[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 192 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8915-H8937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1540, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2012

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 493 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 493

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     remainder of the first session of the One Hundred Twelfth 
     Congress for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House 
     suspend the rules, as though under clause 1(c) of rule XV, if 
     the text of the measure proposed in a motion is made 
     available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident 
     Commissioner (including pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXIX) on 
     the calendar day before consideration.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day of the first session of the 
     One Hundred Twelfth Congress after December 16, 2011--
       (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved;
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and
       (c) bills and resolutions introduced during the period 
     addressed by this section shall be numbered, listed in the 
     Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of 
     introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later 
     time.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Twelfth Congress before January 17, 2012--
       (a) the Speaker may dispense with organizational and 
     legislative business;
       (b) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved if applicable; and
       (c) the Chair at any time may declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by sections 3 and 4 as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

                              {time}  1240

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 
5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a standard 
conference report rule and other end-of-the-year housekeeping 
provisions.
  H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, has been 
considered in committee. It was debated on the House floor. It included 
152 amendments made in order before passing this Chamber, and that was 
done in May with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority. It went 
through the Senate. And now we bring to you today a bipartisan 
conference report.
  I have to commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for truly continuing the 
tradition of bipartisanship and mutual cooperation in the Armed 
Services Committee and in this particular bill.
  There are some times when Congress has a reputation of being somewhat 
contentious and partisan, sometimes deservedly so. However, I have been 
a member of the Armed Services Committee myself for several years, and 
I recognize that they clearly understand Article I of the Constitution, 
which requires a common defense of our country; and in that particular 
committee, partisanship really has been checked at the door regarding 
the product of the Armed Services Committee, which is this annual 
Defense authorization bill.
  In its essence, I think the process has been good, the efforts have 
been good, and it has made a significant issue that we are bringing 
here to the floor ready to pass in its final version from the 
conference committee. There are significant underlying issues that I 
think we will talk about during the course of the discussion on the 
rule and perhaps on the bill as well, but those things, I think, will 
be handled as they appear at that particular time.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my friend from Utah for yielding the

[[Page H8916]]

time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 10 years since the attacks of 
September 11. We have fought two wars and have engaged in military 
action in numerous other countries. Hundreds of thousands of people 
have died, and many more have been wounded. We have spent more than $1 
trillion. Osama bin Laden is dead, and the Obama administration 
officials have declared that al Qaeda is ``operationally ineffective.''
  Here at home, we've reformed our national government, compromised our 
civil liberties, spent billions on a surveillance state, and created a 
culture of paranoia in which, even in the last few days, a reality TV 
show about Muslim Americans is subjected to a campaign of hate and 
intolerance.
  Before proceeding, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member 
of the relevant committee of jurisdiction that put this package 
together. I am fundamentally opposed to many aspects of it, but I am in 
tremendous agreement with their bipartisan efforts and the staffs of 
both of them and the other committee members for putting forth the 
effort to bring us to this point of discussion.
  We should take this opportunity at this moment in our history to 
seriously and carefully deliberate our Nation's counterterrorism 
efforts. We ought to consider which policies are effective and which, 
in the end, only create more anti-American sentiment. We ought to 
consider which policies align with our national values and which, 
instead, undermine them. We ought to consider whether we should 
continue using the full thrust of the United States Armed Forces in 
country after country or whether a more nuanced approach might better 
serve our needs.
  Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not attempt to answer 
these questions. Instead, it commits us to dive even further down the 
road of fear. It commits us to more war and more wasteful spending, and 
it commits us to ceding our freedoms and liberties on the mere 
suspicion of wrongdoing. This legislation erodes our society and our 
national security by militarizing our justice system and empowering the 
President to detain anyone in the United States, including American 
citizens, without charge or trial, without due process.
  If this is going to continue to be the direction of our country, Mr. 
Speaker, we don't need a Democratic Party or a Republican Party or an 
Occupy Wall Street party or a Tea Party; we need a Mayflower party. If 
we are going to undermine the foundational principles of this great 
country, then we might as well sail away to someplace else.
  This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere 
in the world and against anyone. It commits us to seeing a 
``terrorist'' in anyone who ever criticizes the United States in any 
country, including this one. The lack of definitions as to what 
constitutes ``substantial support'' and ``associated forces'' of al 
Qaeda and the Taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism. 
Congress has not tried to curtail civil liberties like this since the 
McCarthy era; but here we are today, trying to return to an era of 
arbitrary justice, witch-hunts, and fearmongering.
  While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, 
it does not protect them from indefinite detention. In one fell swoop, 
we have set up a situation where American citizens could have their 
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights violated on 
mere suspicions. And by placing suspected terrorists solely in the 
hands of the military, these provisions deny civilian law enforcement 
the ability to conduct effective counterterrorism efforts.
  The fact of the matter is that our law enforcement agencies and 
civilian courts have proven over and over again that they are more than 
capable of handling counterterrorism cases. I had the distinct 
privilege in this country of serving as a Federal judge shepherding 
cases and protecting the interests of the United States and vital 
security interests during that period of time. And in every one of 
those cases--some 11 over the period of 9\3/4\ years--all of the 
defendants were found guilty, and that is before 2001.
  More than 400 suspected terrorists have already been tried in the 
Federal courts of the United States of America. We should not break 
something that already works. The idea that the executive branch's 
current powers are inadequate to fight terrorism is proven false by 10 
years of successful counterterrorism efforts. The idea that the 
President--any President--needs a whole new expansion of his--and I 
hope one day soon--her powers is just wrong.
  Most national security experts, Democrats and Republicans, are 
telling us not to adopt this language. Many officials responsible for 
our homeland security are telling us not to adopt this language. A lot 
of our military leaders are telling us not to adopt this language, Mr. 
Speaker. This legislation goes too far.

                              {time}  1250

  We spend billions of dollars every year on counterterrorism, but we 
weaken those efforts by tossing aside our own system of justice. We 
tell the American public that we are fighting overseas in order to 
protect our freedoms, but then we pass legislation that undermines 
those very same freedoms here in the people's House and at home.
  And we tell the rest of the world to emulate our democratic 
traditions and our rule of law, but we disregard those values in a mad 
rush to find out how we can pretend to be the toughest on terrorism.
  We won't defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent 
people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. 
We will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a 
battlefield. And we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of 
law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to have a more considered debate about the best 
way to conduct our defense and counterterrorism policies. This bill 
contains over $600 billion in spending, runs to over 1,000 pages, and 
is coming to the floor less than 48 hours after it was filed.
  While the detainee provisions in this legislation might have received 
the most attention in the last few days, there are plenty of other 
critical provisions that Members may have opinions about, and that's 
why on these kinds of measures we should have open rules.
  I realize that I've said that Congress--and we are proving it at the 
end of this session--has a bad case of deadline-itis. But my friends in 
the Republican majority don't only have deadline-itis, they have 
deadline-ophila.
  Yesterday we considered a poorly conceived extenders package that 
will harm the middle class and weaken our economy. Today we are 
considering controversial language in a defense bill that sets a 
dangerous precedent and will potentially harm the civil liberties of 
American citizens.
  I appreciate that the Republican majority, many of whom are my 
friends, don't want their holiday season ruined by having to work. But 
that doesn't mean we have to ruin everyone else's holiday season by 
passing bad laws.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the issues and accusations that were 
brought up by the gentleman from Florida will be something that we will 
address in the course of this debate, but I wish to do this in somewhat 
of a regular order. There are other issues, as he said, that are 
significant.
  To address the first of those, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).
  Mr. QUAYLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the rule and the conference report of the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  The NDAA includes a long-term reauthorization of the Small Business 
Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. I 
was proud to serve as a conferee for this important bill.
  SBIR was originally signed into law by President Reagan and has been 
an effective tool supporting innovation among our small business 
community for nearly 30 years. Since its inception, this competitive 
grant program has enabled more than 100,000 research and development 
projects across the Nation and has helped spawn familiar companies such 
as Qualcomm, Sonicare, and Symantec.
  Although this reauthorization of these programs isn't perfect, it 
improves them in a number of ways. It opens up the program for more 
small companies to participate. It increases

[[Page H8917]]

the emphasis on commercialization of new technologies. Finally, it 
significantly strengthens the data collection and oversight 
requirements of the programs.
  In my hometown of Phoenix, we have a thriving tech community. By 
passing today's bill and providing long-term reauthorization, we will 
provide our small businesses the certainty they need to continue to 
innovate and grow and create jobs.
  I would like to thank Chairman Hall and Chairman Graves for all of 
their work in ushering through this agreement.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. First let me thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding. He is a former member of the Intelligence Committee, and 
I just have to thank him for his tremendous leadership and for his 
opening statement which laid out many of the concerns that many of us 
have about this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this very 
controversial bill that directly attacks the bedrock values of America. 
I'm talking about the constitutional guarantees of due process for 
those charged with crimes.
  Now, against the wishes of President Obama; our Defense Secretary, 
Mr. Panetta; the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper; and 
FBI director, Mr. Mueller, this bill allows the Federal Government to 
seize suspected terrorists, including United States citizens, and hold 
them in indefinite detention.
  Arresting citizens and holding them without trial violates the Fifth 
Amendment's due process guarantees. This bill fundamentally is un-
American, and it threatens all of our liberties. We cannot allow those 
who seek to terrorize the American people to win by trashing the very 
civil liberties at the heart of our national identity. Giving up 
American ideals will not make us safer. This legislation undermines our 
national security and our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record this letter from 
26 retired generals and admirals concerned about how the United States 
treats detainees. These veteran national security experts wrote this 
rare public letter denouncing the detention provisions.
  I will conclude with the words of those honorable retired generals 
and flag officers who warned that this legislation ``both reduces the 
options available to our Commander in Chief to incapacitate terrorists 
and violates the rule of law, and would seriously undermine the safety 
of the American people.''
  I ask my colleagues to defend the civil freedoms which we all 
cherish, to support our national security, to support our democracy, 
and to vote ``no'' on this very dangerous bill and this rule.

                                                November 28, 2011.
       Dear Senator: We are members of a nonpartisan group of 
     forty retired generals and admirals concerned about U.S. 
     policy regarding enemy prisoner treatment and detention.
       We write to urge you to vote for Amendment 1107 to the 
     National Defense Authorization Act which would strike all of 
     the controversial detention provisions in sections 1031, 1032 
     and 1033 and, in their place, mandate a process for Congress 
     to consider whether any detention legislation is needed.
       As retired general and flag officers, we clearly do not 
     make this request lightly. It is clear, however, that there 
     is significant disagreement over the impact on our national 
     security of these provisions. There should be no disagreement 
     that legislation which both reduces the options available to 
     our Commander-in-Chief to incapacitate terrorists and 
     violates the rule of law would seriously undermine the safety 
     of the American people.
       We appreciate that our leaders are constantly striving to 
     make America more secure, but in doing so, we must be careful 
     not to overreact and overreach, resulting in policies that 
     will do more harm than good. At the very least, the current 
     detention provisions merit public debate and should not be 
     agreed to behind closed doors and tucked into legislation as 
     important as our national defense bill.
           Sincerely,
         General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.); General Charles C. 
           Krulak, USMC (Ret.); General David M. Maddox, USA 
           (Ret.); General William G. T. Tuttle Jr., USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Charles P. Otstott, USA (Ret.); 
           Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster (Ret.); Major 
           General John Batiste, USA (Ret.); Major General Paul D. 
           Eaton, USA (Ret.); Major General Eugene Fox, USA 
           (Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.); Major 
           General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.); Major General 
           Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret.); Major General Murray G. 
           Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Major General Walter L. Stewart, 
           Jr., ARNG (Ret.); Major General, Antonio `Tony' M. 
           Taguba, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John Adams, USA 
           (Ret.); Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.); 
           Brigadier General James Cullen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
           General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General 
           Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Leif 
           H. Hendrickson, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General David R. 
           Irvine, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John H. Johns, 
           USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF 
           (Ret.); Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA 
           (Ret.).

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for generously yielding to me 
to offer a dissenting view of section 1021 of the underlying conference 
report.
  This is the section referenced by the gentleman from Florida that 
specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due 
process to any American the government charges with ``substantially 
supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any associated forces,'' whatever 
that means.
  Would ``substantial support'' of an ``associated force'' mean linking 
a Web site to a Web site that links to an al Qaeda site? We don't know. 
The question before us is: Do we really want to find out?
  We're told not to worry, the bill explicitly states that nothing in 
it shall alter existing law. But wait--there is no existing law that 
gives the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain 
Americans without due process. There is only an assertion by the last 
two Presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill-
defined war on terrorism. But it is a power not granted by any act of 
Congress until now.
  What this bill says is, what Presidents have only asserted, Congress 
now affirms in statute.
  We're told this merely pushes the question to the Supreme Court to 
decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining 
vestige of our Bill of Rights. Well, that's a good point if the court 
were the sole guardian of the Constitution. But it is not. If it were, 
there would be no reason to require every Member of Congress to swear 
to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. We are also its 
guardians.
  And today we, who have sworn fealty to that Constitution, sit to 
consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has 
the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, over 8 years since the start of the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are still not properly addressing traumatic 
brain injury, also known as the signature injury of both wars.

                              {time}  1300

  I want to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, all the 
chairmen of the subcommittees, as well as members of this committee who 
are moving forward on this issue. I wish we had the same compromise as 
we would have on other issues. I commend them for compromising. That's 
what our Forefathers talked about. I'm glad to see that the Defense 
Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Brain Injury will 
move oversight to the Army where there will be an increased efficiency 
and attention for our soldiers.
  But there are still problems with screening and treating our troops. 
Recently, NPR ran an expose on how the Department of Defense has tested 
over 500,000 soldiers with a predeployment cognitive test, but has 
performed fewer than 3,000 tests postdeployment to actually compare the 
results and see if our troops were injured in theater.
  The fiscal 2008 National Defense Authorization bill, bipartisanly 
supported, Public Law 110-181, required

