[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3388-H3396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1540.

                              {time}  1849


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 
2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which overwhelmingly passed the 
Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 60-1. In keeping with the 
committee's tradition of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I 
worked collaboratively to produce the bill and solicited input from 
each of our Members.
  The legislation will advance our national security aims, provide the 
proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces and help us 
meet the defense challenges of the 21st century. The bill authorizes 
$553 billion for the Department of Defense base budget, consistent with 
the President's budget request and the allocation provided by the House 
Budget Committee. It also authorizes $18 billion for the development of 
the Department of Energy's defense programs and $118.9 billion for 
overseas contingency operations.
  The legislation we will consider today also makes good on my promise, 
when I was selected to lead the Armed Services Committee, that this 
committee would scrutinize the Department of Defense's budget and 
identify inefficiencies to invest those savings into higher national 
security priorities. We examined every aspect of the defense 
enterprise, not as a target for arbitrary funding reductions, as the 
current administration has proposed, but to find ways that we can 
accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more 
effectively.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 achieves 
these goals by working to:
  Ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world 
have the equipment, resources, authorities, training and time they need 
to successfully complete their missions and return home safely;
  Provide our warfighters and their families with the resources and 
support they need, deserve and have earned;
  Invest in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the 
United States from current and future threats, mandate physical 
responsibility, transparency and accountability within the Department 
of Defense; and
  Incentivize competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with 
funding Department of Defense requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there have been many questions raised by the 
ACLU and others relating to a provision in our bill dealing with the 
2001 authorization for use of military force. I would like to address 
some of those concerns now.
  Section 1034 of the NDAA affirms that the President is authorized to 
use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, 
and persons who are part of or are substantially supporting al Qaeda, 
the Taliban and associated forces.
  It also explicitly affirms the President's authority to detain 
certain belligerents who qualify under this standard I just described, 
which Congress has never explicitly stated. It's important to note that 
the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the President's authority to detain 
belligerents as within the powers granted by the AUMF.
  Moreover, the language in section 1034 is very similar to the Obama 
administration's interpretation of the authorities provided pursuant to 
AUMF, in particular, a March 13, 2009, filing in the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia. While U.S. courts have accepted the 
administration's interpretation of the AUMF, it is under constant 
attack in litigation relating to the petitions filed by Guantanamo 
detainees.
  Because of these ongoing challenges, the administration's 
interpretation may receive less favorable treatment over time if 
Congress refuses to affirm it. Section 1034 is not intended to alter 
the President's existing authority pursuant to the AUMF in any way. 
It's intended only to reinforce it. I believe that our men and women in 
uniform deserve to be on solid legal footing as they risk their lives 
in defense of the United States.
  Finally, some have suggested section 1034 was included in the dark of 
night. I note that this language was originally included in the 
Detainee Security Act of 2011 introduced on March 9 and was discussed 
during a committee hearing on March 17. We have sought input from the 
administration, as well as Ranking Member Smith, his staff and numerous 
outside experts. Moreover, the process used to craft this legislation 
is historic in its transparency. In fact, a copy of my mark was 
distributed to committee members' offices 5 days before our markup. The 
legislation, including funding tables, was posted online nearly 48 
hours in advance of our markup.
  It's also noteworthy that there are no earmarks in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Every Member request to 
fund a defense capability was voted on and includes language requiring 
merit-based or competitive selection procedures. To those who are 
concerned that members may unduly influence the Department of Defense 
to direct funds to a particular entity, I can only recall the words of 
my good friend, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Ike Skelton, who would say, Read the amendment. What does it say? If 
DOD chooses to violate the law and the text of a provision in the

[[Page H3389]]

NDAA requiring merit-based selection, the Armed Services Committee will 
take them to task.
  Finally, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee for working with us to bring this measure to the floor. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support passage of this bill. In 
partnership with you, we look forward to passing the 50th consecutive 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I too rise in support of this bill, the 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking the chairman and our 
staffs for the outstanding work that they have done putting together 
this bill.
  I think Mr. McKeon has more than risen to the level of the bipartisan 
tradition of our committee. He has upheld the tradition held by our 
predecessors that this committee should work together, Republicans and 
Democrats, that it should be an open and transparent process.
  I can say that I and my staff feel very, very good about the open 
process that we have had, although we have not agreed on everything--we 
do not agree on everything--that is in the bill; but where there were 
disagreements, we had an open and honest dialogue. We had votes in the 
committee, and now we will have votes on the floor.
  And overall I think the chairman and the members of both parties and 
staffs have put together a very strong bill that will protect our 
national defense and meet the primary duty of this Congress, and that 
is provide for the national defense and the national security of our 
country. So I thank the chairman and his staff for that work, and I 
look forward to continuing to work with him throughout this process.
  I also want to note one of our members, who was not able to be there 
during the course of our markup as she usually is, but nonetheless 
contributed greatly to the process. We all miss Congresswoman Gabriel 
Giffords' presence on the committee, but we work very closely with her 
staff on issues and priorities that have been important to her during 
her time on the committee, and she and her staff are still doing an 
outstanding job with the committee in contributing to this process. So 
I thank them, and we all look forward to Gabby coming back to this body 
and continuing her work.
  In putting together this bill, there are five main areas of 
priorities that I think we should focus on. First and foremost, 
whenever we have troops out in the battlefield, as they are in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and also spread out in a whole lot of other 
countries, priority number one has to be to make sure that we give them 
the support, the equipment and the means necessary to carry out the 
mission that we have given them.
  I believe that this bill prioritizes that, both within the base bill 
and within the overseas contingency operations funding to make sure 
that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, elsewhere, have the equipment 
they need to carry out the mission that we have given them.
  Second, I believe the counterterrorism in the fight against al Qaeda 
must continue to be a top priority of this committee, and I believe 
that we strongly support that once again. We all learned as a Nation 
and the world, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, how effective our 
Special Operations Command and other elements of our counterterrorism 
policy can be, but we also need to be mindful that the job is not done, 
and we continue to fund those priorities.
  I do want to specifically commend the folks at the Special Operations 
Command. I had the great privilege of chairing the subcommittee that 
has had jurisdiction over the Special Operations Command for 3 years. 
They do a fantastic job for our Nation. Certainly, everybody saw that 
in the case of getting bin Laden; but they do it every day in many, 
many ways that many people do not know and do not recognize, so I thank 
them for their outstanding work.
  We also have a huge challenge with the budget. As the chairman 
mentioned, finding efficiencies in the Defense budget is going to be 
critical. As we have heard on this floor over and over in many 
contexts, we have a massive deficit. We have a deficit that is over 33 
percent of what we spend. The Defense budget is 20 percent of the 
overall budget. You cannot take 20 percent of the overall budget off 
the table and effectively deal with a deficit of that size.

