Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 69 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 69 (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2699-H2705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rigell). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mrs. ROBY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is truly an honor tonight to stand with other freshman colleagues
to discuss the ever-important number one constitutional responsibility
of this Congress, in my opinion, very clearly spelled out: to provide
for the common defense. Of course, this week the House will debate H.R.
4310, the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we marked this up in committee last week
into the wee hours of the morning and it passed the House Armed
Services Committee on May 10 with a bipartisan vote of 56 5. This
legislation specifically provides for pay, funding, and authorities for
America's men and women in uniform; and it's the key mechanism by which
we fulfill our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
This bill does many things. But I thought what I would do in the
beginning of this hour, as I see some of my freshman colleagues joining
us tonight, is that I would start by just telling you what happened to
me just this morning, as it often does. I, of course, have two very
large military installations in Alabama's Second District. So I
oftentimes have military men and women in uniform on my planes as I fly
back and forth to and from Washington.
This morning, my husband had come in with me because I had some extra
bags and he was helping me. And I could tell that there was a family
sitting there, and I suspected that the young man was about to be
deployed. The father came over to me and spoke. Now, I'm away from my
children, as are all Members of Congress, but they're usually for very
short periods of time, and whereas that sacrifice is difficult in a lot
of ways, it pales in comparison to the sacrifice of our men and women
in uniform who put themselves in harm's way, not to mention their
family members, who are also sacrificing their children and their
spouses and their loved ones.
This morning, on this plane ride, not unlike many others, it was a
stark reminder to me and to my family as my husband stood by and
watched this family as they greeted us, as clearly the mom had a little
tear in her eye, and it was just such a huge reminder to us of what
individuals who have chosen to enter into our military service do for
us to fight for the very freedoms that allow for me, Mr. Speaker, to
stand in front of you tonight to discuss this ever-important act.

{time} 1940

And so to the young man that I met this morning in Montgomery,
Alabama's regional airport, to all of our young men and women serving
all over this great Nation and this world, thank you from the bottom of
my heart for the privilege to serve them as a member of the House Armed
Services Committee and as a Member of this Congress. It is a tremendous
honor and a privilege, and one that I certainly do not take lightly.
Overall, this bill that we passed out of committee that we will take
up this week restores fiscal sanity to our defense budget and keeps
faith with America's men and women, as I have already mentioned. It
aligns our military posture in this very, very dangerous world and
rebuilds the force after a decade of war.
Now, do not be mistaken. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we are currently
working, under the law, $487 billion in cuts to the Department of
Defense. We have sat as members of the House Armed Services Committee
in committee hearing after committee hearing where our joint chiefs and
our commanders have sat in front of us and told us that, yes, in fact,
we will have a smaller force as a result of these current cuts. I think
we can all agree in these fiscal times that there is not an area that
is funded by hardworking taxpayer dollars of this Federal Government
that doesn't deserve harsh scrutiny when it comes to fiscal cuts. And
our military is certainly going to sustain those with these $485
billion in cuts.
But under the Budget Control Act and the joint committee's failure to
provide the necessary cuts under that law, the automatic trigger that
we here in Congress call sequestration is set to take place at the
beginning of January next year. What we have heard in our committee
hearings over and over and over again from Secretary Panetta, from
General Dempsey, and others, is that our military cannot sustain
another half-trillion or more in cuts. Not only would we have a smaller
force, but there is a danger of a less capable force, particularly in
this time in our Nation's history as we continue to fight the war on
terror both here at home and abroad.
I bring all of this up to say that, again, the light in our military
is our military families and the men and women who serve this country
so honorably. And we, as members of the House Armed Services Committee
and as Members of this United States Congress, have a duty to ensure
that we are not only acting fiscally responsibly, but we are doing it
in a way that ensures that those men and women have everything that
they need to accomplish the task and the mission that we send them
into.
There are several suggestions that have been made as it results to
the $487 billion in cuts as we downsize our force. One of them that
came out and has been scrutinized particularly is the C 130 decision. I
just want to spend a little time, since I, as a member of the
committee, had an amendment before the Armed Services Committee last
week to deal with the way that our military looked at these potential
cuts, and actually provide us with the information that we need to then
in turn provide oversight as members of this committee as to whether or
not these are decisions that are going to provide us with the fiscal
restraint that we need.
The committee passed this amendment during markup. Representative
Conaway from Texas and Representative Palazzo from Mississippi also
were on this amendment regarding the Air Force's C 130. I look forward,
with the other Members of the Alabama delegation, to have a
conversation specifically with Secretary Donley and General Schwartz as
it relates to decisions regarding the C 130. Mind you, and I want to be
very clear when I say this, this could be the C 130, this could be the
Abrams tank, this could be MEADS, this could be any other aspect of our
military where we need to be asking these same questions. Certainly
this is important to us, the Representatives that signed on to this
amendment, because the C 130 is located in our districts, but I want to
be clear, because this is not about just protecting the mission at
home. This is about making sure that across the board we are asking the
right questions to protect the missions, as I've already stated, as
well as making decisions that are going to find the savings that we
need.
So our amendment very clearly just says, how did you determine which
C 130 aircraft will be retired and relocated, and the methodologies
underlying such determinations, including what assumptions were made to
define and shape these specifics determinations. And the rationale for
selecting various C 130 aircraft from regular and reserve components,
and the details of the costs incurred, avoided or saved, with respect
to these C 130s.