[[Page H8918]]

predeployment and postdeployment screenings of a soldier's cognitive 
ability. Current policy is clearly violating the intent of the law. We 
must ensure that the same tool is used for pre- and postdeployment 
cognitive screenings. We can't gauge the cognitive health of our troops 
without comparing tests. Last year, my amendment to the NDAA for fiscal 
year 2011 to address this passed the House, but was not in the final 
bill. We need to correct this in the next year's Defense authorization 
before any more soldiers slip through the cracks. It has consequences 
within service; and when they get out of service, it has bigger 
consequences.
  The Defense Department has raised concerns with the currently 
administered test, but has stated that it will not be able to select an 
alternative until 2015. That is not acceptable. The longer we wait, the 
longer our troops suffering from undiagnosed TBIs go untreated.
  I am concerned that we are not providing proper oversight for those 
soldiers who could have been injured in theater before this policy took 
effect in 2010. Many of these soldiers remain on active duty, and we 
must ensure that they are tested and treated.
  I fear we are doing a disservice to them and our Armed Forces by not 
addressing this problem in this bill, and I ask everyone to consider 
this. This is a critical, critical issue given little attention except 
by Mr. McKeon and Mr. Smith.
  I ask that you do review that.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes permanent warfare 
anywhere in the world. It gives the President unchecked power to pursue 
war. It diminishes the role of this Congress.
  The Founders saw article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which 
places in the hands of Congress the war power as essential to a check 
and balance against executive abuse of power. This legislation 
diminishes Congress' role in that regard.
  This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain 
individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. 
citizens on U.S. soil.
  In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the 
United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government 
or the State. I want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand 
this. We're giving the State more power over individuals with this 
bill. It's the wrong direction.
  Our children deserve a world without end, not a war without end. Our 
children deserve a world where they know that while their government 
will protect them, that it's not going to rule over them by invading 
their very thoughts and going, as the PATRIOT Act does, into their 
banking records or into their educational records.
  We've got to keep the government out of people's lives and stop the 
government from getting more into war, which gives the government more 
control over people. This is a time we take a stand for the 
Constitution and a stand for a government which is smaller when it 
comes to matters of war.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In the year we have been here discussing these things, we have talked 
a lot about budget problems that we have in this country. It is my 
contention that our budget is not just that we have been spending too 
much, but we have been spending on too much.
  One of the things, though, that we should be spending on is, of 
course, military issues. Article I of the Constitution clearly states 
the defense of this country is a core constitutional responsibility, 
and for that there must be government workers who are required to do 
this. That is what it should, indeed, be.
  Unfortunately, we have a President and an administration that has 
decided that there should be some financial restraints in this 
particular area. Indeed, it means reducing spending significantly on 
the military, not necessarily other areas. The result of this will be, 
as has been shown in testimony, that we will create an Army smaller 
than any Army we have had since World War II, a Navy at its smallest 
since World War I, and an Air Force that is smaller and older than at 
any time in this country. And to do that, there will at least be 
100,000 uniformed jobs that will be cut, destroyed, and reduced.
  There are some people who think that simply cutting a few soldiers, a 
few airmen, and a few sailors will be an easy solution to this issue. 
That is naive. It will not happen. What it means, though, is that, 
also, programs must be cut at the same time. We have acquisition which 
buys new materials for our soldiers, and we have sustainment which 
fixes it. That means in certain situations our maintenance and 
sustainment side will have even greater requirements of them because of 
the decisions the administration has foisted and we will be making in 
this and the appropriations bill to come later.
  For example, the United States has owned air superiority ever since 
the Korean war, and we take it for granted. Yet the F-16s we fly to 
maintain that air superiority we were flying at 150 percent of their 
designed capacity when I was first elected to this Congress. And yet 
this is an administration that, even though we have that deficit, 
decided not to build any more F-22s and are delaying the F-35, which 
does produce, and put our air superiority in jeopardy. You have to have 
a plane for an Air Force, and you have to have a boat for a Navy. And 
they cost some kind of money.
  In each case, we will have the oldest equipment. That means when men 
and women go into battle to defend this country, we are equipping them 
with the oldest products they will ever have to protect themselves, and 
that old stuff requires massive maintenance if you're really going to 
do that.
  But what we are requiring to do in this particular budget, if we go 
along with the President's request for making bigger and bigger cuts in 
the defense of this country, is taking those civilian employees that 
make that maintenance effort, that do that sustainment, and that make 
that equipment last longer than they were designed to last, we are 
taking them out of the picture.
  The end result for the massive cuts we are looking at in the 
military, both proposed by the Obama administration and if, in effect, 
they go into effect because of rescission by the failed supercommittee, 
will be anywhere between 100,000 and a half million civilian 
employees--and this vital function in this constitutional function--
that will lose their jobs. And if you go to the worst case scenario, it 
may even be 1 million employees.
  Now, I mention that specifically because we have heard often and 
often, where are the jobs bills. This House has passed a number of jobs 
bills to promote private sector growth. Yet at the same time, we now 
have a situation where, indeed, the right hand does not know what the 
left hand is doing. There are those out there who are going around 
saying that we have to pass--and they are pillorying this Congress for 
not passing much bigger and bigger spending to create more and more 
government jobs in areas which are questionable if we should be there 
in the first place. But at the same time we are being pilloried for not 
doing that. We are being presented by the left hand with a proposal 
that will actually cut existing civilian jobs in areas where we were 
constitutionally required to have them and to maintain them.
  If we don't find that at least inconsistent--and mind-bogglingly 
inconsistent--it is one of our problems in not facing the reality. We 
are always told pass more government jobs. And at the same time, the 
same people who are demanding that are saying, okay, now in this area, 
cut more government jobs. There is no consistency with that. And the 
sad part is the left hand, the one that is defending this country with 
the needs of the military--which is our constitutional responsibility--
those are the ones which are appropriate, and those are the jobs that 
are needed, and those are the jobs that are not being protected in the 
future.
  We must make some decisions in Congress on what is significantly 
important to us, and this is an area in which we must make those 
decisions in the future. We must continue to talk about jobs; but we 
have to realize that if you want more jobs, you can't go

[[Page H8919]]

about cutting the jobs, and, unfortunately, this administration is 
trying to play both of those ends, and it is unfortunate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  After my good friend from Utah spoke, I guess I say, Wow. Last night 
I reminded him that military people are government workers also. And 
toward that end, when we talk about cuts and my friend talked about 
passing on spending, I'm curious. When $1 billion walks away in Iraq 
and nobody knows where it went, I'd ask my friend to tell those 
soldiers at Fort Bragg--where President and Mrs. Obama have spoken to 
them today--that are returning home why they were in Iraq and what is 
it that we protected by spending $1 trillion. Why is it we are sending 
money to corrupt governments? And somewhere along the lines I think we 
will come up with some answers--that we had enough money to spend, but 
we spent it on things that we should not have.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good 
friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, for many American families, they will only 
be able to celebrate this holiday if they forget about the burdens of 
their daily lives. Some are about to lose their jobs, others are about 
to close their businesses for the last time; some are worried they 
can't pay for their health care, others are worried that they're next 
in the layoff line.
  This Congress has an opportunity on this day to address those 
problems. Yesterday the House took action on a bill that, frankly, 
isn't going to go anywhere to address these problems, and today is the 
day we ought to act on a bill that will.
  On January 1, everyone who earns wages in this country is facing a 
tax increase if this Congress doesn't act, a $1,000-a-year tax increase 
on the middle class. We should suspend that tax increase today.
  Many people will lose their unemployment benefits. They will have no 
income, no check. And to those who say, well, they should go find a 
job, you should walk in the shoes of those who are in that predicament 
because here's what you would find: For every one job that's available 
in this country, there are four people looking for it. So failing to 
extend unemployment benefits is craven, in my opinion.
  On the 1st of January, doctors who take care of our seniors--our 
grandmothers, our grandfathers, our disabled citizens--will see a 23 
percent cut in what Medicaid pays them if we do not act by December 31.
  Now, yesterday's bill was deficient in so many ways, but here's two 
of the real big ones:
  First of all, it attached extraneous provisions about whether to 
build an oil pipeline. Some people are for it, others are not. It 
doesn't belong in that bill; and
  Second, a large way the bill was paid for was to blame the unemployed 
and to say we're going to pay for what's in that bill by cutting their 
benefits. That's wrong.
  The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. What we ought to be saying is we can hold down the taxes 
on the middle class, we can fairly extend benefits for the unemployed, 
we can make sure our doctors will continue to see our seniors and our 
disabled people if we ask the hedge fund managers and the millionaires 
and the billionaires of this country to pay just a little bit more.
  We will give the House an opportunity this afternoon to vote on that 
bill. That's the bill we should be considering. If we do, we can then 
proceed immediately with passing this badly needed defense bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
right, yesterday the House did act in a bipartisan way. Now it's up to 
the Senate to act--amend, change, anything except just sitting there 
and not taking action.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of section 1245 in the 
conference report to the NDAA that would require what we hope are 
crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. These provisions, 
offered as a bipartisan amendment in the other Chamber and approved by 
a unanimous vote, would severely limit the funding available for the 
Iranian regime to use in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. I have 
introduced similar legislation as a stand-alone bill here in Congress, 
and we also wrote a letter encouraging the conferees to accept this 
language. I am pleased that they did.
  There is no silver bullet when it comes to stopping the Iranian 
regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, but if there is any sweet spot 
where we can make a difference, it is with the Central Bank of Iran. 
And so I am pleased that this provision is in the bill, and I would 
urge adoption of that section all the way through the process. And I 
hope that this signals our intent certainly to ensure that Iran does 
not obtain nuclear weapons.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
inform us as to the amount of time remaining on either side.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Florida has 10 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Utah has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
distinguished woman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a positive bill for 
our military families, and when we move to the bill I'm going to take 
an opportunity to address that. But while we're on the rule, I have to 
express my immense disappointment that still, to this day, we, as a 
Congress, will not even bring to the table, we won't even look at the 
fact that if a military servicewoman is raped and becomes pregnant, she 
does not have access to an abortion procedure. Mr. Speaker, this is 
really an outrage.
  We say that we want to help our servicewomen. We say that we are 
finally starting to treat them as the warriors that they are, and yet I 
ask you: How many women have to fight and die for our country in order 
to have the same rights as women sitting in Federal prison?
  This is a slap in the face to all military women. They volunteer to 
train, they volunteer to deploy and fight for our country, and we repay 
them by treating them as less worthy than prisoners.
  Honoring women in our military means changing this policy and 
treating them with respect. Haven't they earned this? It's well past 
time to show them that they have.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it 
will bring up the Middle Class Fairness and Putting America Back to 
Work Act of 2011, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment 
benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doc fix.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the 
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Hahn).
  Ms. HAHN. I thank my colleague from Florida for giving me this time.
  I want to encourage my friends and colleagues on both sides to defeat 
the previous question so that we can work together to pass a clean 
extension of unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut.
  You know, yesterday the House Chaplain began the day with a reminder 
that the holidays are a time of hope. And it is in that spirit of hope 
that Congress should embrace and put aside some of the politics that 
have darkened our recent discussions.

[[Page H8920]]

                              {time}  1320

  Last night my Republican friends passed legislation that, however 
well intended, has no chance of passing in the Senate. It did not 
receive my vote because, like many of my fellow Democrats in the House 
and the Senate, I don't believe that we should be debating 
controversial issues as part of those extensions.
  If you believe that building a pipeline through the United States is 
a good idea, let's have that debate. If you believe that the EPA 
shouldn't regulate emissions from certain industries and machines, 
let's have that debate.
  However, those issues cloud the need for extending unemployment 
benefits to those who can't find work. And it clouds the benefits for 
American families that would get an extension of the payroll tax cuts.
  I want to work with my Republican friends to get this done. I know 
I'm new around here, but I think that means putting aside these other 
issues to debate them on their own merits.
  Let's work together in a spirit of hope, vote against the previous 
question, and let's come back to the table and do what needs to be 
done.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would advise my friend from Utah that I am 
going to be the last speaker if he is ready to close.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close as well.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  In the mad rush to get home for Christmas, we're delivering an early 
gift to those who criticize our country for failing to live up to our 
ideals.
  With this legislation, we're undermining over 200 years of 
constitutional protections. We're returning American society to an age 
when an all-powerful executive can command unaccountable power over 
people's lives.
  To codify in law the power of the President to indefinitely detain 
American citizens without charge or trial is an egregious affront to 
our Nation's system of justice. Franz Kafka wrote about it years ago, 
and it has been known as Kafkaesque.
  Ten years after the attacks of September 11--10 years of war, of 
runaway defense spending, of the PATRIOT Act, torture, and 
extraordinary rendition--and we're still responding to the terrorist 
threat with a knee-jerk reaction, devoid of reason and common sense.
  This legislation says that our law enforcement agencies do not work; 
that our judiciary, our court system does not work. This legislation 
says that the President can, alone, decide who is guilty or innocent.
  I would remind my friends that Barack Obama may not be the President 
all the time. But no President should have untrammeled authority to 
determine innocence or guilt. It puts the lie to the judicial branch of 
our government and to the legislative branch of our government. This 
legislation goes too far.
  If the Republican majority was serious about having this body 
carefully consider our Nation's defense policies, Members would have 
had more than 2 days to review the more than 1,000 pages covering $600 
billion in spending.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  This bill has gone through regular order as no other bill has. It 
went through its committee in regular order and was passed out in an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 60-1. It came on the floor with 152 
amendments to be considered and was passed out with an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote. It went to the Senate, was passed out in an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote, and the conference report was signed by 
the conferees in a clear bipartisan effort.
  This is one of those good bills that does authorize our military 
forces through fiscal year 2012, and it is significant.
  But I would like, in closing, to talk about one of the issues that I 
think was brought up, and brought up with some exaggeration to the 
content of what is there that deals specifically with military 
detainees. I want this very clear because both Congressman McKeon, who 
is the chairman of the committee, Congressman Smith, who is the ranking 
member of the committee, spoke at length in Rules Committee on this 
specific issue. They were asked about the issue; they addressed the 
issue.
  Let me make this very clear. Anything in this law that deals with 
detainees does not change in any way, shape, or form existing law. It 
does not deny anyone habeas corpus opportunities. That is not waived in 
any way, shape, or form.
  Let me quote from Mr. Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee, 
when talking about different things, he simply said that there is the 
possibility of indefinite detention without a normal criminal charge, 
but even if you do that, which, once again, the President said he won't 
do, but even if you did that in certain isolated circumstances where it 
could be necessary under the law of war, even if you do that, habeas 
corpus still applies, which means you have to have a hearing in front 
of a Federal judge to make your case under the law for why you have the 
right to detain this person. And to do that, you have to show there is 
a connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban, and you have to show there is 
a threat that they present. So habeas corpus applies to everyone, 
whether they are a citizen, illegal alien, or a noncitizen. Habeas 
corpus still applies.
  It is very clear in both sections 1021 and 1022 that protections for 
American citizens are clearly stated in there. In the Senate, they 
added, in 1021, the words:

       Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
     existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. 
     citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any 
     other persons who are captured or arrested in the United 
     States.

  In 1022 it makes it very clear, before somebody can be detained, 
there are two standards which must be met. First of all, there has to 
be association with an armed force that is in coordination and acting 
against the interests of the United States and, not just membership, 
they have to have participated in the course of planning or carrying 
out attacks or attempted attacks against the United States or its 
coalition partners.
  You can't just go out and pick people off the streets. There has to 
be a standard. And everyone still gets habeas corpus rights in all of 
these events.
  Let me quote again from the law, from the report, the bill that we 
are debating and discussing and voting:
  ``The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this 
section''--this power--``does not extend to citizens of the United 
States,'' which means you can't do this kind of detainment against a 
citizen or a lawful alien of the United States.
  Only in this section, and in both sections, do you have to meet 
certain very restrictive criteria which are not different than what we 
are currently doing, which simply means in the past history of this 
United States, especially in some of our war times, there have been 
Presidents who we jokingly say used to throw people in jail who were 
opposed to them.
  President Obama could still do that under existing statute, but he 
can't do it with this language in this particular bill. There are 
specifics that are set forth. There are specific protections written 
for American citizens, specific protections written for illegal aliens 
of the United States. It is only a very restricted authority and a very 
restricted power, and it doesn't affect habeas corpus. It doesn't 
change existing law.
  In essence, those people who worked in the committee on this bill 
have done a yeoman's work in coming up with a good bill. Those people 
who worked in the conference did a yeoman's work in coming up with a 
good conference report.
  This is a good rule, which is a standard conference report rule. And 
with the only exception that we still must be very careful that if we 
follow the administration's advice and cut our military spending too 
much, not only are we putting our military in jeopardy and our 
equipment in jeopardy, but we are destroying jobs, which is what we 
don't want to be doing in this particular time period.
  I would urge everyone to vote for this rule, and I would urge 
everyone to vote for the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1330

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

[[Page H8921]]

     An amendment to H. Res. 493 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting 
     of the text of the amendment printed in the Congressional 
     Record dated December 13, 2011 pursuant to clause 8 of rule 
     XVIII and numbered 1, which will bear the title ``to support 
     the middle class and create jobs, and for other purposes''. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section of the 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not--apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 6 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce 
to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question 
of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 173, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 925]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney

[[Page H8922]]


     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Cardoza
     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Kaptur
     LaTourette
     Lummis
     McIntyre
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Price (NC)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shuler
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1354

  Mr. HEINRICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 925, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 169, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 926]

                               AYES--245

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--169

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Posey
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Kaptur
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     McIntyre
     Myrick
     Paul
     Price (NC)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shuler
     Velazquez
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1401

  Ms. HOCHUL changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 926, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 926, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 493, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lucas). Pursuant to House Resolution 
493, the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 12, 2011, at page H8356.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) 
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Washington opposed to 
the conference report?
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. No, I am not. I support the conference 
report.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon),

[[Page H8923]]

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act conference report. As you know, the NDAA is the key 
mechanism by which the Congress fulfills its primary constitutional 
responsibility to provide for the common defense, and this year will 
mark the 50th consecutive year we've completed our work. The NDAA 
passed the Armed Services Committee with a vote of 60-1. It passed the 
full House by a wide margin of 322-96. Likewise, the Senate adopted its 
version of the bill by a vote of 93-7. We negotiated every provision in 
the two bills and have delivered this conference report using regular 
order. This is a bipartisan product from start to finish, with a wide 
base of support.
  Let me further assure Members that the bill's authorization levels 
have been reduced to comply with the Budget Control Act. The bill would 
bring the total authorized funding for the national defense to $554 
billion for the base budget and $115.5 billion for overseas contingency 
operations. This represents a $19 billion reduction from last year's 
authorization.
  Nonetheless, what makes our bill such an important piece of 
legislation are the vital authorities contained therein. Our bill 
provides for pay and benefits for our military and their families, as 
well as the authorities that they need to continue prosecuting the war 
on terrorism.
  In addition, we include landmark pieces of legislation sanctioning 
the Central Bank of Iran and strengthening policies and procedures used 
to detain, interrogate, and prosecute al Qaeda, the Taliban, and 
affiliated groups, and those who substantially support them. However, I 
must be crystal clear on this point: the provisions do not extend any 
new authorities to detain U.S. citizens and explicitly exempt U.S. 
citizens from provisions related to military custody of terrorists.
  The conference report covers many more critical issues, but I will 
close in the interest of time. However, before I do, I would like to 
thank my partner, the gentleman from Washington, Adam Smith, the 
ranking member on the committee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I, too, want to thank the chairman, Mr. McKeon. We always say that 
our committee is the most bipartisan committee in Congress. We strongly 
believe that. Republicans and Democrats on that committee are committed 
to doing our job, which is to provide for the troops and make sure that 
our national security is protected in this country.
  Mr. McKeon was an excellent partner to work with. It's a model for 
what happens when you sit down and try to legislate together, and 
something that I think could be emulated by many more committees and on 
many more issues.
  So, thank you, Buck. It's been great working with you on this. I 
think we've produced a good product.
  I want to, upfront, address the issue that most people have focused 
on in the rule and elsewhere, and that is the issue surrounding 
detainee policy. I have never seen an issue that was more distorted in 
terms of what people have said is in the bill versus what is actually 
in the bill. Number one, habeas corpus is protected, not touched in 
this bill. Pursuant to court rulings, anyone picked up pursuant to the 
authorization for the use of military force, has habeas corpus rights. 
That is not touched categorically.

