
AND THIS SUBCOMMITTEE DID A VERY
GOOD JOB IN REDUCING AND SAVING
OVER $9 BILLION ON THIS BILL
ALONE.
AMENDMENT.
AND THIS IS A TERRIBLE
AND I HOPE WE OVERWHELMINGLY
DEFEAT THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, MR. FRANK.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
NOES HAVE IT.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
CLAUSE 6, RULE 18, FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, WILL BE POSTED.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
DESK.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. FORTENBERRY OF NEBRASKA, AT
THE END OF THE BILL BEFORE THE
SHORT TITLE, INSERT THE
FOLLOWING, SECTION 2, NONE OF
THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE BY THIS
ACT FOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY
EDUCATION AND TRAINING, FOREIGN
MILITARY FINANCING, EXCESS
DEFENSE ARTICLES, ASSISTANCE
UNDER SECTION 1206 OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006, PUBLIC
LAW 109-163, 1193456, ISSUEANCE
FOR DIRECT COMMERCIAL SALES OF
MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS FOR THE
COUNTRIES OF CHAD, YEMEN,
SOMALIA, SUDAN, DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF CONGO OR BURMA MAY
BE USED TO SUPPORT MILL
TEMPORARY OPERATIONS THAT
INCLUDE CHILD SOLDIERS AS
DEFINED BY THE CHILD SOLDIERS
PREVENTION ACT OF 2008.
I MOVE THAT WE
DISPENSE WITH FURTHER READING.
IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
IN 2008, THIS
BODY DECLARED THAT THE UNITED
STATES WOULD NOT PROVIDE
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES
FOUND GUILTY OF USING CHILD
SOLDIERS.
WITH BROUD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,
WE DECLARED -- WITH BROAD
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THIS IS AN
AFRONT TO HUMAN DIGNITY AND TO
CIVILIZATION ITSELF AND WE
REAFFFIRMED THIS EARLIER THIS
YEAR IN THE CONTINUING
RESOLUTION.
IT IS THE POLICY OF OUR NATION,
THAT CHILDREN, ALL CHILDREN,
BELONG ON PLAYGROUNDS AND NOT
BATTLE GROUNDS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THAT POLICY IS AT RISK AND THIS
BODY HAS AN IMPORTANT DECISION
TO MAKE.
SIX GOVERNMENTS WERE FOUND
GUILTY OF USING CHILD SOLDIERS
IN 2010.
BURMA, CHAD, THE DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO, SOMALIA,
SUDAN AND YEMEN.
AS THE LAW WE PASSED PROVIDED,
FOUR WERE GRANTED NATIONAL
SECURITY INTEREST WAIVERS LAST
YEAR IN THE HOPES, MR. CHAIRMAN,
THAT THEY WOULD TAKE SERIOUS AN
AGGRESSIVE STRIDE TOWARD ENDING
THIS SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATION.
SOMALIA WAS TO RECEIVE
PEACEKEEPING ASSISTANCE
SANCHINGING ONLY BURMA, A
COUNTRY WE PROVIDED NO MILITARY
.
ASSISTANCE ANY WAY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S NO SURPRISE
THAT IN THE NEWLY RELEASED 2007
CHILD SOLD -- 2011 CHILD
SOLDIERS REPORT THIS WAS
ENTERED AGAIN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHERE WAS THE
PROGRESS?
THE REPORT NEEDS TO STAND AS A
CHALLENGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA,
THE ADMINISTRATION AND THIS
CONGRESS AS WELL.
WE ARE OPERATING
INCONSISTENTLY, OBLIGATED BY
LAW AND CIVILIZED ORDER ITSELF
TO COMBAT THIS MOST SERIOUS
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION,
ESPECIALLY PREVALENT IN THE
WORLD'S UNGOVERNED SPACES.
BUT WE CONTINUE WITH MILITARY
ASSISTANCE WITH INATTENTIVENESS
TO STOPPING THE PERNICIOUS USE
OF CHILD SOLDIERS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MY AMENDMENT
REAFFIRMS CURRENT U.S. POLICY,
LES WE FORGET IT.
IN THE 2011 CONTINUING
RESOLUTION WE EXTENDED THE
CHILD SOLDIERS PREVENTION ACT
TO COVER PEACEKEEPING
OPERATIONS, AND MY AMENDMENT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS.