                              {time}  1900

  We are going to have to look carefully at where we spend our money in 
defense, just like everywhere else, to make sure that we're getting the 
most for our dollar. I believe we have done that effectively in this 
bill, but I also believe that going forward that task is going to get 
harder, not easier. We must find ways to save money and spend it more 
efficiently within the Department of Defense. I also believe that our 
policy in Afghanistan is going to be critical.
  As I mentioned, we certainly fund our troops in the effort that they 
are performing right now in Afghanistan, but going forward, we are 
going to really need to begin to bring those troops home to complete 
that mission. We will have some amendments that address that issue 
during the course of this bill. I look forward to that debate because I 
think that Congress needs to play a strong role in concluding our 
mission successfully in Afghanistan.
  Lastly, the issue that the chairman mentioned that I think is very 
important in this bill is detainee policy and the AUMF. The chairman 
very early on identified this as a clear priority, and I think he is 
absolutely right that Congress' voice should be heard on these very, 
very important issues. We've worked closely on that. We have reached 
some agreement. We have some areas of disagreement. The biggest one 
we're going to have an amendment on this is the idea of whether or not 
article 3 courts should continue to be available for Guantanamo Bay 
detainees and those who would be captured in similar situations in the 
future. I believe that it should. We shouldn't always have them in 
article 3 courts. Military commissions have their place. Indefinite 
detention of enemy combatants has its place. But article 3 courts have 
effectively served this country for over 200 years. We have tried and 
convicted over 400 terrorists in article 3 Federal courts. Right now in 
the United States of America, we have over 300 of them safely locked 
up. We can do it. It's an option we should not take away from the 
President.
  So, again, I want to thank the chairman for a very open process. 
Bipartisanship is the tradition of this committee. He has upheld that 
very well. I look forward to working with him as we go forward in this 
process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT. I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2012. I have the privilege of serving as the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Tactical Air and Land Forces 
Subcommittee. Our jurisdiction includes approximately $78 billion of 
selected programs within the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and 
Office of the Secretary of Defense procurement and research and 
development accounts.
  I first want to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Silvestre 
Reyes from Texas, for his support this year in putting the bill 
together. Ours is a truly bipartisan effort, as it is for the full 
committee under the leadership of Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith. The committee's focus is on supporting the men and women of the 
Armed Forces and their families, providing them the equipment they need 
and the support they deserve.
  Our first priority, of course, is in providing the equipment to 
support our military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
bill adds no additional funding for the Department of Defense programs 
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The bill, however, reallocates 
approximately $1.5 billion from canceled, delayed, or otherwise lower 
priority programs to higher priority requirements.
  First, an additional $425 million is provided for modernization of 
Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. The Army budget request 
would result

[[Page H3390]]