  Now I understand that a lot of people have a problem with what is 
current law, and current law is something we've been debating ever 
since 9/11. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration 
have taken the position that indefinite detention is an option. In two 
cases before the Supreme Court, the Hamdi case most notably, a U.S. 
citizen was briefly subject to indefinite detention. The Fourth Circuit 
Court upheld that right. That is current law. And I actually share some 
of the concerns amongst my colleagues about that current law.
  But this bill doesn't affect that. We, in fact, make it clear in our 
category on military detention that it is not meant to apply to U.S. 
citizens or lawful resident aliens. Read the bill. It is in there. 
Nothing in this section shall apply to U.S. citizens or lawful resident 
aliens.
  Now if you have a problem with indefinite detention, that is a 
problem with current law. Defeating this bill will not change that, 
won't change it at all. But I'll tell you what it will do. It will 
undermine the ability of our troops to do their job, to do what we've 
asked them to do. If we defeat this bill, we defeat a pay raise for the 
troops, we defeat MILCON projects for the troops, and we defeat endless 
support programs that are absolutely vital to their doing their jobs. 
And I don't think I need to remind this body that 100,000 of those 
troops are in harm's way in Afghanistan right now facing a determined 
enemy in the middle of a fight. It is not the time to cut off their 
support over an issue that isn't going to be fixed by this bill.
  And let me emphasize that just one more time. Current law as 
interpreted by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and 
the judiciary of this country creates the problems that everybody is 
talking about, not this bill. We put language in on detention policy 
because we think it's about time the legislative branch at least said 
something on the subject. But we are not the ones that created that 
problem.
  I urge support for this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  One issue I want to address is the issue of military construction 
projects for Guam. There is some limiting language in this bill on that 
issue based on the fact that the Department of Defense is rethinking 
their posture in Asia between Okinawa, Guam, and other places. One 
thing I want to make clear is that Guam is a critically important part 
of our Asia presence. They have presence of our military there now. The 
language in the bill is not meant to cut off existing military 
construction projects or indeed other ones that may not be related to 
this. I want to make sure that that's clear.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  It's been a decade since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are in 
danger of losing our most precious heritage, not because a band of 
thugs threatens our freedom, but because we are at risk of forgetting 
who we are and what makes the United States a truly great nation.

                              {time}  1420

  In the last 10 years, we have begun to let go of our freedoms, bit by 
bit, with each new executive order, court decision and, yes, act of 
Congress. The changes in this bill to the laws of detention have major 
implications for our fundamental rights. We should not be considering 
this as a rider to the Defense authorization bill. This should have 
been the subject of close scrutiny by the Judiciary Committee. The 
complex legal and constitutional issues should have been properly 
analyzed and the implications for our values carefully considered.
  You will hear that this bill merely recodifies existing law; but many 
legal scholars tell us that it goes a great deal further than what the 
law now allows, that it codifies claims of executive power against our 
liberties that the courts have never confirmed. You will hear that it 
really won't affect U.S. citizens, although, again, there is credible 
legal authority that tells us just the opposite. You will hear that it 
doesn't really turn the military into a domestic police force, but that 
clearly isn't the case.
  Most of all, you will hear that we must do this to be safe, when the 
opposite is true. We can never be safe without our liberties, and this 
bill continues the decade-long campaign to destroy those liberties.

[[Page H8924]]

  This bill goes far beyond the authorization for the use of military 
force. That resolution authorized ``all necessary and appropriate force 
against those nations, organizations, or persons the President 
determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist 
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such 
organizations or persons.''
  This bill is not limited to those responsible for the September 11 
attacks and those who aided or harbored them. It includes anyone who 
``substantially supported'' al Qaeda and the Taliban or ``associated 
forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its 
coalition partners.'' It is not clear what is meant by ``substantially 
supported'' or what it takes to be ``associated'' with someone who 
``substantially supported'' them. It refers to any ``belligerent act'' 
or someone who has ``directly supported such hostilities in aid of such 
enemy forces.'' It doesn't, as does our criminal law, say ``material 
support,'' so we really don't know whether that support could be merely 
a speech, or an article, or something else.
  So let's not pretend that this is just the same as the AUMF. If it 
were, there would be no need to pass this law; we have it already. 
Courts, in reading legislation, operate on the very sensible assumption 
that Congress doesn't write surplus language, that it must have 
intended to do something. Here it is pretty clear that we are expanding 
the reach of the AUMF beyond the 9/11 perpetrators and those who aided 
and harbored them. Whoever it reaches--and we don't know--but whoever 
it reaches, the government would have the authority to lock them up 
without trial until ``the end of hostilities,'' which, given how 
broadly the AUMF has been used to justify actions far from Afghanistan, 
might mean forever.
  And who will be taken out of the civilian justice system and 
imprisoned forever without a trial? The bill says anyone who ``is 
determined'' to be covered by the statute. It doesn't say determined by 
whom or what protections there are to ensure that an innocent person 
doesn't disappear into a military prison. That's not America.
  We also need to be clear that the so-called ``Feinstein amendment'' 
does not really provide the protection its sponsor intended to provide. 
The Feinstein amendment says that ``nothing in this section shall be 
construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the 
detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the 
United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the 
United States.''
  So what are ``existing law and authorities''? As former FBI Director 
William Sessions has recently written: ``The provision does not limit 
such detention authority to people captured on the battlefield. The 
reality is that current law on the scope of such executive authority is 
unsettled.'' Director Sessions goes on to point out that the two cases 
where the Supreme Court might have decided the question of detaining a 
U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident, the U.S. claimed that the 
President had the authority--the administration claimed that the 
President had the authority to detain a suspected terrorist captured 
within the United States indefinitely without charge or trial.
  In both these cases, Padilla and al-Mari, the government changed 
course and decided to try them in civilian courts in order to avoid a 
Supreme Court ruling on that question, and that question remains 
undetermined.
  So when the Feinstein amendment references ``existing law,'' you 
should not assume that means that current law clearly deprives the 
President of this dangerous power. I hope it does, but it is still, 
legally, an open question. We should ensure that our liberty is 
protected and not leave that question to some future court, and we 
should certainly not enact a law codifying--and that's what this law 
does, it codifies, it puts into law terrifying claims of power made by 
Presidents but never approved by the courts or, until now, by the 
Congress. And that's the fundamental reason we should reject this bill.
  We must take great care. Our liberties are too precious to be cast 
aside in times of peril and fear. We have the tools to deal with those 
who would attack us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  We do not need to do this. We should not do this. And because of this 
momentous challenge to one of the founding principles of the United 
States--that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due 
process of law--this bill must be rejected.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, vice chairman of the committee, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, 
and a member of the conference committee, Mr. Thornberry.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report. It is a broad-ranging conference report that affects everything 
from personnel policies to weapons systems to research and development 
across the Department of Defense and the military. And I especially 
commend Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all the staff who 
have worked all year to make this possible, but have worked especially 
hard in the last few days to make this conference report possible 
before the Congress adjourns.
  There are a number of good, important provisions in this bill that 
strengthen our country's national security. But in light of the 
comments we have recently heard, Mr. Speaker, let me talk just a moment 
about this issue of detention.
  You know, one can put into law ``the sun comes up,'' and if somebody 
comes and says, no, it doesn't, you can present all the evidence and 
you can present words that have clear meaning, and if somebody just 
wants to say, no, it doesn't, you at some level reach an impasse.
  The two provisions related to detention in this bill, the words that 
have been put into the law, are very clear. One says it does not apply 
to U.S. citizens. It does not. Nothing here affects U.S. citizens. The 
other provision says that nothing in this section can be construed to 
affect existing law or authorities related to the detention of U.S. 
citizens.
  Now, it seems to me there may well be people who are uncomfortable 
with the current law, and I understand that. And the proper thing to do 
is to introduce a bill and try to get that amended in some way to get 
it more to your liking. But to argue that this bill changes in some way 
the current law when the words say nothing in this section shall be 
construed to affect existing law or authorities is just not credible.
  The provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are a small step towards 
having this Congress back involved in making those detention decisions. 
I think it is the right small step, and it should be supported.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a very important member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with profound respect for our 
Constitution and for my colleagues and friends who care deeply about 
the impact of this bill on that Constitution. It is because I have 
considered those issues that I would respectfully disagree with some of 
my colleagues and argue for the propriety and constitutionality of this 
bill.
  I would deplore the idea that an American citizen or a permanent 
resident alien could be rounded up and put in a prison in the United 
States of America. This bill does not authorize that scenario. I would 
deplore a circumstance where any person--even a person who is not here 
under some permanent legal status--could be rounded up and put in a 
prison and only a military prison. That is not what this bill 
authorizes. It leaves open the option that such a person could be 
detained in a regular civilian prison or in a military prison.
  I would reject completely the proposition that any person could be 
held in any facility--military or civilian--anywhere in our country 
indefinitely without the right to have the charges that are levied 
against them heard by some

[[Page H8925]]

neutral finder of fact. It is our interpretation that the habeas corpus 
provisions already extend to these individuals. That is to say that a 
nonresident or nonlegal person in the country who is held under such 
circumstances in fact has the right of habeas corpus. I think the law 
requires it. I think the Constitution demands it.

                              {time}  1430

  There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or not that 
conclusion is correct. That is the state of present law. This bill does 
not amend present law in a way that I would like to see it amended by 
clarifying that right of habeas corpus, but it absolutely does not 
erode or reduce whatever protections exist under existing law.
  So those who would share our view that the right of habeas must be 
clarified should work together to pass a statute that does just that, 
but we should not subvert this necessary and important bill.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Members of the House of Representatives, this issue has 
never gone before the House Judiciary Committee--never.
  I have a letter dated December 14 that says:
  ``There has been some debate over whether section 1021 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act merely restates existing law or 
would, for the first time, codify authority for the President to 
indefinitely detain, without charge, virtually anyone picked up in 
antiterrorism efforts, including United States citizens arrested on 
United States soil.
  ``Please find attached a letter from Judge William Sessions, a former 
Federal judge and former Director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan, 
Bush, and Clinton, explaining that current law on this point is 
unclear, and that enacting section 1021 of this act would dangerously 
expand the power for indefinite detention.''
  I would like to place in the Record sundry correspondence, including 
the letter from Judge Sessions.

                                     The Constitution Project,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2011.
       Dear Representative McKeon and Fellow Conferees, I am 
     writing to you with grave concern over the National Defense 
     Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). It is highly regrettable 
     that the Senate passed the NDAA without first stripping it of 
     dangerous provisions regarding the treatment of detainees. 
     But it is not too late to act; as conferees, it is now your 
     task to remove these harmful provisions before the NDAA 
     becomes law. I strongly urge you to do so, and to preserve 
     both our constitutional traditions and our most effective 
     tools in the fight against terrorism.
       If enacted, these detention provisions would for the first 
     time codify authority for methods such as indefinite 
     detention without charge and mandatory military detention, 
     and would authorize their application--on the basis of 
     suspicion alone--to virtually anyone picked up in 
     antiterrorism efforts, including those arrested on U.S. soil. 
     In effect, the U.S. military would become the judge, jury and 
     jailer of terrorism suspects, to the exclusion of the FBI and 
     other law enforcement agencies.
       An astounding array of individuals from across the 
     political spectrum opposes the over-militarization of our 
     counterterrorism efforts, and for good reason. I have 
     attached Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration, 
     organized by The Constitution Project and Human Rights First, 
     in which I joined with over 140 additional former government 
     officials and practitioners from across the political 
     spectrum in explaining that federal courts are the most 
     effective mechanism for trying terrorism cases, and that 
     indefinite detention without charge runs afoul of our 
     Constitution and would harm U.S. interests globally. As a 
     former federal judge, former U.S. Attorney, and former 
     director of the FBI, I myself can attest to the competence of 
     our nation's law enforcement officers and civilian federal 
     courts, as well as the urgency to preserve these tools for 
     use in our counterterrorism efforts.
       Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta similarly opposes this 
     transfer of responsibility to the military. Indeed, virtually 
     the entire national security establishment--including James 
     Clapper, the director of national intelligence; Robert 
     Mueller III, the director of the FBI; David Petraeus, the 
     director 
     of the CIA; White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John 
     Brennan; Lisa Monaco, the assistant attorney general for 
     national security; and Jeh Johnson, general counsel for the 
     Department of Defense--has warned that further restricting 
     the tools at our disposal to combat terrorism is not in the 
     best interest of our national security. I implore you to heed 
     their warning.
       With regard specifically to Section 1031 from the Senate 
     bill, some have argued that Section simply reiterates current 
     law, and by doing so maintains the status quo. That is not 
     the case. This very dangerous provision would authorize the 
     President to subject any suspected terrorist who is captured 
     within the United States--including U.S. citizens and U.S. 
     persons--to indefinite detention without charge. The 
     provision does not limit such detention authority to people 
     captured on the battlefield. Importantly, although subsection 
     (e) of this provision states that the provision should not be 
     ``construed to affect existing law or authorities'' relating 
     to detention of ``persons who are captured or arrested in the 
     United States,'' the reality is that current law on the scope 
     of such executive authority is unsettled.
       In fact, on two occasions when this issue was on track to 
     come before the U.S. Supreme Court, the executive branch 
     changed course so as to avoid judicial review. Specifically, 
     in both the Padilla case in 2005-06 (involving a U.S. 
     citizen) and the al-Marri case in 2008-09 (involving a legal 
     permanent U.S. resident), the U.S. government claimed that 
     the President had the authority to detain a suspected 
     terrorist captured within the United States indefinitely 
     without charge or trial. In both instances, however, before 
     the Supreme Court could hear the case and evaluate this 
     claim, the Justice Department reversed course and charged the 
     defendant with criminal offenses to be tried in civilian 
     court. Thus, this extreme claim of executive detention 
     authority for people captured within the United States has 
     never been tested, and the state of the law at present is 
     unclear. Passage of Section 1031 would explicitly provide 
     this authority by statute for the first time, thereby 
     clearly, and dangerously, expanding the power for indefinite 
     detention.
       I firmly believe that the United States can best preserve 
     its national security by maintaining the use of proven law 
     enforcement methods and our well-tested traditional criminal 
     justice system to combat terrorism. By contrast, enacting the 
     NDAA without first removing the current detainee provisions 
     could pose a genuine threat to our national security and 
     would represent a sweeping and unnecessary departure from our 
     constitutional tradition.
       I therefore urge you, as conferees, to strip these 
     dangerous detainee provisions from the NDAA. Thank you for 
     your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     William S. Sessions.
                                  ____

