C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentlelady from South Dakota just made a speech that I was about to make, so I would just simply say it's a good amendment, and I accept it.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think the gentleman's amendment is a good amendment. I think we've seen this on other bills, and I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Our troops and their families are being asked to make sacrifice after sacrifice after sacrifice. We should be at a point of trying to make things better for them, make things easier for them; and I would say that one of the things that we can do is to adopt the gentleman's amendment to at least give them some relief when they're coming back from the war that we sent them to without charging them extra money to get back home with their belongings. I applaud the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in strong support.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I find it a little difficult to listen to the arguments about the War Powers Act, because I agree with those arguments. First of all, in 1973, I think the Congress did give Presidents a gift of power not intended by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear. It intends that war-making decisions would be made in conjunction with the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress, not the Commander-in-Chief by himself or herself and not the Congress alone, but while working together. That's not the way it has been happening lately. There hasn't been a real declaration of war under the Constitution since World War II, but we have fought in a lot of wars, and we have killed and wounded a lot of our kids. That's not the argument, though. I agree with all of those points. I think that Congress has a serious responsibility to review the War Powers Act and to make it what we think it ought to be, and that is a partner relationship between the Congress and the executive branch. Yet, while we hear these strong arguments about the War Powers Act and the separation of powers, these amendments don't really get the job done. If you want to cut off all funding for any activities in and around Libya, you would have to introduce a separate resolution that would simply say: No funds appropriated here or anywhere else can be used in the Libya operation. In this particular bill, there is no money for Libya, and the President has made it very clear that he is not going to use any funds from the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for Libya. We'll see if that changes, but we have that in writing. We're already there. We're already in the area. We're already flying missions. If this amendment should be agreed to, here is what we would not be able to do: We could not fly search and rescue missions for a downed pilot. We could not do ISR--Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. We could not do aerial refueling for our coalition partners. We could not even be part of operational planning under this amendment. As much as I agree with what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, I can't support this amendment, because of the effect that it really has. If it could amend the War Powers Act and make the President be a partner with Congress, I'd say, Amen. Let's do it quickly. I think the Congress ought to do that, and I think we ought to be serious about doing that; but on this particular amendment, I've got to oppose it because this is what we're dealing with, not the emotional discussions about the War Powers Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing this matter to our attention, and we do share his concern for the solid rocket motor industrial base. We understand that the Air Force is considering their options, and we certainly intend that they use closeout funding from the Minuteman III mod line in a wise manner. We believe that they should seriously consider a smart closeout, as the gentleman from Utah described, and should also consider incorporating the essential elements from the Minuteman III production line into existing production lines for other defense solid rocket booster programs in order to preserve both military capabilities and to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond that the purpose of the funding that we have provided for the Missile Modifications program is to support the operational capability of the Minuteman through 2030. This includes $34 million, as requested, for closeout of the warm line program. Development of any follow-on capability is still years away. And the gentleman is correct, a new start system would require authorization and appropriation by the Congress, which the Air Force has not requested and we have not provided. We intend that warm line funds be used in a manner that preserves the industrial base and does not diminish our future strategic capabilities. I commend the gentleman for his leadership in this area and look forward to working with him further on this issue.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I would be very happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman for the hard work that he has done on this amendment. I associate myself with his comments because I strongly agree with everything that he said, and I am happy to accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. I also want to support his reasons for offering this amendment. I think they are very well taken. The amendment is a good amendment, and I strongly support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if this were a debate on policy, or a debate on philosophy, or a debate specifically on the War Powers Act, the position that I would take would be somewhat different than I must take today. But as the manager of this bill, what I have to work with is the bill before the House and the amendment before the House. Now, the amendment is simple. None of the funds made available by this act may be used for the use of military force against Libya. What I would say to the Chair is that there are no funds in this bill, in this act, for Libya. I was curious about that. And as chairman preparing to write this bill, in conjunction with Mr. Dicks, the ranking member, I wrote to the President on April 1, and I sent each of our Members a copy, asking the President specific questions about the scope of this activity, the expected cost, et cetera. On June 22, the White House finally responded, and said that it will not plan to ask for a supplemental appropriations bill. And there is no money in this bill for Libya. The administration says that it will not ask for a supplemental bill to pay for Libya, that they will use funds in the base budget. I wonder from where the administration is going to take money out of the base budget. Now, as chairman of the subcommittee, this worries me. From where do they plan to take the money? That's only part of the argument. There is no money in this act for Libya to start with. But, secondly, if this amendment should become effective, there are many things that we would not be able to do. We would not be able to fly or perform search and rescue missions of American forces who may be flying aerial activity and have planes go down. Early in the operation, we lost an F-15. Two American pilots went into Libya and safely rescued the pilot of that F-15. We wouldn't be able to do that under this amendment. What we are providing today is surveillance, intelligence, and reconnaissance. We wouldn't be able to do that under this amendment. We wouldn't be able to provide aerial refueling to our coalition partners, and they are our partners and we have an agreement with those partners. We provide aerial refueling because most of them do not have the capacity to refuel their aircraft in the air. Under this amendment, we would not be able to provide aerial refueling. We couldn't even provide operational planning, sitting down and talking with our coalition partners about the plan for Libya. So while this amendment would sound good if we were discussing philosophy and if we were determining a policy, the policy has already been established. And this amendment does not change the policy. It affects something in the bill that's not even in the bill. So there are no funds in this bill for Libya; and according to the letter from the White House, supplemental funds will not be requested. The administration will just pay for the operation out of existing funds. That remains a good question, and I say that again, I am really curious to know what base funds they intend to use to pay for this operation in Libya. I don't have the answer today. I am hoping that one day soon I may have that answer. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would just like to advise the gentlewoman that I consider this an extremely important amendment and I am happy to accept it.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I agree with him that we should consider all options for cost savings. Should the Air Force present the committee with a study that indicates potential cost savings in the ejection seat without compromising the F-35's performance or schedule, we will certainly look hard at that.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would tell him that I do agree that assessing and correcting infrastructure problems at the Nation's strategic seaports, which are an integral part of our national defense readiness, is of vital importance.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I agree with the gentleman that it is important that the military academies bring in the best young people from across the country, and the committee will work with him toward this objective.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentlemen, both, for their attention to this important issue. And I want to continue to work with them as we move this bill forward in the hopes that we can bring a swift end and successful end to this tragedy.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I also believe these ports to be critical to our defense, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Alaska to consider the appropriate measures and funding to address the infrastructure needs of our strategic seaports.