in a costly production break for these two programs in 2013, which 
could last anywhere from 1 to 3 years. These production lines cannot be 
turned on and off like a light switch. The unique skills of the 
workforce cannot be just put on the shelf to be retrieved several years 
down the road. For the Abrams tank production alone, there are almost 
900 suppliers. Seventy-five percent of these suppliers are small 
businesses. Based on the information we have received to date, it is 
more efficient to keep these lines warm than it would be to shut them 
down and start them up again.
  Second, an additional $325 million is provided for the National Guard 
and Reserve Equipment Account for equipment shortfalls.
  Thirdly, the bill increases funding at Army and Air Force test ranges 
by $209 million. The Pentagon has recently acknowledged its proposed 
large fiscal year 2012 reductions in Test and Evaluation in the Army 
and Air Force could lead to ``unintended consequences'' and 
acknowledged the need to readdress this issue, especially in regards to 
complying with the Acquisition Reform Act.
  Finally, acquisition and sustainment of the engine for the F-35 
aircraft over its lifetime is estimated to cost well over $100 billion. 
The Armed Services Committee has believed and continues to believe that 
the F-35 engine acquisition and sustainment should be done on a 
competitive basis. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, the committee 
has strongly supported the final development phase of the F-35 
competitive engine program since it began nearly 6 years ago. Although 
the committee's bill provides no additional funding for the F-35 
aircraft competitive engine program, the bill takes strong bipartisan 
action that was supported by a recent vote of 55-5 by the committee to 
enable the competitive engine contractor to continue development of the 
competitive engine at no expense to the government or the taxpayer.
  I strongly urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill's innovative approach to continue the F-35 
competitive engine development program.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank a truly superlative staff, and again 
want to thank the chairman and ranking member for assistance on a 
really good bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land 
Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and 
compliment both the chairman and the ranking member for setting the 
tone to once again work in a bipartisan basis, as has been mentioned by 
all three of my colleagues that have spoken here this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, each year the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
is charged with conducting oversight of hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in Department of Defense programs that total more than $135 
billion. All of the members of this subcommittee take this task very 
seriously because the troops in the field depend on Congress to provide 
them with what they need.
  Conducting this oversight is a challenge because the budget, as we 
get it from the Department of Defense, is often far from perfect. It is 
the subcommittee's responsibility, therefore, to identify any wasteful 
spending, very critical at a time when the budget is under stress, find 
unexecutable funding and also find redundant programs. In addition, the 
subcommittee must also consider pressing DOD needs that are not 
addressed in the budget. That's the role of Congress. Doing all of that 
while making sure that equipment continues to flow to the troops in the 
field therefore is sometimes no easy task.
  Despite these challenges, I am pleased to report again this year, 
under the leadership of our chairman, Chairman Bartlett, the 
subcommittee has put together a very well balanced product that cuts 
waste, reallocates funding for more critical priorities, and ensures 
that our troops will continue to have the very best equipment 
available.
  I am also pleased with how the bill supports the Army and Marine 
Corps in particular. These two armed services have borne the heaviest 
burden over the past 10 years of war. And this mark does an excellent 
job, I believe, of helping them to rebuild combat power and prepare for 
the future.
  H.R. 1540 fully supports and funds the Army's number one development 
program, the ground combat vehicle. This bill provides an increase of 
$425 million for additional M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley fighting 
vehicles and keeps the production line open. The budget request assumed 
that a 3-year shutdown of both the Abrams and the Bradley production 
lines that would cost the taxpayer $1 billion, eliminate thousands of 
jobs, and diminish the United States defense industrial base was the 
way to go. We changed that. So rather than spending money to lose 
American jobs, this bill provides funding that will protect those 
American jobs while it also provides the Army with better and more 
modern equipment.
  While this issue will not be fully dealt with in one budget year, I 
do believe that this bill lays down a better and smarter way that will 
maintain the Army's ground combat vehicle critical to the needs of both 
the Army and the Marine Corps. Finally, the bill fully funds the Marine 
Corps' $2.6 billion request for procurement of ground combat vehicle 
and support equipment.
  For those reasons and many more, Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to 
support H.R. 1540. It's the right balance and a great bipartisan 
product.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, 
I first want to commend the chairman of the committee and Ranking 
Member Smith for their leadership in shepherding a complex and 
important bill to this stage of the process. A 60-1 vote coming out of 
committee is a significant achievement and is a testament to the 
attitude of putting the national security interests of the whole 
country first, which has been the hallmark of this committee, and their 
leadership exemplifies the best of that in my opinion.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. Chairman, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee is 
charged with looking ahead at those national security threats that are 
coming at us, and also helping to develop new capabilities to meet 
those threats. We oversee the Special Operations Command and 
counterterrorism efforts. Now, throughout the country, there is a 
greater appreciation, I think, for the capabilities within the Special 
Operations Command after the successful raid on Osama bin Laden, but I 
think it is important to emphasize that those folks in that command 
conduct that sort of raid just about every night somewhere with the 
same sort of precision and professionalism that the country now 
appreciates from the Osama bin Laden raid that got all of the 
attention. But they do much more.
  They are also responsible for helping train and advise other 
militaries, building up the capacities of those governments to defend 
themselves, and they are doing very impressive work in all parts of the 
world, including Afghanistan where, among other things, they are 
helping to train the military and train local police to help provide 
security for individual villages. Our bill provides a modest funding 
increase for this command, as well as meeting some real unmet needs 
that they have.
  Our part of the bill also deals with research that leads to future 
capabilities. In tight budgets, it is always tempting to cut research 
and development, science and technology programs, but it is a mistake 
to do so. In this budget, the funding for such programs at least holds 
steady with some added emphasis in some key areas that are important.
  The largest dollar amount in this subcommittee's portion of the bill 
is with DOD IT and cyber. This area may actually be the preeminent area 
of emerging threats in warfare. This mark takes some important steps 
forward in dollars and policies. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we should 
all acknowledge that there is a lot more work for this Congress and for 
this country to do in the area of cybersecurity. Not all of it is 
military; most of it is not. But yet the military is affected, as are 
we all.

[[Page H3391]]

  Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda is 
a changed organization; and with the death of Osama bin Laden, it will 
change further. But I think it is important to emphasize that this 
Congress must fulfill its responsibilities to affirm and update the 
authorization for the use of military force to deal with al Qaeda. 
There have been some wild exaggerations about the attempt to do so in 
that bill. I think if Members read the exact language and look at 
exactly what we are doing and why, that they will support it and agree 
that it is a fulfillment of our responsibility.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member 
on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I would like to thank my ranking 
member and Chairman McKeon for really a great bipartisan bill. I am 
feeling pretty good about this one.
  Actually, in my subcommittee with Chairman Turner and all our 
subcommittee members, we were really able to come together and make a 
very good contribution. I thank Mr. Turner for his leadership. It is 
pretty exciting to have a subcommittee like this in the new session of 
the Congress.
  Overall, we agree on so many of the provisions, encouraging fiscal 
responsibility and protecting national security. We have come together 
on a lot of issues on this subcommittee, including: improving satellite 
acquisition; encouraging efficiencies; ensuring efficient development, 
testing, production and sustainment schedules for missile defense and 
for our nuclear enterprise; for conducting oversight of very large-
scale construction sites that we have; building on good progress 
related to improving efficiencies at nuclear sites; and, of course, 
implementation of the New START nuclear reductions.
  I also want to highlight the work that our subcommittee did with 
respect to nonproliferation programs and working on this. This is so 
incredibly important to our security. It is not just about how many 
weapons people have, but really about what old weapons, what weapons 
need to be turned in, where weapons are, and how we safeguard weapons 
around the world. So we really came together on that.
  One of the areas where we disagree, and you will see some amendments 
along the way, is this whole area of our ground-based missile defense. 
Quite frankly, the Pentagon's and the President's budget we feel was 
enough money to continue our work of research and development and 
testing in that arena. Unfortunately, the Republican side of the 
committee wants to put more unnecessary funding into that. And of 
course I oppose the provisions which restrict the President's authority 
over nuclear weapons, including implementing reductions in the number 
of nuclear weapons and restricting U.S. nuclear employment strategy, 
which I personally believe undermine our efforts to reduce the danger 
of nuclear weapons. The statement of administration policy has noted a 
potential veto threat because of those provisions that we could not 
agree upon.
  But again, I would like to reiterate my thank you to Chairman Turner 
and to all of the members of our subcommittee. I look forward to this 
debate.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Seapower and Projection Forces.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  In review of the portions of the President's budget request relevant 
to Seapower and Projection Forces, the subcommittee this year held 
hearings on the Navy shipbuilding plan and on amphibious warfare, along 
with briefings on the replacement for the Ohio class ballistic missile 
submarine, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the new long-range 
strike bomber.
  Being a maritime nation, we must support our troops with supplies 
delivered by sea and by air, while maintaining the global reach to do 
so. Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of 
credible combat power, forward presence, and humanitarian assistance 
are all capabilities supplied by forces for which the subcommittee has 
oversight and where it must focus.
  This bill provides for a multiyear procurement of Arleigh Burke class 
destroyers. It funds 10 ships which were in the President's budget 
request. It also has provisions which would inject some discipline in 
programs just starting, such as the amphibious vehicle which will 
replace the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the Navy's 
unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee, particularly my 
ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the 
Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I first want to begin by thanking Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith, as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Chairman Mac Thornberry, for putting 
forward a bill that truly supports our men and women in combat, 
enhances our national security, and is in keeping with the true 
bipartisan history of the House Armed Services Committee.
  While I don't agree with every provision in the bill, I am proud that 
both parties worked together to reach compromises on many measures that 
support our national defense. As the ranking member of the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I am especially pleased to 
support our Armed Forces. You need global reach around the world and in 
cyberspace.
  I have also been a long-time supporter of our Special Operations 
Forces, and the incredible raid on the Osama bin Laden compound several 
weeks ago is a true testament to their patriotism, their training, 
their strength and dedication, and I commend them for their incredible 
work. These brave men and women are a critically unique asset to our 
national security, and this bill affirms our commitment to supporting 
their efforts.

                              {time}  1920

  This mark also prioritizes the department's cybersecurity efforts, 
which have long been a chief focus of mine, by strengthening provisions 
to protect our Nation from insider threats, analyzing threats to 
military readiness, highlighting vulnerabilities in critical 
infrastructure, and increasing cooperation with international allies 
and domestic partners.
  Regrettably, there are also several provisions included that deeply 
concern me--from attempts to derail the successful repeal of DOD's 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to measures tying the President's hands 
over decisions about our nuclear arsenal and the closure of Guantanamo 
Bay. It is my hope that these issues will be further considered and 
improved upon by the conference committee.
  However, overall, this bill reflects the recognition of the Congress 
of the incredible sacrifices that our brave men and women in uniform 
make for our country every day. I am certainly honored to be a part of 
this process, and I certainly look forward to supporting this bill as 
it moves through the legislative process and moves into law.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for 
their leadership, as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, Mac 
Thornberry. We work, truly, in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. I would like to first thank the gentleman for yielding 
and for his leadership in bringing this very bipartisan bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last several months, the Armed Services 
Readiness Subcommittee has attempted to answer one question: Are we 
ready? I believe this bill makes several significant improvements to 
the readiness posture of our Armed Forces and remedies many of the 
shortfalls that we found.
  The bill takes several steps to ensure that U.S. troops are properly 
trained

[[Page H3392]]