                                                  October 7, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: We are members of a nonpartisan group of 
     retired generals and admirals who believe that U.S. 
     counterterrorism policies are strongest when they adhere to 
     the rule of law and American values. As such, we write to 
     applaud your leadership in ensuring that the detainee 
     provisions (Section 1031-1033) in the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee's reported version of the Fiscal Year 2012 National 
     Defense Authorization Act do not move forward.
       If passed, we believe these provisions would reshape our 
     counterterrorism policies in ways that would undermine our 
     national security and transform our armed forces into judge, 
     jury and jailor for foreign terrorism suspects. The 
     military's mission is to prosecute wars, not terrorists. The 
     bill would expand the military's mission to detain and try a 
     large category of future foreign terror suspects, which falls 
     outside the military's core competence and erodes faith in 
     the judicial process. It would also authorize the indefinite 
     detention without trial of terrorism suspects, including 
     American citizens captured on U.S. soil--a policy that is 
     contrary to the very American values needed to win this 
     fight.
       As retired military leaders, we believe in the importance 
     of the underlying bill to sustain the strength of our Armed 
     Services. For that reason, we have been advocating against 
     these provisions, and agree with your statement that our 
     nation: must maintain the capability and flexibility to 
     effectively apply the full range of tools at our disposal to 
     combat terrorism. This includes the use of our criminal 
     justice system, which has accumulated an impressive record of 
     success in bringing terrorists to justice. Limitations on 
     that flexibility, or on the availability of critical 
     counterterrorism tools, would significantly threaten our 
     national security.
       With your commitments this week, you took an important step 
     to avert those threats.
           Sincerely,
         General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.); General Charles C. 
           Krulak, USMC (Ret.); General David M. Maddox, USA 
           (Ret.); General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.); General 
           William G. T. Tuttle Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant 
           General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.); Vice Admiral 
           Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.); Lieutenant General Arlen D. 
           Jameson, USAF (Ret.); Lieutenant General Charles 
           Otstott, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Harry E. 
           Soyster, USA (Ret.); Major General Eugene Fox, USA 
           (Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.); Rear 
           Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.); Major General 
           Melvyn S.

[[Page H8926]]

           Montano, USAF (Ret.); Major General William L. Nash, 
           USA (Ret.); Major General Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret.); 
           Major General Antonio `Tony' M. Taguba, USA (Ret.); 
           Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
           General James Cullen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General 
           David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General John H. 
           Johns, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, 
           USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA 
           (Ret.).
                                  ____



                                     The Secretary of defense,

                                Washington, DC, November 15, 2011.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to express the Department of 
     Defense's principal concerns with the latest version of 
     detainee-related language you are considering including in 
     the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 
     2012. We understand the Senate Armed Services Committee is 
     planning to consider this language later today.
       We greatly appreciate your willingness to listen to the 
     concerns expressed by our national security professionals on 
     the version of the NDAA bill reported by the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee in June. I am convinced we all want the 
     same result--flexibility for our national security 
     professionals in the field to detain, interrogate, and 
     prosecute suspected terrorists. The Department has 
     substantial concerns, however, about the revised text, which 
     my staff has just received within the last few hours.
       Section 1032. We recognize your efforts to address some of 
     our objections to section 1032. However, it continues to be 
     the case that any advantages to the Department of Defense in 
     particular and our national security in general in section 
     1032 of requiring that certain individuals be held by the 
     military are, at best, unclear. This provision restrains the 
     Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and 
     flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now 
     legally available.
       Moreover, the failure of the revised text to clarify that 
     section 1032 applies to individuals captured abroad, as we 
     have urged, may needlessly complicate efforts by frontline 
     law enforcement professionals to collect critical 
     intelligence concerning operations and activities within the 
     United States.
       Next, the revised language adds a new qualifier to 
     ``associated force''--``that acts in coordination with or 
     pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda.'' In our view, this 
     new language unnecessarily complicates our ability to 
     interpret and implement this section.
       Further, the new version of section 1032 makes it more 
     apparent that there is an intent to extend the certification 
     requirements of section 1033 to those covered by section 1032 
     that we may want to transfer to a third country. In other 
     words, the certification requirement that currently applies 
     only to Guantanamo detainees would permanently extend to a 
     whole new category of future captures. This imposes a whole 
     new restraint on the flexibility we need to continue to 
     pursue our counterterrorism efforts.
       Section 1033. We are troubled that section 1033 remains 
     essentially unchanged from the prior draft, and that none of 
     the Administration's concerns or suggestions for this 
     provision have been adopted. We appreciate that revised 
     section 1033 removes language that would have made these 
     restrictions permanent, and instead extended them through 
     Fiscal Year 2012 only. As a practical matter, however, 
     limiting the duration of the restrictions to the next fiscal 
     year only will have little impact if Congress simply 
     continues to insert these restrictions into legislation on an 
     annual basis without ever revisiting the substance of the 
     legislation. As national security officials in this 
     Department and elsewhere have explained, transfer 
     restrictions such as those outlined in section 1033 are 
     largely unworkable and pose unnecessary obstacles to 
     transfers that would advance our national security interests.
       Section 1035. Finally, section 1035 shifts to the 
     Department of Defense responsibility for what has previously 
     been a consensus-driven interagency process that was informed 
     by the advice and views of counterterrorism professionals 
     from across the Government. We see no compelling reason--and 
     certainly none has been expressed in our discussions to 
     date--to upset a collaborative, interagency approach that has 
     served our national security so well over the past few years.
       I hope we can reach agreement on these important national 
     security issues, and, as always, my staff is available to 
     work with the Committee on these and other matters.
           Sincerely,
     Leon Panetta.
                                  ____



                            Director of National Intelligence,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairmen, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: I am writing in response to your 
     letter requesting my views on the effect that the detention 
     provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012 could have on the ability of the 
     Intelligence Community to gather counterterrorism 
     information. In my view, some of these provisions could limit 
     the effectiveness of our intelligence and law enforcement 
     professionals at a time when we need the utmost flexibility 
     to defend the nation from terrorist threats. The Executive 
     Branch should have maximum flexibility in these areas, 
     consistent with our law and values, rather than face 
     limitations on our options to acquire intelligence 
     information. As stated in the November 17, 2011, Statement of 
     Administration Policy for S. 1867, ``[a]ny bill that 
     challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities 
     to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, 
     and protect the nation would prompt the President's senior 
     advisers to recommend a veto.''
       Our principal objective upon the capture of a potential 
     terrorist is to obtain intelligence information and to 
     prevent future attacks, yet the provision that mandates 
     military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects 
     could restrict the ability of our nation's intelligence 
     professionals to acquire valuable intelligence and prevent 
     future terrorist attacks. The best method for securing vital 
     intelligence from suspected terrorists varies depending on 
     the facts and circumstances of each case. In the years since 
     September 11, 2001, the Intelligence Community has worked 
     successfully with our military and law enforcement partners 
     to gather vital intelligence in a wide variety of 
     circumstances at home and abroad and I am concerned that some 
     of these provisions will make it more difficult to continue 
     to have these successes in the future.
       Taken together, the various detention provisions, even with 
     the proposed waivers, would introduce unnecessary rigidity at 
     a time when our intelligence, military, and law enforcement 
     professionals are working more closely than ever to defend 
     our nation effectively and quickly from terrorist attacks. 
     These limitations could deny our nation the ability to 
     respond flexibly and appropriately to unfolding events--
     including the capture of terrorism suspects--and restrict a 
     process that currently encourages intelligence collection 
     through the preservation of all lawful avenues of detention 
     and interrogation.
       Our intelligence professionals are best served when they 
     have the greatest flexibility to collect intelligence from 
     suspected terrorists. I am concerned that the detention 
     provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act could 
     reduce this flexibility.
           Sincerely,
     James R. Clapper.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                              Federal Bureau of Investigation,

                                    Washington, DC, Nov. 28, 2011.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express concerns 
     regarding the impact of certain aspects of the current 
     version of Section 1032 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Because the proposed legislation 
     applies to certain persons detained in the United States, the 
     legislation may adversely impact our ability to continue 
     ongoing international terrorism investigations before or 
     after arrest, derive intelligence from those investigations, 
     and may raise extraneous issues in any future prosecution of 
     a person covered by Section 1032.
       The legislation as currently proposed raises two principal 
     concerns. First, by establishing a presumption of military 
     detention for covered individuals within the United States, 
     the legislation introduces a substantial element of 
     uncertainty as to what procedures are to be followed in the 
     course of a terrorism investigation in the United States. 
     Even before the decision to arrest is made, the question of 
     whether a Secretary of Defense waiver is necessary for the 
     investigation to proceed will inject uncertainty as to the 
     appropriate course for further investigation up to and beyond 
     the moment when the determination is made that there is 
     probable cause for an arrest.
       Section 1032 may be read to divest the FBI and other 
     domestic law enforcement agencies of jurisdiction to continue 
     to investigate those persons who are known to fall within the 
     mandatory strictures of section 1032, absent the Secretary's 
     waiver. The legislation may call into question the FBI's 
     continued use or scope of its criminal investigative or 
     national security authorities in further investigation of the 
     subject. The legislation may restrict the FBI from using the 
     grand jury to gather records relating to the covered person's 
     communication or financial records, or to subpoena witnesses 
     having information on the matter. Absent a statutory basis 
     for further domestic investigation, Section 1032 may be 
     interpreted by the courts as foreclosing the FBI from 
     conducting any further investigation of the covered 
     individual or his associates.
       Second, the legislation as currently drafted will inhibit 
     our ability to convince covered arrestees to cooperate 
     immediately, and provide critical intelligence. The 
     legislation introduces a substantial element of uncertainty 
     as to what procedures are to be followed at perhaps the most 
     critical time in the development of an investigation against 
     a covered person. Over the past decade we have had numerous 
     arrestees, several of whom would arguably have been covered 
     by the statute, who have provided important intelligence 
     immediately after they have been arrested, and in some 
     instances for days and weeks thereafter. In the context of 
     the arrest, they have been persuaded that it was in their 
     best interests to provide essential information while the 
     information was current and useful to the arresting 
     authorities.
       Nonetheless, at this crucial juncture, in order for the 
     arresting agents to proceed to

[[Page H8927]]

     obtain the desired cooperation, the statute requires that a 
     waiver be obtained from the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of 
     National Intelligence, with certification by the Secretary to 
     Congress that the waiver was in the national security 
     interests of the United States. The proposed statute 
     acknowledges that this is a significant point in an ongoing 
     investigation. It provides that surveillance and intelligence 
     gathering on the arrestee's associates should not be 
     interrupted. Likewise, the statute provides that an ongoing 
     interrogation session should not be interrupted.
       These limited exceptions, however, fail to recognize the 
     reality of a counterterrorism investigation. Building rapport 
     with, and convincing a covered individual to cooperate once 
     arrested, is a delicate and time sensitive skill that 
     transcends any one interrogation session. It requires 
     coordination with other aspects of the investigation. 
     Coordination with the prosecutor's office is also often an 
     essential component of obtaining a defendant's cooperation. 
     To halt this process while the Secretary of Defense 
     undertakes the mandated consultation, and the required 
     certification is drafted and provided to Congress, would set 
     back our efforts to develop intelligence from the subject.
       We appreciate that Congress has sought to address our 
     concerns in the latest version of the bill, but believe that 
     the legislation as currently drafted remains problematic for 
     the reasons set forth above. We respectfully ask that you 
     take into account these concerns as Congress continues to 
     consider Section 1032.
           Sincerely,
                                            Robert S. Mueller III,
                                                         Director.

  I know you gentlemen have studied this in the Armed Services 
Committee; but I've got a letter from the former head of the FBI and 
Judge Williams Sessions, and another letter from 23 generals and 
admirals saying the same thing. I know you're very learned people and 
very conscientious, but, please, when the heads of the FBI, 
Republicans, judges, all tell you that you're doing the wrong thing, 
what does it take for us to vote this down; because this provision 
allows, for the first time, we codify a court decision that will now 
make it okay to lock up U.S. citizens for terrorism.
  This is what it says, Mr. Chairman.
  I will read it again:
  ``There has been some debate''----
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Will the gentleman yield for a point of 
clarification?
  That person----
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman let me recognize him on his own time? 
I only have 3 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would like to remind my colleagues that provisions 
within the conference report impact our civil liberties and should have 
been referred to the Judiciary Committee for review. The conference 
report dangerously expands existing authorizations pertaining to 
individuals detained by the United States government and the military.
  First, Section 1021 grants broad discretionary authority that could 
permit the indefinite detention of United States citizens, areas of law 
that should have been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
  Secondly, Section 1021 is not the current law of the land and instead 
is new and dangerously extensive detention authority that has its 
origins in case law that never involved questions of whether American 
citizens could be indefinitely detained.
  Third, Section 1022 violates due process by permitting indefinite 
military detention without charge or trial.
  Next, the conference report ignores the concerns of members of our 
intelligence community, domestic law enforcement, and former generals 
who have opposed these provisions because they would undermine the 
ability of the government to interrogate and prosecute suspected 
terrorists.
  Lastly, the conference report displaces the legal expertise necessary 
for trying successful terrorism cases.
  First, Section 1021 grants broad discretionary authority that could 
permit the indefinite detention of United States citizens. The 
indeterminate breadth of conference report provides little or no 
protection against the indefinite detention of United States citizens. 
In addition, it threatens our constitutional protections and civil 
liberties.
  I would like to know why an amendment to exempt American citizens 
from indefinite military detention failed in the Senate. If we were 
concerned about preserving the civil liberties and constitutional 
protections for American citizens, why did it fail? In addition, if 
existing laws prohibit this, why did we not specify this in the bill? 
Although supporters of this bill continue to claim that this bill would 
not expand detention authority inside of the U.S., that is just not the 
case.
  There are too many questions that affect our civil liberties in the 
conference report that should have been referred to the Judiciary 
Committee for review and clarification. For example, Section 1021 is 
broad in its definition of ``hostilities'', what constitutes ``directly 
supporting hostilities in aid of enemy forces,'' and does not address 
the question of when or how do we determine ``the end of hostilities.''
  Former FBI Director under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton and former Judge, 
Williams S. Sessions, recently wrote to the conferees explaining that 
``This very dangerous provision would authorize the President to 
subject any suspected terrorist who is captured within the United 
States--including U.S. citizens and U.S. persons--to indefinite 
detention without charge. The provision does not limit such detention 
authority to people captured on the battlefield. Importantly, although 
subsection (e) of this provision states that the provision should not 
be `construed to affect existing law or authorities' relating to 
detention of persons who are captured or arrested in the United 
States,' the reality is that current law on the scope of such executive 
authority is unsettled.''
  With so much ambiguity, this bill could authorize detention--into 
perpetuity--United States citizens who in some instances--such as 
making statements protected under the First Amendment--could arguably 
be considered subject to indefinite detention under this provision.
  In addition, Section 1021 does not expressly address whether U.S. 
citizens or lawful resident aliens may be determined as ``covered 
persons'' subject to detention under the section. Although the 
conference report includes the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, 
the conference report leaves definitions that are very broad of who can 
be detained without charge or trial.
  Secondly, let me remind my colleagues that Section 1021 is not the 
current law of the land. The definition in Section 1021 was used by the 
Obama Administration to continue to detain indefinitely without charge 
or trial detainees at Guantanamo Bay, GITMO. This definition was used 
in court cases dealing with GITMO detainees, NOT American citizens. 
Thus, the question is whether this Congress wants the same GITMO 
detainee standard applied to American citizens? Do you want our 
government treating American citizens that way?
  Section 1021 states that ``Nothing in the section shall be construed 
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of 
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or 
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.'' 
This does not mean that American citizens are protected.
  I am very troubled today to have learned that when an amendment came 
up in the Senate to address these protections for American 
citizens, members of the Senate stated that they would want room in the 
law for an American citizen to fall under this new and broad 
definition.