[[Page H2700]]

And here's the most important part--and again, this is why I believe
this amendment could be applied throughout our military: the GAO has to
audit the Secretary's report to make sure that the true cost and
benefit of the planned retirement and relocations are realized. This
amendment, like so many others in this National Defense Authorization
Act, is straightforward. This is a straightforward provision to make
sure that the Congress received the necessary information to make our
authorizing decisions in an objective manner that will benefit our men
and women in uniform and the American taxpayer.
I have my friend here from New York and hopefully others that will be
joining us. I know we have many difficult decisions, but I just urge
all of my colleagues this week, as we move through the National Defense
Authorization Act and all of the amendments that will be debated and
voted upon, that we will do so with this young man whom I spoke to this
morning who is now deployed to Kuwait for a year, that we will do so
with him and so many thousands of others in mind as we move through,
making sure that we always do our best because we are supposed to keep
faith with our military families and provide all that our men and women
need to accomplish the mission.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) is recognized
for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to join with my colleague from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby) and applaud her leadership in establishing and
taking the lead this evening to discuss a critical issue that we are
dealing with here in Washington as we go forward with the debate on the
National Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is the authorization bill that takes
care of our men and women in our military ranks. Mr. Speaker, I tender
my comments this evening based on the fact that I am the son of a
career military officer who spent 20 years in the Army, saw active duty
in World War II and Korea, received the Silver Star, multiple Purple
Hearts, multiple Bronze Stars, for his efforts and his sacrifices that
he made in those forums defending America and standing up for all of
the freedoms and the beliefs that we all hold dear in America coast to
coast. So I am honored to be a son of such a distinguished individual
in our Armed Services, and though I never did wear the uniform, I carry
with me the commitment that he passed on to my 11 older brothers and
sisters that you always stand with our military, you always stand with
our veterans, Madam Speaker, and that's why I join you tonight to come
to the floor and discuss this important issue, because as we face the
national debt crisis that we all know on both sides of the aisle is
real, $15.7 trillion of national debt, it is clearly unsustainable.
We have to have a conversation, an open and honest conversation with
all of the hardworking taxpayers of America and say here in Washington,
D.C., we are going to try to get our act together, and to make the
commonsense decisions when it comes to our fiscal house. And in that
conversation, and as we go forward as we did last week with the issue
of sequestration and the replacement, the reconciliation that Mr. Ryan
from Wisconsin led, as we go forward with the debate on the National
Defense Authorization Act this week, we need to go forward recognizing
the cuts that have already occurred on the defense side of the ledger.
It is my understanding, looking at some of the numbers, that
essentially 50 percent of the deficit reduction efforts to date has
come at the expense of defense expenditures. That is approximately 20
percent of our Federal budget dedicated to defense spending.