and their equipment is properly maintained so they can succeed in their 
missions and have the facilities and services they deserve when they 
return home.
  It also makes needed adjustments to civilian personnel policies and 
service contracting, and promotes energy security, and ensures that 
projects offer the best return on investment to the taxpayer.
  The bill fully supports the President's request for expanded training 
as dwell times increase, the continued reset of combat-damaged Army and 
Marine Corps equipment, and military construction and family housing.
  The legislation also makes notable investments in Navy ship and 
aircraft depot maintenance, facility sustainment and modernization, 
Army base operations, Guard and Reserve flight training, and Air Force 
weapon systems sustainment.
  To increase the readiness of our depots, the bill includes several of 
the recommendations included in the study on the future capability of 
the Department of Defense maintenance depots, directed by the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no greater responsibility than to ensure our 
men and women in uniform are fully trained, equipped and ready for the 
challenges they face every day. I believe this bill fulfills that 
commitment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
work.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), ranking member of the 
Seapower Subcommittee.0
  Mr. McINTYRE. I thank my friend, Ranking Member Smith, as well as 
full committee Chairman McKeon, and also thanks to the subcommittee 
chairman and my good friend, Todd Akin, for all of their hard work in 
helping us not only on this full armed services bill but also, in 
particular, on the Seapower and Projection Forces portion of this bill, 
which passed with strong bipartisan support in our subcommittee and in 
the full subcommittee.
  The work of the subcommittee continues the long tradition of 
providing strong support for our men and women in uniform. The projects 
authorized in this bill are critical to our country's ability to 
project power anywhere in the world at any time.
  This bill includes $14.9 billion for shipbuilding that would 
authorize a total of 10 new ships, including two Virginia class 
submarines, one Arleigh Burke class destroyer, four Littoral Combat 
Ships, one San Antonio class amphibious ship, one Mobile Landing 
Platform Ship, and one Joint High Speed Vessel. This mark also 
authorizes $1.1 billion for the National Defense Sealift Fund.
  There are a number of legislative provisions included in this bill 
which are aimed at providing a more efficient way to procure ships and 
weapons systems. In addition, this bill includes several provisions 
that require increased oversight over critical programs that will 
ensure they stay on schedule and on cost. In particular, this bill 
requires the Comptroller General to conduct an annual review and report 
on the progress of the KC-46 tanker program.
  All of these provisions, plus others, represent the subcommittee's 
commitment to ensuring that all major programs receive the proper 
oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and 
effectively. This bill is a balanced authorization of programs under 
the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, and it meets the needs of our men 
and women in uniform.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Akin for his hard work, and I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Congratulations, Mr. Chairman, on your leadership--achieving a 60-1 
favorable vote on the bill that we are considering this evening.
  As we begin, we are grateful for the professionalism of our military 
forces in killing the mass murderer Osama bin Laden. It was a proud day 
for all Americans, especially for our military, their families and 
veterans, that justice was achieved.
  The military personnel provisions of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2012 are the product of an open, bipartisan 
process. Some of the more important personnel provisions are the 
following:
  A 1.6 percent increase in military basic pay;
  A revised policy for measuring and reporting unit operations tempo 
and personnel tempo, reflecting the committee's continuing concern 
about stresses on the force, especially at a time when we must continue 
our resolve for victory in the current mission requirements.
  Another important initiative is the reform of the military recruiting 
system to include graduates of home schooling, charter schools and 
virtual schools. I see military service as opportunity and fulfilling, 
and these are extraordinary patriots.
  The bill also clarifies the legal authority for the administration 
and oversight of Arlington National Cemetery. I believe the bill is 
strong in the multiple provisions dealing with sexual assault, child 
custody, mental health, traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic 
stress disorder.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Ranking Member Susan Davis and her 
staff for their contributions and support of this process. We have 
benefited from an active and informed and dedicated set of subcommittee 
members. Their recommendations and priorities are clearly reflected in 
the bill.
  Additionally, I appreciate the dedicated Military Personnel 
Subcommittee staff: John Chapla, Jeanette James, Mike Higgins, Craig 
Greene, Debra Wada, and Jim Weiss. I also want to thank congressional 
Military Legislative Assistant Brian Eisele and Military Fellow Marine 
Captain Sam Cunningham.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the 
Readiness Subcommittee.
  Ms. BORDALLO. I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  This bill works to ensure our men and women in uniform are well 
trained and equipped. I am proud that the House Armed Services 
Committee, through this bill, continues to close the readiness gaps 
that have been created in our Armed Forces by a decade of continuous 
deployments.
  This bill authorizes $23 billion for the training of all active duty 
and reserve forces to increase readiness as troops experience longer 
periods at home following the Iraq drawdown, including $1 billion to 
support the Army's planned return to full-spectrum training, also 
funding for the Navy ship and aircraft depot-level maintenance, and for 
the upkeep of the Department of Defense facilities. We fully fund the 
President's budget request for the reset of Army and Marine Corps 
equipment and for the sustainment of Air Force weapons systems. We 
provide additional funding to meet the full requirement for the upkeep 
of our military facilities, increased funding to operate Army bases, 
and authorize $14.7 billion in military construction.
  I am pleased that this bill includes a number of initiatives that 
focus on reducing operational and installation energy consumption while 
improving military capabilities.

                              {time}  1930

  It also reflects the priorities in the area of energy conservation of 
our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, who has been a champion of these 
issues through the Readiness Subcommittee.
  The bill supports environmental leadership while putting defense 
capabilities and missions first. I also note we have included a 
provision that extends the SIKES Act coverage to state-owned National 
Guard facilities and enables development and implementation of 
integrated natural resources management plans for state-owned National 
Guard installations.
  The bill continues our committee's tradition of providing stringent 
and comprehensive oversight of the military buildup on Guam. The 
committee remains committed to understanding the importance of the 
realignment of military forces in the Pacific demonstrated through a 
full authorization

[[Page H3393]]