  No one at GITMO is an American citizen and the only cases that deal 
with this type of indefinite detention without charge or trial are 
GITMO detainee cases. So there is no good law out there.
  Thus, if existing laws do impact the civil liberties of American 
citizens, then we need to be changing those laws instead of codifying 
them.
  Thirdly, the conference report violates due process and rejects our 
American values. The United States Constitution grants specific due 
process rights to citizens that guarantee they will be charged and 
brought to trial in the event they are apprehended by law enforcement. 
However, Section 1022 militarizes our justice system and could allow 
United States citizens to be detained by the military without charge or 
trail.
  We take an oath every Congress to uphold the Constitution and to 
guard its values and protections for American citizens. Earlier this 
year, members of this body stood before the American people and read 
the Constitution. Yet I must inquire whether that was theatrics or did 
we intend to follow through with our obligation? The broad definitions 
in 1022 could include American citizens under indefinite military 
detention, and thus must be opposed if we are to be protectors of the 
Constitution.
  Next, this Congress has ignored the concerns of our national 
intelligence community. Changes into Section 1022 will undermine the 
ability of the government to interrogate and prosecute suspected 
terrorists.
  The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, Director of the FBI, Robert 
Mueller, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, CIA 
professionals, along with dozens of retired generals and professional 
interrogators have rejected this proposal because it is a 
militarization of our justice system and some have stated that these 
provisions are unwise and unworkable.
  Members of the House claim that out of respect for our military we 
need to pass this authorization. However, passing this bill ignores

[[Page H8928]]

their concerns and will negatively impact operations that preserve our 
national security. Under the provisions of the conference report, 
intelligence and domestic law enforcement would lose authority to take 
further action with terrorist suspects in U.S. custody absent a wavier 
from the President--which still thwarts the information gathering that 
is crucial at that time of arrest.
  This provision in the conference report will cause controversy and 
chaos in handling terrorism investigations. Tying the hands of our 
intelligence and law enforcement professionals would also cause 
unnecessary delays in justice.
  These provisions also harm our national security by threatening the 
global reputation of the United States. Under President Obama, the 
image of the United States has been restored as well as the rule of 
law. However, the conference report rejects our national values of 
democracy, due process, and justice by authorizing the military's role 
in domestic law enforcement.
  Lastly, the conference report displaces the legal expertise necessary 
for trying successful terrorism cases. A bi-partisan alliance of our 
national defense and intelligence community--including retired 
generals--have spoken out against provisions in Section 1022 that 
provide for military commissions to conduct terrorism trials.
  The military has not even completed 3 percent of the case load that 
the Justice Department has completed. Military tribunals have completed 
six terrorism cases, compared to the Justice Department's case load of 
close to 400 cases with a 90 percent conviction rate to go along with 
that. To date, there is no record of any federal court unable to 
convict a terrorist.
  This is not a responsibility the military wants, therefore Congress 
should not insist on the use of military tribunals in order to sound 
tougher on terrorists. We should not treat terrorists like warriors. 
Federal courts and our Justice Department can deliver harsher sentences 
and are better equipped to handle such cases. In addition, Article III 
Judges and the Department of Justice are more versed in the body of law 
that covers such cases.
  I was also disappointed that the conference report failed to adopt 
Senate-passed language proposed by Senators Merkley, Paul, and Lee 
calling for expedited transition of responsibility for military and 
security operations in Afghanistan to the Afghan government.
  Specifically, this amendment would have required the President to 
devise and submit to Congress a plan to expedite the drawdown of U.S. 
combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerate the transfer of security 
authority to Afghan authorities.
  The conference report amended the amendment's language to change the 
focus from drawing down our troop footprint to empowering and building 
up the Afghan security forces. While a worthy goal unto itself, this 
language changed the focus of the amendment and undermined the the 
message expressed by the entire Senate through the Merkley Amendment. 
Including this provision would have sent an important message about our 
country's commitment to bringing the war in Afghanistan to a 
responsible end. It is unfortunate that the report does not reflect a 
position supported by a majority of the American people.

  I also support efforts to enhance the ability of Customs & Border 
Protection to prevent counterfeit goods from being imported into the 
United States. However, Section 8 of this bill will disrupt the flow of 
genuine brand name products into the United States.
  This is true because many of the goods which CBP inspectors view with 
suspicion are in fact genuine goods, lawfully moving in distribution 
streams parallel to the authorized distributors. These transactions are 
desirable because they provide U.S. consumers with price competition 
and wider distribution of brand name products.
  However, the existence of these transactions is often under attack by 
trademark and copyright owners who actively seek to control resale 
pricing and downstream distribution of the products they have already 
sold into commerce. Section 8 will give anti-competitive companies a 
new tool by giving them confidential information about competing 
parallel imports at their times of arrival, while they are still 
detained by CBP and unavailable to the importer, and without giving the 
importer an opportunity to prove its goods are genuine, and without 
even giving notice to the importer that its information has been shared 
with a competitor seeking to prevent its lawful transaction.
  This problem could be minimized if Section 8 is limited to goods 
raising national security concerns or purchases by the military. I 
believe that is the intent of this provision of the Department of 
Defense Appropriation bill.
  This problem could also be minimized if this bill or CBP would adopt 
the safeguards which the Administration proposes be included in the 
Customs Reauthorization Act. This would be appropriate since Section 8 
provides that it sunsets when the Customs Reauthorization is adopted. 
The safeguards include a requirement that the Secretary find there is a 
need for disclosing confidential information, and that CBP provide the 
importer with notice and an opportunity to respond before any 
confidential information is released to other private parties.
  For some reason, we are adopting this provision in anticipation of a 
more thoughtful approach in the Customs Reauthorization Act. This is 
not a wise or needed course of action. CBP today can provide redacted 
samples to IP owners and very often that is sufficient to determine if 
they are genuine or counterfeit.
  CBP today keeps suspicious goods out of U.S. commerce while it 
determines if they are genuine. The safeguards proposed by the 
administration will not put suspicious goods into commerce nor delay 
the final determination of CBP because there is an existing 30-day 
requirement that is not altered by any proposed legislation.
  We must not be willing to compromise our civil liberties and American 
values for the false sense of enhancing security. I urge members to 
vote no on the Conference report and do what is right for America, its 
people, and the rule of law.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces and a member of the 
conference committee, Mr. Bartlett.
  Mr. BARTLETT. I rise in support of the conference report for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. This is the 
50th consecutive conference report for the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I have the honor of serving as the chairman of the Tactical Air and 
Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services Committee. Under the 
full committee leadership of Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, 
the support of Silvestre Reyes, our subcommittee's ranking member, and 
a superb staff, ours is truly a bipartisan effort.
  Consideration of this conference report comes at a critical period 
for our Nation and our military. World events and the Nation's fiscal 
circumstances have challenged our government's will and capacity to 
constructively address the enormity of the challenges we face. We need 
to develop a new national military strategy that better reflects the 
current and projected threat and fiscal environment. This is needed to 
facilitate full and balanced consideration of force structure and 
equipment investment plans and programs.
  Our first priority and immediate requirement is to fully support our 
personnel serving overseas in Afghanistan and the many other countries 
where we have asked them to serve under the daily, constant threat to 
their personal survival. This conference report properly reflects this 
immediate requirement.
  The National Defense Authorization Act Conference Report authorizes 
an additional $325 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment 
unfunded requirements; $3 billion is provided to support urgent 
operational needs and to counter improvised explosive device 
activities; $2.7 billion is provided to support Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected Vehicle modernization and survivability enhancements; and 
$2.4 billion is provided for Army and Marine Corps Tactical Wheeled 
Vehicles, including $155 million for development of the Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicle.
  To meet projected future needs, an additional $255 million is 
provided to support the Abrams Tank industrial base and National Guard 
tank modernization, increasing the request of 21 to 70 tank upgrades, 
avoiding a production break in the tank upgrade program; $8.5 billion 
is provided for F-35 multiservice aircraft; $3.2 billion is provided 
for 40 aircraft in two models of F-18 aircraft; $2.4 billion is 
provided for V-22 Ospreys for the Marine Corps and the Air Force; and 
multiyear procurement is authorized for various models of Army and Navy 
H-60 helicopters.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land 
Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

[[Page H8929]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Act. This bill represents months of hard work by 
Members on both sides of the aisle. And I especially wanted to thank my 
friend and chairman, Mr. McKeon, and Ranking Member Smith, as well as 
my chairman, Roscoe Bartlett, for the inclusive work that was done in 
this legislation.
  It is important to note what this bill does not include. During 
conference negotiations, unnecessary provisions limiting the work of 
military chaplains were dropped. Now the bill will allow the repeal of 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell to proceed so that troops who defend our values 
will have protections that they have fought to defend.
  Working with the White House, our committee achieved a final 
compromise on detainees that does not grant broad new authority for the 
detention of U.S. citizens and does not establish a new authority for 
indefinite detention of terrorists. The bill strikes a reasonable 
balance between protecting our Nation from terrorists like those who 
attacked our Nation on September the 11th and protecting our American 
values. It demonstrates that we do not need to sacrifice our civil 
liberties to be safe.
  Finally, I urge Members to support this legislation because it also 
includes a pay raise for our troops and provides funds for the care 
needed to recover from the wounds of war. The bill improves access to 
mental health care for members of the National Guard and Reserves, and 
the bill also expands and improves laws dealing with sexual assault and 
harassment.
  I ask all Members to vote for this very important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a unique position in 
Congress in that I serve both on the House Armed Services Committee and 
the House Judiciary Committee. The House Armed Services Committee is 
charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of America 
from external threats. The Judiciary Committee is charged with the 
awesome responsibility of protecting the rights of Americans to live 
freely and protecting that from internal threats.

                              {time}  1440

  I know that my service on the Armed Services Committee has been good, 
and I appreciate the bipartisanship with which our chairman and the 
ranking member addressed the issues for keeping America safe from 
external threat. I must commend you for, at very difficult times, in 
reaching this particular product.
  However, I rise in opposition to this defense authorization bill 
reached in conference committee because it does disturb the rights that 
Americans have come to enjoy under our Constitution.
  We have sworn to uphold our Constitution of the United States of 
America regardless of which committee you serve on. Yet we're about to 
give our seal of approval to a bill that gives the military the 
authority to hold American citizens captured abroad on suspicion of 
terrorism, and to hold them indefinitely without trial.
  This is a codification of an unfortunate Supreme Court ruling that is 
wrong, and it gives that ruling statutory legitimacy.
  Mr. Speaker, we must reject indefinite detention of Americans and 
defend the Constitution. An American arrested abroad could be subject 
to indefinite detention abroad, and that's wrong. No matter how you 
spin it, it's wrong. It's unjust, it's Orwellian, and it's not who we 
are.
  As Americans, we don't put Americans in jail indefinitely without 
trial no matter how heinous the accusations against them. This is not 
what we are about. This is not who we are. It's against our values as 
Americans, and for this reason, I cannot support the bill.
  The bill also makes the military, not civilian law enforcement 
authorities, responsible for custody and prosecution in the military 
courts of foreign terrorist suspects apprehended within the United 
States. This provision disrespects and demoralizes our law enforcement 
officers and prosecutors who are responsible for protecting our 
national security using the United States criminal justice system and 
process, which has been effectively used repeatedly to investigate, 
arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate for long stints individuals who are 
convicted of terrorism.
  Imagine you're an FBI agent or a Federal prosecutor with a tremendous 
record finding, arresting, convicting, locking up terrorists. Now 
you're told to step aside so that the military can do your job for you. 
The military is a machine of war, not a law enforcement agency.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you.
  That's why the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the 
FBI, the Director of the CIA, the head of the Justice Department's 
National Security division, and the Secretary of Defense himself oppose 
this provision.
  More than 400 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian courts. 
Only a handful of cases have been brought before military tribunals, 
and not all of them have been successful.
  If it ain't broke, ladies and gentlemen, don't fix it.
  Terrorism is a crime, and our law enforcement authorities, our 
prosecutors, our judges are more than up to the task. This bill ties 
the hands of law enforcement, militarizes counterterrorism on our own 
soil, and makes us less safe.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents sent us here to provide for the common 
defense, yes, but they also sent us here to safeguard their liberty.
  So I ask my colleagues to think long and hard about this vote, and I 
ask the staffers watching this on C-SPAN to think long and hard before 
making their recommendations. Reject indefinite detention, empower 
civilian law enforcement, and defend the Constitution.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Protection Forces and a member of the 
conference committee, Mr. Akin.
  Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I think that perhaps before we give the report on the status of 
seapower, I would make the comment that if this sequestration goes 
through, which people are talking about, it gravely influences the 
ability of our country to protect itself, and it hollows out our force. 
As it is, if that were to go through, we would have the smallest Navy 
or a Navy smaller than we had in the year 1916.
  However, this particular authorization bill has some good aspects. 
One of the things it does is support the construction of 10 new ships 
in the budget request. The bill also is going to require a competitive 
acquisition strategy for the main engine of the next-generation bomber. 
That's a place we've gotten in trouble before. It allows the retirement 
of six B-1 aircraft but still maintains the requirement for 36 aircraft 
for the next 2 years.
  It provides the recommended force from the Air Force of the strategic 
airlift of 301 aircraft comprised of C-17s and C-5s. It also requires 
the GAO to conduct an annual review on the new tanker program which the 
military has just entered into.
  I would be remiss if I didn't call our attention to a historic 
pattern that has occurred all through America's past. That is, in times 
of peace, we keep cutting defense and cutting defense, and then some 
war comes up and we don't have what we need, and we sacrifice a lot of 
lives and money. We also give ourselves fewer political possibilities 
because we are not prepared.
  We are rapidly approaching that same mistake once again in our 
history with the danger of the sequestration. We've already taken 
almost a 10 percent cut in defense, $450 billion. As a Navy guy, what 
that means is 45 aircraft carriers. That's how much we've cut. We only 
have 11 in the Navy. You're not supposed to lose them or sink them. 
This would be the equivalent of cutting 45 aircraft carriers. That's 
before sequestration. We must be careful.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California, the ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, Mrs. 
Davis.

