C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for those comments, and I thank Mr. Kucinich for offering the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. This issue is extremely important to all of us. At every one--well, almost every one--of our hearings, we insisted on getting good answers from the military as to what they could do, what would they do, what did they plan to do to prevent the suicides. We have supported so many programs and added the additional money that Mr. Dicks has talked about.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We have also funded money for the Yellow Ribbon Foundation, which is actually to help servicemen and -women return to society to avoid their desire to commit suicide. Just putting money here is not going to solve the problem. It's going to take a lot of work on the part the military, on the part of the social workers who deal with these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines coming out of the services. Just money is not going to solve this problem. It is a bigger issue than money. But we have provided a lot of money, and we continue to keep pressure on the military organizations to do everything they can.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I reluctantly have to oppose this amendment for much of the same arguments I used earlier by taking the money out of O&M defense-wide accounts, which is where we provide for our readiness. And we just cannot continue to take money out of this fund and use it as a slush fund. Readiness, we have got to maintain. We can't take a chance on not being ready in the event a situation develops. Now, on the issue of cyber, there's no doubt that this is a growing threat. It's even a larger threat than most people realize today. And members of this committee understand that threat because we have spent a lot of time dealing with cyber. But there are other places in this bill where the gentleman could offer his amendment that would, I think, apply better. If we're dealing with a nonmilitary cyber program, it should be done through the Homeland Security bill, and they do have money in that bill. If it has to do with the FBI's law enforcement work on cyber, it should be in the Commerce-State-Justice bill where there is money there for that. I'm afraid this gets a little close to being an earmark that is not an earmark. For example, there are those in the media suggesting that Members are increasing program amounts just so that that program would favor something in their own district. This gets very close because of a particular laboratory in Mr. Hanna's district. I'm not opposed to his supporting his laboratory, but I think it does get to the point that maybe this is a program increase that could be directed to a specific district or a specific project. We've already funded a lot in cyber, and we will continue to fund cyber. Every year it grows, we grow with it. But we can't do this at the expense of our defense-wide Operation and Maintenance accounts that provide for our readiness. I'm not going to produce a bill or support a bill that cuts into the readiness of our Nation, the ability to defend our Nation. We're not going to do it. The cyber accounts have their own place in the legislation, and they are being taken care of properly. So I'm opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, has discussed this with us at length for quite some time. This is an immediate problem and a growing problem and one that we have to face up to. We do not oppose this amendment. We agree with the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, all throughout this last year, we have heard from the administration and we have heard from the Navy that it is important to be able to have a large presence in the Pacific area. This is something that we're going to do that is new. We're going to have an increased presence in the Pacific. That is the administration's statement. During our many hearings, all of those hearings that we did on the Central Command area in the Mideast, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the threats from Iran, we were told by the military leadership who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in order to counter any threat from Iran and similar threats, and to keep open the Persian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz. Today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest that we need. So the committee added this DDG-51 for this year. The Navy actually asked for advanced procurement for the DDG-51 so they can build it next year. We were able to find the funds to actually build it this year so that we can begin to prepare for the presence that the Navy and the President have all said that we have to maintain. That's the DDG-51. In addition, in order to try to accomplish the coverage that the Navy said they need, we have taken three cruisers that would have been taken out of service, and we reconfigured those cruisers. We provided funding to reconfigure the cruisers to add to this effort, to add to the effort to have more naval presence in the Mideast, and to cover the Pacific. As everyone in the military and in the White House has said, we've got to have that presence. We have to oppose this amendment. We need this DDG-51 in order to meet our obligations. It is interesting that we understand that some of these programs are costing more than was anticipated. The CBO just issued a report saying that in order to do the President's budget request, it will cost $123 billion more than they estimated that it would cost. We do have a problem with numbers, and with dollars. Covering the Pacific region, covering the Mideast region, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, that is important to our national security interests, and that's important to our allies, and to our troops overseas in that region. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not a good amendment. It is not good for our national defense. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The amendment tends to remove language from the appropriations bill, which we're going to agree with, by the way. It has been carried in appropriations bills for a number of years. However, when the laws were codified, it became part of the permanent law. It doesn't even need to be in the appropriations bills any longer. So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while I did not object to taking up this amendment, I am going to object to the amendment. This one actually was an earmark in the FY10, funded as an earmark at $1.6 million. It also takes the money from that source that I have objected to before, the Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance accounts. I just really cannot support anything that is going to affect our readiness to defend our country. So I strongly object to this amendment, although I did agree to allowing us to go back to consider the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not object to what the gentleman is trying to do. Although, I have to be very honest in that his amendment does not accomplish what he thinks it will accomplish. We are okay to transfer the money, so we are not going to object to the amendment. The fact is that this is controlled by law, not by appropriations. This is controlled by the National Defense Authorization Act, not by the appropriations bill. So, while I understand what the gentleman wants to do and while I agree with what he wants to do, this won't do it, but I am not going to object to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything that Mr. Poe said. You cannot have an ally who is an ally today but not an ally tomorrow, and that has been our experience with Pakistan. The Defense Department will tell you that it is very complicated because they do enjoy a nuclear capability that could be dangerous if it got into the wrong hands. I would ask Mr. Poe a question and would yield to him for an answer: Your amendment is not limited to Pakistan. Your amendment would cut across the board and reduce money for the Kurdish Republic, Jordan, which is one of our most important partners and coalitions in the region; funding for the northern distribution networks; and numerous other coalition partners who are helping in the fight against terrorism. I wonder if we could talk you into amending your amendment or rewriting your amendment to make it specifically to Pakistan. And let me say this to you before you answer, and then I will yield to you. In this bill, the money for Pakistan cannot be spent. We have fenced this money--all of it--until the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, certifies to Congress that the government of Pakistan is doing this: cooperating with the United States in counterterrorism efforts, including taking steps to end support for terrorist groups and preventing them from basing and operating in Pakistan and carrying out cross-border attacks; Pakistan is not supporting terrorist activities against the United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan; Pakistan is not dismantling IED networks and is interdicting precursor chemicals used in making IEDs; preventing the proliferation of nuclear-related materials. There are four or five more, and I won't take the time. I want to do what you want to do, but I don't want to have an adverse effect on our coalition partners that we rely on so much. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. We would probably have to take a few minutes to do that, which I would be very happy to do because what you want to do is what I want to do. Mr. Chairman, let me inquire as to where we are in this bill so we can have an opportunity to amend this amendment and still not get beyond the point of reading.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Would the gentleman be willing to do just that, withdraw your amendment now, and let us take a few minutes and guarantee that these coalition partners are not included?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman very much. This is an important issue.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The Yellow Ribbon program is a very great program, and the gentleman has made the case very powerfully. I am in support of what he is trying to do. I support the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this gets to be a very serious issue if we want to get our troops out of Afghanistan. At numerous hearings, General Allen, who commands in Afghanistan, General Mattis, commander of Central Command, this was their recommendation. This is what they said they needed in order to get us and get our troops out of Afghanistan, which I think we all want to see happen as quickly as possible. Certainly I can tell you that I do. We did not fund it totally because some of the plans were not sufficiently considered; but, generally, this is what our commanders in the field, those responsible for fighting the fight, those responsible for leading our troops, this is what they tell us they need to get our troops out of Afghanistan. I do object and oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.