of military construction funding. And further, this bill continues to 
demonstrate its keen understanding of the strategic importance of Guam 
in responding to the growth of traditional threats in the Pacific 
region and the freedom of movement Guam provides our military forces in 
responding to regional nontraditional threats.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our 
chairman, Mr. McKeon, and our ranking member, Mr. Smith, of the Armed 
Services Committee, and also to the chairman of my subcommittee, Mr. 
Randy Forbes, for conducting the meetings in a very bipartisan manner.
  I ask my colleagues to support this very important measure.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from California, our chairman, Mr. 
McKeon, for his leadership on this bill as it's moving through the 
House, and Ranking Member Smith. I would also like to thank all of my 
colleagues on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and in particular my 
ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, and the staff for their work on this 
year's Strategic Forces mark. And particularly I would like to thank 
our director, Kari Bingen.
  This bill builds off a strong bipartisan and bicameral consensus and 
fully funds the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and 
supports continued modernization of our nuclear forces and 
infrastructure. It also supports robust oversight of the 
administration's implementation of the New START Treaty and establishes 
prudent measures to slow down the rush towards nuclear disarmament.
  The bill responds to the effects of prior cuts by this administration 
to missile defense, providing an increase of $110 million above the 
President's request. It adds these funds to fix the system that 
protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic missile 
threats. It also provides an increase in funds to support the 
implementation of the administration's Phased Adaptive Approach and 
important cooperative efforts with Japan and Israel, while recommending 
reductions in future capabilities that are less viable.
  Equally important, this bill advocates on behalf of servicemembers 
and their families. I want to thank Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member 
Davis for incorporating bipartisan language from the Tsongas-Turner 
Defense STRONG Act that seeks to enhance sexual assault protections as 
well as improved training requirements to better protect 
servicemembers.
  I also want to thank Chairman Wilson for his support for this bill, 
which includes a provision that would protect the fundamental child 
custody rights of military parents and ensures that servicemembers do 
not lose custody of their children as a consequence of their service to 
the Nation. This provision corrects an unconscionable injustice and has 
the full endorsement of Secretary Gates and the Department of Defense. 
And I would like to thank Lieutenant Eva Slusher from Kentucky, who has 
been working diligently in this fight.
  Lastly, I would like to note that earlier today the President issued 
a veto threat on several provisions contained in the NDAA related to 
nuclear modernization and objections to provisions relating to missile 
defense. This is curious because these provisions are consistent with 
the administration's own stated policies and that of our NATO allies. 
By this threat, is the President saying he does not intend to implement 
the nuclear modernization guarantees that were part of the New START 
Treaty? Does the President intend to unilaterally withdraw nuclear 
forces from Europe? Does the President want to share sensitive data of 
missile defense technology with Russia? And does the President intend 
to strike deals with Russia to limit our missile defense capabilities? 
If the answer to these questions is no, then the administration should 
have no objections to these provisions. If, on the other hand, the 
answer to these questions is yes, then it is all the more reason to 
make these provisions law.
  I urge the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
2012.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), ranking member on the 
Personnel Subcommittee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues on the 
House Armed Services Committee in support of H.R. 1540, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  As the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I want 
to recognize Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their 
leadership, as well as subcommittee Chairman Wilson for his bipartisan 
work to enhance the quality of life for our servicemembers, retirees, 
survivors and their families.
  As Americans, it is our responsibility and our privilege to support 
our men and women in uniform and their families given the enormous 
sacrifices they make to ensure the security of our Nation. These men 
and women have volunteered to give their lives to protect and defend 
what we hold dear, liberty and freedom. Nothing can substitute for 
their commitment and sacrifice.
  I am proud to support a 1.6 percent pay raise in our bill. Our 
servicemembers have earned this pay raise and deserve no less. I am 
also pleased that this bill includes authority for the Secretary of 
Defense to establish apprenticeship programs to help servicemembers 
transition out of the military. Far too many of our brave men and women 
are returning home and finding it a challenge to become or remain 
employed. The number of homeless veterans in our younger generations 
continues to grow, and apprenticeship programs could provide these 
individuals the skills they need to succeed.
  While this bill allows for a modest increase in TRICARE fees, it does 
protect military retirees and their dependents from future significant 
hikes by limiting increases to military retiree cost of living 
allowances.
  And lastly, this bill continues the efforts by this subcommittee over 
the last several years to reduce sexual assaults and harassment within 
the services. This is an important issue that has a direct impact on 
military readiness, and I want to thank Congresswomen Slaughter, 
Sanchez, and Tsongas for their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, while there are many good provisions in this bill, I 
must raise my extreme disappointment with several sections that were 
included by the majority that seek to delay and prevent gays and 
lesbians from serving in uniform. One of the liberties that we as 
Americans hold dear is that we are all created equal. These individuals 
should be entitled to serve their Nation in uniform and should not be 
denied the opportunity.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. A Nation that values democracy cannot 
discriminate against an individual because of their sexual orientation.
  But I must say, Mr. Chairman, that ultimately I do support this bill, 
and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I want to thank the many 
staff members who have worked very hard on this legislation, and we 
look forward to this being signed into law.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for 
his leadership on the National Defense Authorization Act, and also 
recognize Ranking Member Smith for his efforts on what I believe is an 
extraordinarily good bill.
  I am pleased today to support H.R. 1540. It recognizes the need for 
fiscal constraint while at the same time ensuring our Nation's security 
and fulfills our sacred obligations to our brave men and women in 
uniform. The bill also strengthens protections against ill-considered 
efforts to release detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention 
facility.
  In December, the Director of National Intelligence reported that 25 
percent of those formerly held at Gitmo were confirmed or suspected of 
returning to the fight against us and our allies. This rate is alarming 
and unacceptable. I am concerned that the government did not conduct 
significant

[[Page H3394]]