IT ALSO CLARIFIES A POINT OF
LAW NOT MENTIONED IN THE CHILD
SOLDIERS PREVENTION ACT.
SECTION 1206 OF THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PROVIDES THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THE
AUTHORITY TO TRAIN AND EQUIP
FOREIGN MILITARY FORCES, BUT
ACCORDING TO ITS OWN TERMS AND
THE STATE DEPARTMENT, SECTION
1206 AUTHORITIES MAY NOT BE
USED TO PROVIDE ANY TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR TRAINING
THAT IS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY
ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CHILDREN IN THESE
CUPS ARE BEING PREYED UPON --
COUNTRIES ARE BEING PREYED
UPON.
INNOCENT LIVES ARE BEING LOST.
CHILDREN ARE BEING THROWN INTO
PSYCHOLOGICAL HELL.
GIRL SOLDIERS AND BOYS ARE
SUBJECT TO GROSS *** SLAVERY
AND VIOLENCE.
THEIR LIVES ARE NOT THEIR OWN.
THEY'RE STRIPPED OF DIGNITY AND
HOPE AND A FUTURE, MADE TO DO
UNFATHOMABLE THINGS BY THE
WORLD'S WORST CRIMINALS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THESE CRIMINALS
JUST AREN'T FACELESS REBELS IN
THE BUSH EITHER.
WHILE THERE ARE PLENTY OF THOSE
WE ARE TALKING NOW ABOUT
GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE GUILTY OF
THIS PERNICIOUS PRACTICE, AND
WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR, ARE
WE GOING TO TOLERATE THIS OR
NOT?
THE BRITISH STATESMAN AND
UNYIELDING ABOLITIONIST FOR
WHOM OUR ANTI-TRAFFICKING LAW
IS NAME ONCE SAID THIS, YOU MAY
CHOOSE TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY
BUT YOU CAN NEVER AGAIN SAY YOU
DID NOT KNOW.
WE MUST MAKE IT CLEAR TO THOSE
GOVERNMENTS THAT WE DO NOW KNOW
AND THAT WE CANNOT LOOK THE
OTHER WAY, MR. CHAIRMAN.
WITH THAT I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS -- FOR WHAT
PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FLORIDA RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE
TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD AND TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THIS GOOD
AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA.
AS MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR WILL
SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE
AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, PROCEEDINGS WILL NOW RESUME
ON THOSE AMENDMENTS PRINTED IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
WHICH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
POSTPONED IN THE FOLLOWING
ORDER -- AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 BY
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA,
AMENDMENT NUMBER 61 BY MS. FOXX
OF NORTH CAROLINA, AMENDMENT BY
MR. MULVANEY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
AMENDMENT NUMBER 8 BY MR.
SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA,
AMENDMENT BY MR. ROHRABACHER OF
CALIFORNIA, AMENDMENT BY MR.
GOHMERT OF TEXAS, AMENDMENT BY
MR. WELSH OF VERMONT, AMENDMENT
NUMBER 4 BY MR. COLE OF
OKLAHOMA, AMENDMENT NUMBER 79
BY MR. FRANK OF MASSACHUSETTS.
THE CHAIR WILL REDUCE TO TWO
MINUTES THE TIME FOR ANY
ELECTRONIC VOTE AFTER THE FIRST
SERIES OF VOTES.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE
REQUEST FOR A RECORDED VOTE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 PRINTED IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA ON WHICH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WERE POSTPONED AND
ON WHICH THE NOES PREVAILED BY
VOICE VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REDESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MR. RIGELL OF
VIRGINIA.
A RECORDED VOTE HAS
BEEN REQUESTED.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF A RECORDED
VOTE WILL RISE AND BE COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, A RECORDED VOTE IS
ORDERED.
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
THIS WILL BE A 15-MINUTE VOTE.
THE NATIONAL CAPTIONING
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY
INSTITUTE, INC., IN COOPERATION
REPRESENTATIVES.
WITH THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE
REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON THIS VOTE THE YEAS
ARE 176 AND THE NAYS ARE 249.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE
REQUEST FOR A RECORDED VOTE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 61 PRINTED IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OFFERED
BY THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA, MS. FOXX.
ON WHICH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
WERE POSTPONED AND ON WHICH THE
YEAS REPRAILED SBI VOICE VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REDESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 61
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MS. FOXX OF
NORTH CAROLINA.
A RECORDED VOTE HAS
BEEN REQUESTED.
THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST