[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.
____________________