due diligence when identifying detainees for release and that this 
failure has potentially grave ramifications for our troops serving on 
the battlefield.
  H.R. 1540 strengthens our protections in several important ways. 
First, it prohibits transfers to foreign countries where there are 
known cases of re-engagement; it requires careful consideration of 
established criteria before other transfers are accomplished; and it 
mandates that government agencies provide Congress the information we 
need to properly assess the threats our Nation and our troops face from 
detainees who have rejoined the fight and continue to commit terrorist 
acts.
  H.R. 1540 also ensures continued oversight of Arlington National 
Cemetery. It directs the timely establishment of the Oversight Council 
and creates a date certain for record digitization.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1540. I would like 
to end with thanking the staff, including Michelle Pearce, for their 
great work on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. ANDREWS. Twenty-three nights ago, a focused and brave group of 
young Americans climbed into helicopters and focused on their mission. 
Over 3 weeks ago, a group of American leaders met in the Situation Room 
of the White House focused on their mission. And over a 10-year period, 
a group of intelligence analysts and signal intelligence specialists 
and brave Americans all over the world focused on their mission to 
eliminate the menace of Osama bin Laden from this Earth. They succeeded 
in eliminating that menace, they succeeded in capturing valuable 
intelligence that will help us track down his coconspirators and stop 
them, and they sent a powerful message to any other evil rich person 
that wants to target the United States of America that such targeting 
is an act of suicide.
  We should salute those with that focus here tonight and reflect on 
the fact that our focus as Republicans and Democrats in passing this 
bill is to give other focused Americans in the military, our 
intelligence community, and those who support them the tools they need 
to do their job.
  I'm proud of the work that Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and 
all of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members did on this bill. 
There are controversial aspects of this bill, but this is a work that 
is focused on the defense of our country in the same tradition of those 
who so nobly served us 23 days ago.
  We should all join in a ``yes'' vote for this bill because it 
continues that tradition of our national security in a bipartisan 
sense. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy to discuss an 
issue that I believe is imperative to financial accountability in the 
defense intelligence community.
  I have been working with my colleagues in various congressional 
committees on language that would improve the ability of the defense 
intelligence elements to be appropriately audited. While we are not 
quite to the finish line on final language, I want my colleagues to be 
aware of this issue as we work on the NDAA this week.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this 
important issue.
  As the gentleman is well aware, oversight of DOD financial 
accountability issues is of high importance for our committee. We 
continue to work with the department to ensure they continue aggressive 
measures to get the department to a point where we have confidence in 
their financial statements.
  Mr. Conaway is a CPA and brings great expertise to the Congress.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words.
  While I'm disappointed that we were not able to work out an agreement 
that would include this language in the NDAA, I do understand that 
there have been issues raised with the amendment, as currently written, 
that may not provide the focused solution that we need to track 
disbursements and provide better accounting in the intelligence 
community.
  I look forward to continuing our work on this and other provisions to 
provide sufficient, yet directed authority that will improve the 
financial accountability in the Department of Defense.
  It is our responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to the American taxpayer to 
ensure that the intelligence community has the proper management tools 
to manage our precious resources that we provide to them.
  Mr. McKEON. I applaud the gentleman from Texas on his continued 
efforts to shine light on financial responsibility at the Pentagon. The 
language he's working on is certainly needed by the intelligence 
community to meet the financial accounting standards we require of the 
rest of the Federal Government. If all committees can agree upon 
language, I would welcome the opportunity to support such an amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the chairman for the colloquy and urge 
adoption of the underlying NDAA.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, while I support the underlying bill, I rise in 
opposition to language in the National Defense Authorization Act that 
exempts the Department of Defense from section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act, a critical energy security provision 
which also supports the development of domestic alternative fuels.
  This exemption, Mr. Chairman, will derail the DOD's efforts to 
strengthen national security through reducing dangerous greenhouse 
gases. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike 
Mullen, recently warned that climate change will have a significant 
effect on increasing competition for water and food, potentially 
causing humanitarian crises that could lead to failed states.
  Further, this concern is not new to DOD. In 2008, the Defense Science 
Board recommended to avoid investing in processes that exceed the 
carbon footprint of petroleum. This provision proposes to do exactly 
that.
  I would hope that we would remove this language and allow the 
department to experiment and use alternatives that would not exceed the 
current limit on the current carbon footprint on greenhouse gases.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
  Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, for 
your leadership on this important legislation for our men and women in 
uniform. It is an honor to serve with the both of you.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result of the 2005 BRAC, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst in my home district was combined into one installation from 
three separate military installations, which caused a problem. One 
issue this bill addresses is pay parity.
  Currently at Joint Base MDL, which used to be the separate Fort Dix 
and McGuire bases, wage grade system employees are paid at the 
Philadelphia locality pay rate, while at the Lakehurst side, the people 
doing the same jobs are paid at the New York locality rate.
  While OPM has indicated they want to resolve this situation, no 
change has yet been made.
  The language in the bill will work towards fixing this inequity by 
requiring OPM to work with the DOD to implement OPM's recommendation 
with respect to the Department of Defense Federal Wage System employees 
working at all joint military installations.
  Additionally, I want to recognize my colleagues on the House Armed 
Services Committee, Congressman Rob Andrews and Congressman Frank 
LoBiondo, for their work on this issue, as well as Congressman Chris 
Smith of New Jersey, who also has been active in assisting the 
employees at the joint base.

[[Page H3395]]

  Again, I thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, for 
your support on this, and I want to express my strong support for H.R. 
1540 and our Nation's war fighters.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with my colleague 
from New Jersey, Congressman Andrews.
  During the full committee markup of the defense authorization bill, 
you offered, and the committee supported, an amendment which would 
``ensure that the Secretary, at no cost to the Federal Government, 
provide support and allows for the use of such property by the 
contractor under such contract to conduct research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of the F136 engine, if such activities are 
self-funded by the contractor.''
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
  I simply would like to reiterate that it is your intention and 
understanding that there is no government funding provided to the F136 
contractors by your amendment in any section of this bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will further yield, it is my 
understanding and intent that there be no FY12 government funding for 
the F136 contractor.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a 
distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as a former U.S. Marine, I 
understand the importance of a strong national defense, especially 
during this time of war.
  That's why I'm glad to rise in support of this National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2012. It provides our troops with the resources 
they need and enables them to carry out the missions we've asked of 
them.
  Now, I'd like to especially thank our chairman, Chairman McKeon, for 
his leadership in this process. In particular I can say as a freshman, 
he's taken great time and attention to the issue of reforming how we do 
our quadrennial defense review. He said that we need to take a further 
look at this in the future.