[[Page H8930]]

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  As the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I am 
pleased that this bill includes a number of provisions that continues 
our commitment to our men and women in uniform as well as their 
dedicated families.
  First, I want to thank my chairman, Joe Wilson, for his support and 
assistance. I would also like to recognize Chairman McKeon and Ranking 
Member Smith for their leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report as it 
supports our military and their families who have faced the stress and 
the strains of a decade at war.
  The conference report includes a 1.6 percent pay raise for our 
troops. And it will also require the Department of Defense to enhance 
suicide prevention programs. It allows servicemembers to designate any 
individual, regardless of their relationship, to direct how their 
remains are treated.
  This bill will also allow service Secretaries to permit members to 
participate in an apprenticeship program that provides employment 
skills training. It makes significant enhancements to the sexual 
assault and harassment policies of the DOD, such as requiring full-time 
sexual assault coordinators and victim advocates, ensuring access to 
legal assistance, and allowing for the consideration of a permanent 
change of station.
  And, finally, H.R. 1540 will ensure future TRICARE prime enrollment 
fees are tied to increases in military retired pay cost of living 
adjustments.
  The bill before us continues to recognize the sacrifices of those who 
serve our Nation in uniform. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. I wish to thank Ranking Member Smith for his support 
for Guam, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1540, the conference 
report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012. If I were able to vote on the final passage of this 
legislation, I would vote against this bill.
  The bill completely ignores the important efforts that this 
administration has taken to better posture our military forces in the 
Pacific. Furthermore, we undercut efforts, significant efforts, by 
Prime Minister Noda, in Japan, in trying to achieve progress with the 
development of a Futenma replacement facility.
  I am deeply concerned about this bill because there is constant talk 
in this Chamber about recognizing the importance of the Asia-Pacific 
region, and now we are going in the opposite direction. People discuss 
their concerns about the potential threats posed by both China and 
North Korea. Yet when this country and this administration ask the 
Congress to act in our best national interest to realign forces in the 
Pacific, we blink. We are all talk and no action on this very important 
issue. I understand the budget realities that we currently face; but we 
must make the necessary hard choices and investments now, or it will 
cost more money and time in the long run.
  That said, it is important for our partners in Japan to continue the 
progress they are making to begin the construction of a replacement 
facility for Futenma in northern Okinawa. It is important for Prime 
Minister Noda to continue to show leadership and present an 
environmental impact statement to the Governor of Okinawa by the end of 
this year. In addition, we must have further progress toward the 
permitting of a landfill so that we can finally move forward with this 
realignment. Right or wrong, the patience of those in the Senate has 
run out, and it is important to have more action and less rhetoric in 
Okinawa.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. BORDALLO. The cuts to infrastructure funding on Guam are simply 
punitive, and they fly in the face of the unified action by both the 
House and Senate appropriators. This Congress has uniformly stated that 
infrastructure improvements are needed on Guam to sustain any type of 
additional military presence. Yet once again, our rhetoric does not 
match our words.
  I will continue to work to make sure that we get funding to address 
critical infrastructure needs. As such, I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a 
colloquy with my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to fulfill my 
constitutional duty of ensuring that the liberties and freedoms are 
protected of the men and women that this bill authorizes to fight for. 
The protections bestowed on U.S. citizens are the ones that I am 
concerned with the most.
  The question now upon us is whether or not the NDAA impacts the 
rights of a U.S. citizen to receive due process to challenge the 
legality of detention by the executive before an article III court.
  Mr. McKEON. This conference report does no such thing. It in no way 
affects the rights of U.S. citizens.
  Mr. LANDRY. My concern is that when the writ is suspended, the 
government is entirely free of judicial oversight.
  So do we agree that no section of the NDAA purports to suspend the 
writ of habeas corpus?
  Mr. McKEON. I agree completely.
  Mr. LANDRY. Do you agree that, as the Supreme Court has held, ``a 
state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to 
the rights of our citizens''?
  Mr. McKEON. I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. LANDRY. Will the chairman assure me that together we will work 
with the committee to further clarify the language contained in this 
bill in order to ensure that the clear and precise language which 
protects the constitutional rights of American citizens is protected?
  Mr. McKEON. I do, and I will be happy to work with you to that end.
  Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act that is before us today.
  I want to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all the 
members of the Armed Services Committee who have worked to ensure that 
significant protections for our servicemembers are included in this 
year's bill, particularly for those who are survivors of military 
sexual trauma.
  I also want to highlight the inclusion of a long-term reauthorization 
of the Small Business Innovation Research program. It is the 
government's most effective research and development program, creating 
jobs and fostering innovation in Massachusetts and across the country; 
and it plays a critical role in the Department of Defense.
  The bill before us today ensures that the SBIR program retains its 
proper focus on true small businesses--creating a platform for needed 
job growth while guaranteeing that our Armed Forces continue to have 
access to the best technology available.
  I urge its passage.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Mr. Wilson.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for your 
commitment to military servicemembers, family members, and veterans.
  Before I begin, I want to commend Vice Chairman Mac Thornberry for 
his clarification of the detainee issue, which is that the issue does 
not apply to U.S. citizens. This is directed at al Qaeda--illegal enemy 
combatants--not at U.S. citizens.

[[Page H8931]]

  The military personnel provisions of H.R. 1540 provide new and 
important authorities to support the men and women in uniform and their 
families. Some of the more important personnel provisions contained in 
the conference agreement are: a 1.6 percent increase in military basic 
pay; a revised policy for measuring and reporting unit operations tempo 
and personnel tempo, especially when we must continue our resolve for 
victory in the current mission requirements.
  Another initiative important to my constituents is the reform of the 
military recruiting system to include graduates of home schooling and 
virtual schools. I see military service as opportunity and fulfilling, 
and these are extraordinary patriots who deserve the opportunity to 
serve.
  The conference agreement would make the chief of the National Guard 
Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Furthermore, the 
agreement clarifies the legal authority for the oversight of Arlington 
National Cemetery, a national shrine for veterans.
  I believe this bill is also strong in the multiple provisions dealing 
with sexual assault; and it provides new authority, such as temporary 
early retirement, to ease the impact of future military personnel 
reductions.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time each side has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the 
Emerging Threats Subcommittee.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  I would like to begin by thanking Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member 
Smith, and my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Thornberry, for their 
leadership and commitment to keeping our Nation safe and protecting our 
servicemembers. As a conferee, I was proud to join them in signing the 
conference report Monday night, and I am even more proud of our 
excellent staff that completed a full conference in a record 1 week's 
time.
  As ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, I am 
especially pleased with the inclusion of significant funding for 
special operations forces, the full reauthorization of the SBIR program 
to support our job-creating small businesses, and also the inclusion of 
important cyberprotections to prevent future incidents similar to 
WikiLeaks.
  This bill will also ensure the long-term strength of programs 
critical to our naval dominance and strategic posture, such as the 
purchase of two new Virginia class submarines, fully funding the 
development of the Ohio replacement submarine, and continuing work on 
the first Zumwalt DDG-1000 destroyer.
  Further, the conference committee successfully removed damaging 
language that would have ended efforts by DOD to procure clean 
alternative fuel technology in order to break our dependence on foreign 
oil and reduce our carbon footprint, which DOD officials have stated 
are both high risks to our national security.
  Finally, while I'm concerned that we were unable to remove some 
harmful measures requiring that terrorist detainees be held in military 
custody, provisions included in this bill help address concerns about 
potential detention of U.S. citizens in military custody and the 
flexibility of counterterrorism efforts by the FBI.
  In closing, this legislation supports the incredible sacrifices that 
our brave men and women in uniform make for our country every day and 
provides critical resources to carry out vital national security 
projects.
  With that, I am proud to serve on the House Armed Services Committee 
and to serve with Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. I commend 
them for the great work they have done in producing a good bill, and I 
appreciate the staff for their great work as well.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Virginia will control the time of the gentleman from California.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces and member of the conference committee, Mr. Turner.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in speaking in 
favor of passage of the conference report on the FY12 NDAA.
  As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I would like to 
walk through some of the key provisions of the conference report.
  This conference report imposes checks on the administration's plans 
for nuclear reductions by requiring assessments of those reductions 
from the STRATCOM commander before any nuclear weapons reductions are 
made. It also requires the administration to disclose its plans for 
future reductions and reasserts congressional oversight of the Nation's 
nuclear war plan.
  Concerning the proposed LightSquared network, we have retained House 
and Senate provisions that will ensure that the FCC will not be able to 
give final approval to that network unless it resolves concerns about 
impacts to our national security. Recent press reports indicate that, 
per new test results, LightSquared's proposed network continues to 
create unacceptable interference to DOD GPS systems.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Rodney 
Frelinghuysen for their support of the NNSA vital nuclear weapons 
programs.
  And I would also like to discuss an issue that is important to our 
men and women in uniform, impacts our Air Force's readiness, and forces 
servicemembers to choose between their service to their Nation and 
their families. This is the issue of military child custody.
  A short time after becoming a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I was struck to learn that this country's judicial system 
was using a servicemember's deployment against them when making child 
custody determinations. Just to be clear, we're asking an all-volunteer 
force, which consists of less than 1 percent of our population, to 
engage in the longest conflict in our Nation's history, endure more 
deployments than any other generation in our history, and do so at the 
peril of losing custody of their children upon return.
  Recognizing this unconscionable injustice, the House Armed Services 
Committee has included language in the past five National Defense 
Authorization Acts to provide servicemembers a uniform standard of 
protection. This provision has also made it through the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee.
  Unfortunately, despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the House 
and the support of the Department of Defense, the Senate has once again 
failed our servicemembers and their families. It appears that they are 
operating on false information.
  This provision should pass the House, and we are going to continue to 
stand for our servicemembers.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the 
members of this committee.
  This is a very tough decision. But in the midst of welcoming home 
many of our troops, I believe it is important to look at aspects of 
this legislation that have been corrected and aspects that have been 
enhanced.
  Let me thank the members of the committee for the enhancement of the 
small business technology and the efforts on research and development. 
Let me thank them for the response on sexual assault and harassment 
policies that have been improved, as well as the improvement of the 
military pay for our military families and soldiers, and the enhanced 
resources that have been

[[Page H8932]]

put in to help our soldiers return to the workplace.
  But I am concerned. And as I have reviewed this, let me specifically 
yield to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member, and ask a 
question on detention, about which I think so many are concerned.
  It is my understanding, along with present law, that this has been 
vetted, the language of detention and the response to civilians, 
American civilians and legal aliens have been vetted to be in sync with 
the Constitution, due process, and the right to habeas corpus if 
individuals are detained.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Yes. That was a huge priority for me in the 
conference committee. We worked hard to make sure that that happened, 
and we absolutely protect those rights.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. And I believe also that Congress has the 
privilege to be notified if someone is detained and has the ability to 
both intervene or interact with the executive, the President, on the 
particularly unique circumstances of a U.S. citizen being detained as a 
person that may be involved in terrorist acts.
  I thank the gentleman and would argue the point that this is a 
difficult call but that this bill has value because it improves the law 
on the question of detention and compliance with the Constitution. It 
also improves the lives of our soldiers and families.
  I support the legislation.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the conference 
committee, Mr. Schilling.
  Mr. SCHILLING. I rise today in support of the NDAA conference 
agreement. First I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for shepherding this bill through the committee and through the 
Armed Services Committee and for really doing a great job for our brave 
men and women.
  This marks the 50th year of the NDAA passing, and it is truly an 
example of bipartisan cooperation for the good of our country. I 
appreciate the opportunity I have had, serving on this important 
conference. And I believe that what we have put together is a great 
framework that is fiscally responsible and supportive of our troops and 
national security.
  Included in this bill were provisions that would help support our 
military organic base, including arsenals like the one I represent in 
Rock Island. I am proud to represent this national treasure found 
within the Department of Defense. The Rock Island Arsenal and its 8,600 
employees have worked hard for our country.
  One of the provisions that was included in the NDAA allows our Army 
industrial facilities to enter into private-public partnerships under 
section 4544. This provision does away with the cap on these 
partnerships and ends the sunset date.
  I urge strong support and passage of the bill.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes I will offer a motion to recommit that 
would strike a misguided provision in the conference report that would 
exempt Tricare network providers from our labor protection laws.
  Section 715 of this conference report excludes the Tricare network 
health care providers from being considered subcontractors for purposes 
of any law. Section 715 is nothing but an attempt to override pending 
litigation and long-standing civil rights law under Executive Order 
11246 of 1965, section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the 
Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
  The civil rights protections contained in these laws have existed for 
decades, and they've served to protect millions of workers from race, 
sex, and other forms of illegal discrimination. Large Federal 
contractors are simply required to have an affirmative action plan to 
ensure that minority groups are not being discriminated against and 
that the Department of Labor reviews the records. The law currently 
exempts employers with fewer than 50 employees who do not meet minimum 
contract value requirements.
  The health care industry employed approximately 16 million workers in 
2009. Hospitals and similar entities employ tens of thousands of 
minorities, women, veterans and low-wage workers, groups that 
historically and currently depend on the basic assurances of fair 
treatment. The health care industry is the largest growing sector of 
employment in this country.
  Veterans would be especially hard hit under this change in the law. 
There are close to 900,000 unemployed veterans in America right now. 
Despite their unique experience and leadership skills, wounded warriors 
and veterans often struggle to find meaningful employment in the 
civilian sector. That's why Congress passed laws, enforced by the 
Department of Labor, to protect the brave men and women who have served 
our country.
  The Office of Federal Contract Compliance ensures that Federal 
contractors and subcontractors do not discriminate against our 
veterans, and instead take steps to recruit, to hire, to train, and to 
promote qualified protected veterans.
  Tricare providers, the very people who provide health care to our 
Nation's veterans, are arguing that they should be exempt from adhering 
to the very regulations that were passed to protect our veterans. This 
action would gravely undermine our efforts to employ veterans. These 
large government health care contractors should not be exempted from 
civil rights responsibilities that apply to all other similarly 
situated contractors or subcontractors.
  Section 715 is a brazen attempt by large health care industries to 
overturn pending litigation and exempt themselves from civil rights 
scrutiny. Congress should vote against weakening these laws, and I urge 
my colleagues to join with me and support my motion to recommit the 
conference report.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the Small 
Business Committee and a member of the conference committee, Mr. 
Graves.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report on H.R. 1540.
  Included in this bill is a long-term reauthorization of the Small 
Business Innovative Research program. This program sets aside Federal 
research and development dollars for small businesses that have 
cutting-edge ideas and promising research that the government needs. 
The SBIR program fosters innovation while giving a boost to our 
Nation's best job creators.
  Today, I am pleased to say that the House and Senate have come 
together on a compromise that will give certainty to our small 
businesses and make important reforms to the program. I want to thank 
Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for including this bipartisan 
deal in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report, and I 
would also like to thank the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee, Ms. Velazquez, for her very important contributions to this 
debate, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Science 
Committee, Mr. Hall and Ms. Johnson, who have also been partners in 
this effort. And, of course, all of the staff on the various committees 
who have worked very hard on this. They deserve a lot of credit for 
their hard work.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report and the 
thousands of small businesses and jobs that benefit from the SBIR 
program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve until it is time to close.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I am also going to reserve until it is time 
to close. We are down to our last speaker.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues I am prepared to 
close.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we are told, and this seems to be one of the

[[Page H8933]]

principle issues in the debate today, that this bill, with reference to 
the detention and security provisions, merely codifies existing law. 
Some of us say no, it doesn't codify existing law; it codifies claims 
of power by the last two administrations that have not been confirmed 
by the courts--by some courts, but not by the Supreme Court. Rather 
terrifying claims of power, claims of the right to put Americans in 
jail indefinitely without a trial even in the United States.
  Now, I can cite specifics here. The text, for example, says very 
specifically that Congress affirms the authority of the President, 
includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to 
detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war, and 
then expands the definition of covered persons to people not implicated 
or supporting or harboring people implicated in 9/11 for the first 
time.
  And then we have a provision that says nothing in this section is 
intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope 
of the authorization for use of military force.
  Well, that directly contradicts what I just read, which is a very 
specific provision. And since the rules of statutory construction 
always say that the specific controls the general, this provision, 
frankly, insofar as it contradicts the first, is meaningless. It 
provides no protection whatsoever. The same is true of the Feinstein 
amendment, for similar reasons.
  Now, we have disagreement we heard on the floor today, but that 
reflects the disagreement in the country at large. We have many law 
enforcement people, many legal scholars disagree on what this language 
means. The President's chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, 
said that the bill mandates military custody for a certain class of 
terrorism suspects, and since it would apply to individuals inside the 
U.S.--which we have heard denied on the floor but the President's 
counterterrorism advisor thinks it does--it would be inconsistent with 
the fundamental principle that our military does not patrol our 
streets.
  And we have many generals, including a former Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, saying that this is a terrible expansion and change of 
existing law.
  Now the fact of whether it simply codifies existing law or further 
restricts our liberties in unprecedented ways is unclear. That my 
friends here can say it only codifies existing law, and I can say and 
all of these other people--experts, legal experts, military people, 
counterterrorism experts--can say it goes way beyond existing law, 
shows why it is dangerous to have this kind of provision affecting 
fundamental rights and civil liberties in a defense authorization bill 
which is admirable in many other ways.