                              {time}  1950

  This, I believe, is the key to ensuring that we efficiently spend our 
defense dollars as we look to next year's bill. But this bill addresses 
the military issues we face today. It does so in a responsible manner. 
And it's being offered with an eye to improving the process in the 
future. So that's why I am supporting this National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. There is much in this bill to recommend, particularly 
the way in which it deals with the men and women that are in arms, the 
support that they need, the benefits that they require, and the care 
that they require following their missions.
  However, there is in this bill a missed opportunity, and I must 
therefore oppose the bill, the opportunity to change the direction of 
the war in Afghanistan, a war that seems without end, and a war that 
seems to be perpetual. A successful raid and the successful taking of 
bin Laden is an opportunity to pivot, and we are missing that 
opportunity in this bill, and continuing to spend over $100 billion on 
that war in Afghanistan.
  Also in this bill is section 1034, the continued authorization for 
the use of force. That too must be eliminated. For those reasons, I 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for allowing me to speak 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the B-1 bomber. My district, 
the 19th Congressional District of Texas, is home to 5,000 military and 
1,000 civilian personnel at Dyess Air Force Base, located in Abilene, 
Texas. The Dyess houses, among other missions, the 7th Bomb Wing, 
representing 36 of the 66 remaining B-1 Lancer bombers.
  As I testified before the Armed Services Committee last month, I am 
concerned about the proposed cuts to the B-1 fleet. Let me tell you 
why. Since 2001, the B-1 has flown over 70 percent of the bomber combat 
missions, while representing only 40 percent of the bomber fleet. 
Before combat in Libya, the B-1 bomber was the only bomber to be used 
in combat since May of 2006, and was used heavily at that. In fact, the 
B-1 is in the air, supporting troops deployed to the Middle East, 
almost every day.
  The B-1 has flown over 8,000 sorties for the past several years, and 
it has logged over 93,000 hours of operation over Iraq and Afghanistan 
in the last decade. Last year alone, it flew 1,253 missions and dropped 
741 bombs. By any measure, the B-1 is the backbone of the bomber fleet.
  I am very pleased that the committee has decided to change the 
recommendation of the administration. And I look forward to working 
with the chairman to make sure that America's bomber fleet is at the 
cutting edge in the future. We don't have a replacement for the B-1; 
and it's important until such time we get a replacement bomber that we 
make sure that we maintain the fleet that we have today, because 
particularly the B-1 is one of our most used weapons systems currently 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and the committee as we 
make sure that America's security is never compromised.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Again, I just want to thank the chairman and 
the staff for putting together an outstanding bill. This is no small 
enterprise. It is $691 billion. It is critical policy to provide for 
the national security for our country, critical policy to make sure 
that our troops and their families are properly taken care of, they 
have the equipment and support that they need to do the job that we ask 
them to do. And I think Mr. McKeon, the members of the committee, and 
the staff have done an outstanding job.
  I do want to also recognize our past chairman, Mr. Skelton. As I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, there is a strong bipartisan tradition 
on this committee. Mr. Skelton upheld that very well, and Mr. McKeon 
has done so as well. It was an honor to work with Mr. Skelton. I 
appreciate his leadership and guidance for all of us on the committee.
  I do just want to mention one issue that I neglected to mention in my 
opening remarks, and that is to associate myself with the remarks of 
Mr. Langevin with regard to the energy amendment that was contained in 
this bill. I think it's critical that we give the Department of Defense 
the ability to pursue alternative sources of energy that actually do 
improve our position in terms of greenhouse gases, and improve our 
position in terms of reducing our dependency--well, sorry, increasing 
our ability to use clean-burning sources of fuel.
  The amendment that was attached to this would allow to be considered 
alternative the use of fuels that really aren't. They are not clean 
burning or renewable. So I think that it is imperative that we strike 
that provision from this bill. But overall I am very supportive of the 
bill. I appreciate the chairman's leadership. I look forward to working 
with him over the course of the next couple of days as we deal with the 
amendments that are coming our way, and as we go into conference with 
the Senate to hopefully get this bill done, to the President for 
signature. It is critical to our national security interests that we do 
that.
  I thank the chairman again for his leadership.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I have remaining.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the great things on serving on this committee,

[[Page H3396]]

the experience that I have had, is getting to know Mr. Smith during 
these last few months much better than previously and the members of 
the staff who have worked so hard and so diligently to get us to this 
point. Last week, or week before, when we marked this up in full 
committee, we went from 10 in the morning until 2:30 the next morning. 
And everybody was at work again the next day ready to go.
  We get to meet with the troops, we get to see the young people, and 
some that are not so young, serving us around the world to preserve our 
freedoms and freedoms of other peoples. And our job is to do all we can 
to help make their job easier, to help make their job--to help, as I 
said earlier, give them the equipment, the training, the leadership, 
the time, all the resources that they need to return home safely to 
their families.
  I think this bill does that. I feel very good about all of the 
members of the committee, the hard work that they have done to get us 
to this point. I look forward to the next few days working on the 
amendments and turning out a final finished product; and, hopefully, 
then we can encourage the other body to get their work done, and we can 
get this bill as our 50th bill to the President for his signature.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, I am offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill 
which would defund the war in Libya.
  The war is unconstitutional. The President did not come to this 
Congress, he went to the U.N. Security Council, he went to a number of 
international bodies, but he didn't come to the United States Congress. 
Last week, the President did not observe the tolling of the War Powers 
Act, so he's in violation of the statute.
  The action over in Libya has already exceeded the U.N. mandate; it's 
in violation of the U.N. mandate and there have been violations of 
international law.
  What are we doing there? Why does anyone think we can afford it? Why 
aren't we trying to find a path to peace so we aren't called upon to 
spend more money there? These are questions we have to be asking; 
that's why Congress needs to say we're not going to spend more money 
there.
  People are saying it's not the United States, it's NATO. The Guardian 
in the U.K. did a study which showed that 90 percent of the cruise 
missiles are paid for by the U.S. Sixty-six percent of the personnel 
working against Libya are from the U.S., 50 percent of aircraft, 50 
percent of all ships--and our government is saying this is a NATO 
operation? We have to recognize what's going on here, which is an 
expansion of the war power by the Executive and it's time we challenge 
that.
  One thing we certainly shouldn't do is to support the amendment 
offered by my friend, Mr. McKeon, which will hand over to the President 
Congress' constitutional authority to declare and authorize war, 
substantially altering the delicate balance of power the Founding 
Fathers envisioned.
  The annual re-authorization contains unprecedented and dangerous 
language which gives the President virtually unchecked power to take 
this country to war and to keep us there. The bill substantially 
undermines the Constitution, the institution that the Constitution set 
up that is Congress and sets the United States on a path to permanent 
war. Congress has to protect the American people from the overreach of 
any Chief Executive--Democrat, Republican--any Chief Executive who's 
enamored with unilateralism, preemption, first strike and the power to 
prosecute war without constitutional authority or statutory 
prescriptions.
  Permanent global war isn't the answer. It's not going to increase our 
national security. Far from ridding the world of terrorism, it will 
become a terrorist recruitment program. The war in Iraq is based on 
lies; the war in Afghanistan is based on a misreading of history.
  Yet in Iraq we'll spend over $3 trillion. In Afghanistan we've spent 
over half a trillion dollars.
  We have people out of work here. We have people losing their homes, 
losing their health care, losing their retirement security. All we hear 
from the White House is ``we want more war or more authorization for 
more war.'' We have to stop that and while stopping that we have to 
stop this national security state and stop the extension of the Patriot 
Act which is also in this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1540) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________