  The Armed Services Committee is not the proper place to consider 
questions of civil liberties and legal rights, and certainly not a 
conference report. All these questions should have been considered in 
hearings. The Judiciary Committee in both Houses, frankly, should have 
held hearings. We should have called in the counterterrorism experts, 
we should have called in the legal scholars, we should have called in 
the statutory scholars and asked: What does this provision mean? How 
should it be changed? Does this provision contradict that provision, 
and what does it really mean? Does it go beyond existing law, and, if 
so, how can we change that?
  In legislation like this, there should be hearings and testimony and 
proper debate and consideration.
  Now, we can still fix this. If we defeat this bill now, we can then 
take this provision out of the bill, and pass the bill without this 
provision in a couple of days. We are going to be here. There is no 
reason we shouldn't do that. And then next year--which is only a couple 
of weeks away--give proper consideration to these detention provisions 
if people feel a need to pass them. We should not do such fundamental 
changes on the fly in a conference report with one hour of debate, no 
proper committee consideration, no public hearings, and considerable 
disagreement among scholars and judges and counterterrorism experts and 
military experts as to what this language means and what it does.
  The true answer is that nobody on this floor can be 100 percent 
certain what this does. And when you are dealing with our fundamental 
liberties, that should say don't pass it. So I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the bill. We can then take this out of the bill, take the bill 
up on the floor again in a couple of days, and that's the safe way to 
safeguard our liberties and to do what we have to do for our military 
security.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. First of all, let me say we had hearings on 
this last February and March. We had language in our bill which we 
passed in May. This issue has been thoroughly debated. Now, I've heard 
a couple of times that the Judiciary Committee has not heard this 
issue. This has been going on for 10 years under both Democratic and 
Republican control. I don't know why the Judiciary Committee has not 
chosen to have hearings on this issue, but that's hardly our fault. We 
have. We've had endless discussions on this. It has, in fact, been 
debated.
  And let me also say that I am very concerned about these very issues. 
On our committee, I have been one of the strongest voices of concern. I 
support closing Guantanamo. I know a lot of people don't. I think we 
should have all of the suspects here in the U.S. and that we should try 
them. I also strongly believe that the criminal justice system has to 
be part of how we combat al Qaeda. I have heard the argument. People 
say, this is a war, not a criminal matter. Why are we bothering with 
things like article III courts? I disagree with that and have spoken 
out publicly and strongly and in many cases even when popular support 
has been on the other side of issues like closing of Guantanamo.
  I care deeply about this issue; and from the very start, I fought 
hard to protect precisely the things Mr. Nadler is referencing. I 
fought hard in the conference committee to make sure they were 
protected, and they were.
  Now the argument is we don't know exactly what it means; so, 
therefore, we should do nothing. It is very true that law is unsettled. 
That, again, has nothing to do with this bill. There are court cases 
ongoing; there are habeas corpus cases continuously happening as a 
result of Guantanamo; and it's being interpreted by courts and also by 
the executive branch. I want to make it also clear that the judiciary 
and the executive branch would always rather that we do nothing. They 
would always rather forget that we are supposed to be a coequal branch 
of government, but we are.
  After 10 years and after countless hearings, the legislative branch 
should say something about this. And what we said we said very, very 
carefully to simply codify what the executive branch and the judiciary 
have said about the AUMF and to make absolutely clear--and this 
language is not ambiguous--that military custody in the U.S. does not 
apply to U.S. citizens and does not apply to lawful resident aliens.
  Again, the problems that people have--and I share some of them--are 
with existing law, not with this bill. Defeat this bill, and it won't 
change a piece of that existing law that we've heard about and that we 
should all be concerned about. But defeat this bill, and it will make 
it very difficult for our troops to get the support they need.
  Now, I've been around this process long enough to know that there 
ain't no guarantee of fixing anything. And if we defeat this bill, our 
troops will be left to wonder if they're going to get that pay raise, 
if those military support projects are going to get built, if our 
troops are going to get the support they need. And I don't know the 
answer to that question.
  So there's a ton of very, very good stuff in this bill that supports 
our troops, that addresses Members' concerns on issues like sexual 
assault within the military and a whole host of others. We need to 
support this bill to support our troops.
  And the issues that folks are concerned about on detention, again, 
that is existing law. Whether this bill passes or not, those 
controversies will continue.

[[Page H8934]]

  This is an excellent piece of legislation, well-crafted and worked 
hard by a lot of folks. It deserves an overwhelming ``yes'' vote.
  With that, I urge passage and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I want to thank our conferees and the members of the 
Armed Services Committee once again, and I want to thank our staff 
directors, Bob Simmons and Paul Arcangeli.
  This conference report addresses a wide array of policy issues, from 
cooperation with nations like Israel and Georgia, operations in 
Afghanistan, our new partnership with Iraq, and balancing strategic 
opportunities and risks with respect to China and Pakistan, to 
mitigating the threat from Iran and North Korea, enhancing missile 
defense, and maintaining this Nation's nuclear deterrent. Passage 
ensures our troops get a 1.6 percent pay raise and the benefits their 
families rely upon.
  This bill also ensures that we continue to fulfill our Nation's most 
sacred obligations to our brave men and women serving in the greatest 
all-volunteer force in history. The service by our men and women in 
uniform is priceless, especially during the last 10 years of combat 
operations. Besides thanking them for their service and sacrifice to 
this Nation in ensuring they are afforded the best benefits and care 
for their service, there's little we can do to repay them for standing 
the watch and keeping America safe.

  This bill authorizes a modest 1.6 percent pay increase, but it never 
can express how truly grateful we are as a Nation for the service and 
sacrifice of our all-volunteer force and their families.
  Additionally, some very important provisions were included to ensure 
our industrial base maintains a constant workload and a fully employed 
workforce; and $14.9 billion was authorized for U.S. Navy shipbuilding, 
a total of 10 ships, which include two Virginia class submarines. The 
bill also extends the multiyear funding authority for the second and 
third Ford-class aircraft carriers for 4 to 5 years of incremental 
funding authority.
  American ingenuity, creativity, and initiative are alive and well in 
our shipyards that build warships for the United States Navy. 
Shipbuilding is supported through business and industry spanning 50 
States and designed and engineered by our greatest asset--the American 
people. The American aircraft carrier is the pinnacle of this 
industrial engineering ingenuity and genius where mechanical, nuclear 
aerospace, and electrical engineering converge with naval architecture 
to form a magnificent 100,000-ton, 1,092-foot-long piece of American 
sovereignty that travels anywhere, anytime around the world.
  Additionally, the bill reinstates the requirement for annual delivery 
of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan solidifying the need for the 
Navy to communicate their plan as it relates to the strategic 
objectives of the United States balanced against a very challenging 
budget environment.
  I'm pleased that this legislation came together to support our men 
and women in uniform. In times of austerity, they remain a priority, as 
do the safety and security of this Nation.
  Today, I stand in support of this legislation and encourage my 
colleagues to support its passage; and I would like to reflect that all 
26 Senate conferees signed this report, and 29 out of the 32 core House 
conferees signed as well. This is a solid product, thoroughly debated 
and deliberated considerably. I urge my colleagues to support and vote 
in favor of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act. While this 
legislation is not without problems, it still provides the necessary 
resources and support to our men and women in uniform. As our nation 
winds down one war and continues to fight another, giving the troops 
the resources they need to succeed should be a top national priority. 
The legislation before us today accomplishes this important goal.
  H.R. 1540 does the right thing and gives our service members a pay 
raise of 1.6 percent. It also ensures that we are taking adequate 
measures to protect our troops which are still in the theatre of combat 
by authorizing $2.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 
Vehicles, which protect our troops from improvised explosive devices 
(IEDs). Additionally, the legislation provides $3 billion for directly 
combating IEDs in Afghanistan, and increases the Abrams tank program by 
$255 million. All of these important increases will have a real impact 
on the safety and wellbeing of out troops overseas, and it would be 
irresponsible to not support this legislation because of that fact.
  The provisions relating to military detention for foreign al-Qaeda 
terrorists has generated much discussion, and rightfully so. Any effort 
which deals with civil liberties and constitutional rights must be 
taken very seriously. H.R 1540 simply restates what has become law on 
this issue through court decisions and executive actions over the last 
10 years. It provides for military custody for foreigners who are 
members of, or substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, but gives the 
president wide latitude to try any such suspect in civilian courts. 
Specifically, the president is granted the authority to issue a 
national security waiver to authorize a trial in civilian courts. The 
legislation also explicitly states that U.S. citizens are not subject 
to military detention, which is a vitally important safeguard. Finally, 
H.R. 1540 includes language to ensure that the FBI can continue with 
their investigations of terrorists on U.S. soil. While this language is 
certainly not perfect, I believe it strikes a fair compromise between 
national security and civil liberties as it simply restates what our 
policy has been over the last decade.
  Decisions about war and our national defense should never be taken 
lightly, and this is especially true in this instance. This legislation 
makes the necessary investments to keep our troops safe and deserves to 
be supported.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, while I support the conference agreement on 
the National Defense Authorization Act, I am extremely disappointed 
that it does not include language from previous years to prevent the 
Administration from moving forward with increases in TRICARE pharmacy 
copayments and enrollment fees.
  As a cosponsor of the Military Retirees Health Care Protection Act, 
which would prohibit increases in TRICARE costs for servicemembers, I 
do not believe our brave soldiers and their families should have to 
bear the burden of closing our Nation's deficits.
  For thirty-five years, I have fought to expand and protect 
affordable, quality health care for our servicemembers, and I will 
continue to do so.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the National 
Defense Authorization Act because it will continue to waste more money 
on weapons we do not need and wars that are not necessary. This 
legislation prioritizes military spending over our economic stability, 
the health of our people, and the basic civil liberties guaranteed by 
the Constitution. The costs of this bill are simply too great.
  Families in my district and across the country are facing 
unemployment, foreclosures, and the loss of their retirement savings. 
All levels of government are making difficult decisions to decrease 
budget deficits. Now is the time to focus our efforts on bringing the 
defense budget under control. Instead, this bill continues our 
unsustainable spending on wars and the military.
  It is our job to spend taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently. When 
it comes to defense, we have failed miserably. We have doubled our 
military spending since 2001, and spend six times more than China--the 
next highest-spending country. Continuing to spend 60 percent of our 
discretionary budget on an already bloated and redundant defense sector 
is more than just negligence; it is malicious. Every dollar we spend on 
war and weapons is a dollar we cannot spend on education, health care, 
infrastructure, or even deficit reduction. This bill does nothing to 
seriously rein in our defense budget.
  To make matters worse, this defense authorization is costing American 
citizens more than just their tax dollars, but their civil liberties as 
well. Provisions within this legislation allow anyone--including 
Americans--to be detained indefinitely by the military if found to have 
``substantially supported'' forces ``associated'' with a terrorist 
organization, or who ``are engaged in hostilities'' against the U.S. or 
``coalition partners.'' As none of the quoted terms are defined, this 
vague language gives excessive and broad power to the military.
  Our Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to detain 
American citizens without charge or trial, nor does it give the 
military the authority to act in place of our justice system. And yet 
this legislation would codify into law the authority of the military to 
indefinitely detain suspected terrorists--something never even 
seriously considered during the McCarthy-Cold War era. I could never 
support a measure that, in the name of security, violates Americans' 
constitutional rights.
  This authorization is not an accurate reflection of American values. 
Our first priority is

[[Page H8935]]

not, nor should it be, spending more money on defense than every other 
Western country combined. Defense spending should not receive 
privileged budgetary treatment while the rest of our budget faces deep 
cuts, nor should it be used as a vehicle to suppress civil liberties. I 
urge all of my colleagues to oppose this wasteful and dangerous 
legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The bill we have before us allows for the indefinite detention of 
terror suspects, including U.S. citizens, without being charged and 
without the right to a trial. If enacted, this would be the first time 
since the McCarthy era that Congress has authorized the indefinite 
imprisonment of American citizens without this fundamental right.
  The bill's detainee provisions undermine our national security and 
violate the Constitutional principles we all adhere to. If we are truly 
considering the Nation's best interests--we should strip this bill of 
these harmful provisions.
  The federal criminal justice system has worked effectively to 
prosecute suspected terrorists throughout both the Bush and Obama 
administrations. This system has proven invaluable in producing 
counterterrorism information precisely because it provides incentives 
for suspects to cooperate.
  Further, the detainee provisions in this bill do not provide the 
president with the flexibility that is needed to successfully combat 
terrorism.
  Many of our Nation's most respected military leaders and national 
security leadership have come out against the detention provisions in 
this bill. In the past weeks, the director of the FBI, director of 
National Intelligence, Secretary of Defense, and head of the National 
Security Division at the Department of Justice have all spoken out 
against these detainee provisions.
  Instead of protecting our Nation, these detainee provisions will 
ultimately make our Nation less safe at a time when we need every 
counterterrorism tool available to defend our Nation from terrorist 
threats.
  We will not defend our country by shredding the Constitution or 
denying U.S. citizens of their most fundamental rights. We can defend 
our country while securing the basic freedoms that make America unique 
among the community of nations.
  I urge Members to respect our fundamental constitutional rights and 
protect our country's security by opposing this bill.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Conference 
Report for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, which 
includes a reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs.
  This long-term reauthorization will provide thousands of small 
businesses with the certainty necessary to facilitate innovation and 
create high-paying jobs. The legislation will also strengthen the 
program's research and development output by opening it up to more 
small businesses, and will ensure the greatest return on taxpayer 
investment by helping us combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I would like to congratulate and thank Chairman Graves of the House 
Committee on Small Business for his leadership in this process, and for 
working to ensure that we produced a bill that both the House and 
Senate could proudly support.
  I would also like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Quayle of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for his work in improving 
this legislation and ensuring that it produces strong research 
outcomes.
  Finally, I would like to thank our Committee's Ranking Member, Mrs. 
Johnson, who served as a co-sponsor of the original House legislation, 
for her work throughout this process.
  This legislation has been a long time coming. I am confident that we 
have produced an outstanding bill that will improve the SBIR and STIR 
programs, will improve the quality of research and innovation from the 
programs, and will help small businesses create high-paying jobs.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the C National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it fails to rein in our out 
of control defense spending, it includes over $115 billion in war 
funding, and, most of all, because it codifies dangerous detainee 
provisions that are at odds with the U.S. constitution.
  At a time when we are discussing drastic cuts to domestic spending 
programs critical to millions of Americans, this bill provides a 
whopping $670 billion in Pentagon spending--that's almost as much as 
the rest of the world, combined, spends on defense. We can reduce our 
defense spending without jeopardizing our national security, yet this 
bill continues what former Secretary Gates termed the ``gusher'' of 
defense funding.
  In addition, this legislation codifies indefinite detention without 
charge or trial in military custody for foreign Al Qaeda terrorists 
suspected of involvement in attacks on the U.S. It also blocks the 
transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S., even for trial. It 
severely restricts the transfer of detainees to third countries.
  Most disturbingly, the bill does not guarantee suspected terrorists a 
trial, even if they are U.S. citizens arrested within the United 
States, leaving open the possibility of indefinite detention. Passing 
this legislation throws fundamental rights of American citizens into 
serious jeopardy.
  These provisions are both dangerous and unnecessary. The Secretary of 
Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the FBI 
have all publically opposed the bill's detainee language. Neither the 
military nor the national security establishment has sought the added 
detention authorities provided under this legislation.
  Military detention and trial not only jeopardizes our American 
ideals, it is also not practical. The role of the military is to fight 
and win wars--not to detain and try criminals. Since 9/11, military 
commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, 
while over 400 have been convicted in civilian courts. Military experts 
have expressed concerns about the still largely untested military 
tribunal system, as well as the overall capacity of the military to 
handle a large influx of terrorism-related cases.
  Mr. Speaker, we can provide for the national security of the United 
States without jeopardizing our fundamental freedoms and rights. Even 
some of our closest allies, including Germany and the UK, have 
expressed reticence to transfer suspected terrorists or share 
intelligence about them over concerns that these individuals will end 
up in U.S. military custody.
  In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that we ``reject as 
false the choice between our safety and our ideals.'' This bill would 
undermine 200 years of respect for fairness and due process. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous and 
destructive legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this could have been a landmark bill. Instead, 
it offers our nation more of the same--more spending on programs we 
don't need, and no rethinking of our priorities.
  To be fair, there are some good provisions in this bill--a military 
pay raise, additional funding for programs important to military 
families. I am pleased that this bill authorizes $216 million for 
cooperative tactical missile defense programs with Israel like Iron 
Dome. Indeed, it's astounding that some in the Republican Party have 
suggested that America should zero out our aid to Israel--a reckless 
idea that would endanger the security of our best ally in the Middle 
East.
  I regret that the conferees elected to continue a series of dubious 
Cold War-era programs instead of taking this opportunity to do what we 
must do: rescale our armed forces to meet the real threats we face.
  This bill authorizes $8.5 billion for 31 F-35 Joint Striker Fighters 
and $9 billion for missile defense programs. Neither of these kinds of 
programs will give us the ability to deal with the kind of asymmetric 
threats we currently face and will likely encounter in the future. It's 
worth remembering that our Cold War-legacy systems did nothing to stop 
the 9/11 attacks. They will do nothing to confront the cybersecurity 
threats we face. They will do nothing to address our imported oil 
vulnerability, or our strategic minerals vulnerability. Continued 
funding of these and other Cold War-era programs only proves that the 
Congress has no intention of seriously rethinking our defense spending 
priorities, without which we cannot possibly responsibly provide for 
``the common defense''.
  Additionally, this bill should be defeated because it contains 
provisions that would eviscerate Constitutional protections against 
indefinite detention.
  I am not at all convinced by the arguments of proponents of this bill 
that sufficient changes have been made to the sections dealing with 
detainees to ensure that no U.S. citizen can be detained indefinitely 
in U.S. military custody. We need only remember the case of Jose 
Padilla, the accused terrorist and U.S. citizen who was held in a 
military brig for years without trial. This bill would do nothing to 
prevent that from happening again because it does nothing to change the 
language of the original Authorization for the Use of Military Force 
(AUMF) passed after the 9/11 attacks. That language makes the President 
of the United States the sole determiner of who is a member of Al 
Qaeda, or who may have ``supported'' Al Qaeda, etc. Since there is no 
way to immediately challenge the President's determination of who is a 
terrorist, there is no way to ensure that innocent Americans will not 
be charged falsely with having committed terrorist acts. That is the 
true problem with the detainee-related implications of this bill.
  Finally, I cannot support this bill because it does not even mention 
the recently disclosed scandal at the Dover Port Mortuary, much less

[[Page H8936]]

take any action to correct the egregious desecration of the remains of 
hundreds--and perhaps thousands--of our fallen heroes.
  The initial revelations about the mishandling or desecration of the 
remains of deceased servicemembers came about through the work of three 
heroic Air Force employees at Dover. Despite the risk of retaliation 
from their chain of command, they brought their allegations to the 
Office of Special Counsel, which ultimately prompted investigations by 
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Army Inspector 
General. Separately, a constituent of mine--Mrs. Lynn Smith of 
Frenchtown, New Jersey--made me aware earlier this year that for at 
least several years, the unclaimed additional remains of fallen 
servicemembers were being cremated, mixed with medical waste, and 
dumped in a Virginia landfill.
  When Mrs. Smith learned that this had happened to her husband, she 
suspected immediately that it had happened to others. She was right, as 
we learned late last month with the Pentagon finally provided a 
response--albeit incomplete--to my inquiry as to how many 
servicemember's unclaimed remains had been mishandled in this way. 
Right now, the number stands at 274. I strongly suspect that number is 
actually higher.
  Although the House Armed Services Committee held a briefing with the 
Air Force secretary and his senior staff in mid-November, this issue is 
not even mentioned in this bill, which is inexcusable. At a minimum, 
the bill should've had condemned the Air Force's mishandling of the 
remains and directed that the Secretary of Defense establish a family 
advisory panel to make recommendations to the Pentagon and the Congress 
on how to improve the casualty notification and remains disposition 
process. Because this bill does not address this issue and the families 
impacted by it, I will not support H.R. 1540.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. As a member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security, I am well aware of the threats that 
face this nation from home and abroad, but even though this struggle is 
of the highest stakes, we must remember the very values and basic 
rights that set us apart from those who would seek to destroy us. We 
must remember that we cannot sacrifice our freedom or the freedom of 
others in order to maintain it. To follow such a path represents a 
fundamental contradiction and degrades any moral high ground we claim 
to possess. The indefinite detention provisions do just that; they 
continue a shameful precedent set in the wake of the attacks against 
our nation on 9/11 that allows our military to detain suspected 
terrorists, foreign and domestic, indefinitely and with limited ability 
for redress.
  It has been reported that if enacted, the detention provisions would 
codify authority for indefinite detention without charge and mandatory 
military detention, authorizing their application on the basis of 
suspicion to virtually anyone picked up in the anti-terrorism efforts; 
including those arrested on U.S. soil. In effect, the U.S. military 
would become the sole authority over terrorism suspects, to the 
exclusion of the U.S. judicial system.
   Mr. Speaker, this blatant eradication of Habeas Corpus is a scary 
thing, particularly for the people of New York City who live under the 
constant threat of terrorism and the ever present surveillance of law 
enforcement. That, among other reasons is why I'm not voting against 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

 H.R. 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1540, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Although I 
have serious concerns about this legislation because of its lack of 
commitment to forces in the Asia-Pacific region, there are portions of 
the bill that are good for our national defense.
  Chief among those provisions is section 512, which provides the Chief 
of the National Guard Bureau with a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
Including section 512 brings to a conclusion more than seven years of 
work to align the roles and responsibilities of the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau appropriately for an operational reserve force. 
The provision recognizes the unique and important role our National 
Guard has played in our Nation's defenses throughout history, 
particularly since the attacks of September 11. This year, on the 10th 
anniversary of these tragedies, the National Guard will finally have 
the recognition and appropriate responsibilities to ensure the 
requirements and capabilities of the National Guard are fully 
integrated into our national security infrastructure. Section 511 also 
establishes the position of Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
which is necessary if the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is to sit 
on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I also strongly support inclusion of section 621, which provides a 
one-year extension of authority to reimburse travel expenses for 
inactive-duty training outside of normal commuting distances. This 
authority is critical to the Guam National Guard as well as units in 
Hawaii and Alaska. Section 621 is an important recruiting and retention 
tool for our National Guard.
  Finally, the bill also maintains our committee's longstanding support 
for the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program by providing authorization 
of appropriation for nine additional aircraft in Fiscal Year 2013. The 
C-27J is a critical tactical airlift asset for our Air Force and Air 
National Guard. I regret that language restricting the retirement of C-
23 Sherpa aircraft was not maintained in the final bill, but I hope 
that the Department can clarify how it intends to meet airlift mission 
requirements given the reduction in aircraft procurement over the last 
several years.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 1540, the Defense Authorization Agreement for FY 
2012.
  I strongly oppose the conference language which amends section 
1097b(a) of title 10 of United States Code which exempts important and 
hard-fought civil rights protections that were enacted to advance the 
goals of ensuring equal opportunity and promoting diversity in the 
workplace. There is no principled reason for creation of this grave 
precedent exempting this class of subcontractors from the workplace 
discrimination laws applicable to all other companies that enjoy the 
privilege of doing business with the federal government. Subcontractors 
that do follow the law deserve a level playing field, instead of a 
Congressional exemption for their competitors.
  If this provision becomes law, many of those TRICARE network 
providers that are federal subcontractors unlike other federal 
subcontractors will be exempt from systemic evaluations of contractors' 
employment practices. Additionally, their employees will lose the 
assurance that there is a federal agency independently monitoring their 
employers' compliance with nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
law. Being a federal contractor or subcontractor is a privilege and 
with that privilege comes a responsibility to comply with the law and 
make equal opportunity a reality for everyone.
  This is unfortunate as I am very pleased that this legislation 
contains a comprehensive reauthorization of the Small Business 
Innovation Research, SBIR, program and the Small Business Technology 
Transfer, STTR, program. We have worked tirelessly over the last few 
months on a bipartisan, bicameral basis in an attempt to strike a deal 
on this reauthorization and I am pleased that these efforts have 
finally paid off.
  We all recognize the important role that small businesses play in 
fueling technological innovation and creating jobs in the United 
States. That being the case, we should be doing what we can to foster a 
vibrant small business community and give our small businesses the 
tools that they need to succeed. The SBIR and STTR programs are such 
tools. They have been critically important programs for fostering 
innovation by small businesses and meeting the research and development 
needs of our Federal agencies.
  I am particularly pleased that the SBIR/STTR reauthorization 
contained in this bill includes important provisions to ensure that 
outreach is carried out to small businesses that have traditionally 
been underrepresented in the SBIR and STTR programs. This was a top 
priority for me for this reauthorization since one of the four stated 
congressional objectives for the SBIR program is to increase 
participation by woman- and minority-owned small businesses. In its 
2008 evaluation of the SBIR program, however, the National Research 
Council found that the program was not achieving this objective and 
recommended that targeted outreach be developed to improve the 
participation rates of these small businesses. The reauthorization bill 
included in the Defense Authorization bill includes funding for 
targeted outreach activities, consistent with the National Research 
Council recommendations. I am thrilled that we were able to find common 
ground on this important issue and have taken critical steps to ensure 
that all small businesses have access to these important programs.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I must quote Coretta Scott King as she 
once said, ``Struggle is a never-ending process. Freedom is never 
really won. You earn it and win it in every generation.'' Moreover, I 
cannot in good faith support a bill that turns back the clock on civil 
rights, fairness and inclusion in this country.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has enacted a 
defense authorization bill every year for the last half-century, 
generally with broad bipartisan support. The reason for this broad 
support is simple: under Republican and Democratic leadership alike, we 
have recognized that support for our Nation's men and women in uniform 
should remain above the partisan fray, unencumbered by controversial 
policy debates that are only tangentially related to the mission of our 
Armed Forces.

[[Page H8937]]

  Throughout my service in Congress, I have almost always supported 
this annual measure, which authorizes funding for a wide range of 
programs upon which our military depends, from salaries and benefits to 
military health care to critical equipment and readiness accounts. I 
thus find it deeply unfortunate that the House Republican leadership 
chose to use this year's bill as a vehicle for advancing ill-advised 
policies that seek to tie the President's hands in the war on terror 
and expand the military's role in the detention and disposition of 
terror suspects, at the expense of our civilian justice system and our 
civil liberties.
  To be sure, the original House version of this bill, which I opposed, 
was much worse. It would not only have indefinitely extended the 
Authorization for the Use of Military Force that was enacted in the 
wake of September 11, but would also have required suspects detained 
pursuant to that authorization to be prosecuted in military tribunals. 
My Republican colleagues' inexplicable insistence on forcing terror 
trials into military commissions instead of civilian courts flies in 
the face of the facts; our court system has a strong record of trying 
and convicting terrorism suspects, while the record of military 
commissions has been spotty at best. It is no wonder that the Obama 
Administration threatened to veto this bill--as any administration, 
Democrat or Republican, would almost certainly have done.
  To their credit, our Democratic conferees succeeded in averting the 
worst aspects of the House bill in the conference report before us 
today. But they didn't go far enough. The measure would still require 
all foreign suspects detained in the war on terror to be kept in 
military custody, potentially disrupting critical anti-terrorism 
operations and muddying the waters of a process that should be crystal 
clear. As FBI Director Robert Mueller reiterated today, this provision 
would unnecessarily complicate interrogation and intelligence 
collection--the very capabilities that the provision's supporters claim 
they are trying to enhance. The conference report would also needlessly 
reaffirm our ability to detain terror suspects indefinitely, upholding 
an ambiguity in current law that should be resolved by the courts. And 
it would impose new consultation requirements that further restrain the 
discretion of the Attorney General to determine how to prosecute terror 
cases.
  For these reasons, I intend to oppose the measure before us today, 
despite my strong support for the majority of its provisions. In the 
future, rather than using the defense authorization bill to advance 
their partisan agenda, I urge the Republican leadership to return to 
the past practice of leaving controversial policy debates for another 
time and place. Our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of 
passage of the conference report on the FY12 NDAA.
  As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I'd like to 
briefly walk through some of the key provisions in the conference 
report.
  First, concerning U.S.-Russia missile defense, the conference report 
contains a modified version of a provision offered by Mr. Brooks of 
Alabama to require the President, before sharing any classified 
information about U.S. ballistic missile defenses, to prove that it is 
in the interest of the United States and to show how the information 
will be protected from third party transfers.
  Second, regarding U.S. nuclear forces, the conference report imposes 
checks on the Administration's plans for nuclear reductions by 
requiring assessments of those reductions from the STRATCOM commander 
before any nuclear weapons reductions are made; requiring the 
Administration to disclose its plans for future reductions; and, re-
asserting Congressional oversight of the nation's nuclear war plan.
  Third, concerning LightSquared, we retained House and Senate 
provisions that will ensure that the FCC will not be able to attempt to 
slip one by Congress and the DOD in the dark of night again. And I note 
recent press reports that new proposals for LightSquared's network 
continue to impose unacceptable interference to DOD GPS systems.
  Also, for the first time, DOD will be able to directly transfer 
funding to NNSA Weapons Activities for up to $125 M per year if there 
are shortfalls in that budget in the event of an appropriations 
shortfall.
  And the bill ensures that the credibility of the U.S. deterrent and 
extended deterrent will start to get equal billing with safety, 
security and reliability.
  I also would like to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Rodney 
Frelinghuysen--I have appreciated their support for funding for NNSA's 
vital nuclear weapons programs, which are key to maintaining the 
safety, security, reliability and credibility of the U.S. nuclear 
weapons stockpile, and enabling any of the force reductions the 
Administration may plan, including those under the New START treaty.
  I also hope that our NATO allies and the Administration read closely 
the provision on our extended nuclear deterrent in Europe and any 
future arms control negotiations with Russia, which states that if any 
negotiations occur they should focus on Russia's massive stockpile of 
tactical nuclear weapons and that for the purposes of the negotiations, 
consolidation or centralized storage of Russia's tactical nuclear 
weapons should not be viewed as elimination of those weapons.
  This last position was recently endorsed by the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly, the U.S. delegation to which I am the Chairman.
  Now I would like to discuss an issue that is important to our men and 
women in uniform, is impacting our Armed Forces readiness and forces 
servicemembers to choose between service to their nation and their 
families. This is the issue of military child custody.
  Now I would like to discuss an issue that is important to our men and 
women in uniform, is impacting our Armed Forces' readiness and forces 
servicemembers to choose between service to their nation and their 
families. This is the issue of military child custody.
  In a short time after becoming a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I was struck to learn that this country's judicial system 
was using servicemember's deployments against them when making child 
custody determinations.
  Just to be clear, we are asking an all volunteer force which consists 
of less than one percent of our population to engage in the longest 
conflict in our nation's history, endure more deployments than any 
other generation in our history, and do so at the peril of losing their 
children.
  Recognizing this unconscionable injustice, the House Armed Services 
Committee has included language in the past 5 NDAA's to provide 
servicemembers a uniform national standard of protection. This 
provision has also made it through the House Veterans Affairs 
Committee.
  Unfortunately, despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the House 
and the support of the Department of Defense, the Senate once again 
failed our servicemembers and their families. It appears that they have 
done so using false information.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Gates stated, ``I have been giving this 
matter a lot of thought and believe we should change our position to 
one where we are willing to consider whether appropriate legislation 
can be crafted that provides Servicemembers with a federal uniform 
standard of protection.'' This year, I worked with the DoD and the 
House Armed Services Committee to provide that legislation. Yet, the 
Senate failed to provide the protections in the final bill.
  Given all the sacrifices made by our servicemembers, I ask that the 
Senate finds it within themselves to reconsider their position and work 
with us to provide the protections our men and women in uniform 
deserve. It's the right thing to do and we owe it to them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 493, the previous question is ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of the 
conference report is postponed.

                          ____________________