{time} 1950

So that 20 percent of defense spending is already absorbing 50
percent of the deficit reduction efforts that we have led here in
Washington, D.C., primarily with the leadership of people like the lady
from Alabama and other leaders in the freshman class.
So we have to make sure that when we go forward in this debate, we
recognize the sacrifice and the hard decision--and rightfully so--that
defense has been part of this conversation of getting our fiscal house
in order, and every dollar has to be scrutinized, and that does include
the defense budget.
But I think we're at the point, Madam Speaker, where we have to be
very sensitive to any additional cuts--or those cuts that are going to
be necessary because of the fiscal condition we find ourselves in
America--that we do not cross that line in the sand that we must never
break. That line in the sand is making sure that our men and women in
harm's way are given the resources, the equipment, the tools to not
only protect them when they're afield fighting for us and defending
freedom of America, but when they come home as veterans and enjoy the
benefits that they've earned by engaging in that sacrifice, by being in
harm's way for all of us. We must make sure that we never cross that
line with our cuts to our military that put those men and women in
harm's way or those families that sacrifice so much with them, to have
to endure the situation where those benefits that they earned are taken
away. So we will stand, I think, united in a strong voice to make sure
that doesn't happen. I know I am committed to it, Madam Speaker. And I
will always stand--as my father taught me and taught my older brothers
and sisters and my mother--you stand with the vets, you stand with the
military. And though they have to be part of this conversation because
of the harsh reality that we find ourselves in with $15.7 trillion
worth of national debt, we cannot go that far that we jeopardize their
very well-being and their sacrifices that they have recognized on our
behalf.
So I was pleased to see in the proposal out of the FY13 National
Defense Authorization Act the fact that we were able to beat back the
administration's proposal to make significant fee increases in the
TRICARE program--TRICARE being the health benefits that our veterans
earned and enjoy--and which serve over 9.3 million beneficiaries,
including 5.5 million military retirees. I am glad to see that the
NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, stopped that approach to
dealing with the cuts on TRICARE or in fee increases on the TRICARE
side. I will always want to stand for those commonsense principles that
say: Cuts, yes, we have to do them, but we cannot do them across that
line.
There is one area that I would like to also address before I yield to
some of my colleagues that have joined us here on the floor, and that's
the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act,
which is the language in the bill that deals with making sure that the
rights that we enjoy as American citizens are protected when it comes
to the detainment of individuals in America.
I am pleased to see that language that I cosponsored with gentlemen
such as Mr. Rigell, who has joined us this evening from Virginia, and
Mr. Landry from Louisiana. When this issue came up in previous debates
in last year's National Defense Authorization Act, there was a spirited
debate, if you recall, Madam Speaker, in which the issue came up: Do
American citizens still retain the rights as guaranteed under the
Constitution when it comes to the writ of habeas corpus? There was a
spirited debate, and I clearly came down on the side that we need to
make sure that we protect those rights for American citizens, and that
any issues of detainment are done in respect to the Constitution and
all the rights that we enjoy as free citizens in America. I believe the
bill did address that last year, but there was a legitimate question
raised about it. So I'm pleased to see in this bill language, it is my
understanding, that will make sure and be very clear that any American
citizen detained in America has the rights as guaranteed under the
Constitution. I hope my colleague from Virginia will touch on those
issues, and I'm proud to stand with him to make sure that we send a
clear message that American citizens continue to enjoy and will always
continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms and protections as afforded
to us under the Constitution, and that the writ of habeas corpus is
secure and will continue to be secure as we move forward.
We can go on and on, but I know I have some colleagues. I notice I've
got

[[Page H2701]]

a non-freshman Member to join us tonight, Madam Speaker, to address
this critical issue, and we are pleased to have our senior Members down
with us.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to
share with you tonight, as I remember those days being both a freshman
doing Special Orders, and also serving on the Armed Services Committee
before moving over to the Ways and Means Committee. I appreciate the
chance to share.
One thing that I would emphasize: you know, over the last 18 months
we've heard a lot of interesting arguments in the media about the 99
percent and the 1 percent and on and on, and it fueled lots of
politics. I think the whole argument got best clarified by a group of
Army men and women who put together a little video called ``The Real 1
Percent.'' It was focused on servicemembers and servicemembers'
families.
Most recently, a little company called Ranger Up T-shirts--admittedly
with a tie to my alumni in the Rangers--more accurately stated it was
the 0.45 percent. It just talked about the descending level of public
involvement in the military to almost a minimal level. People don't
understand right now, at this time, that we are in the midst of two
wars, we have threats of a wide spectrum that we've never had before.
When I enlisted in the military 36 years ago next month, our Army was
twice as big as it is today. We're carrying an operations tempo that's
significant.
I'm very concerned about the cuts and have made that clear. I'm
grateful for the leadership on the Armed Services Committee of Chairman
McKeon to try to keep moving these numbers in the right direction
because it's my West Point classmates--who are commanding divisions
today--who are out there facing these challenges of increased
operations tempo. And what an operations tempo is is this, Madam
Speaker: that's how often the units have to rotate or deploy into some
type of a theater of operations, whether it's peaceful or hostile.

With the drawdowns in personnel, if operations in Afghanistan
continue through 2014 and beyond, potentially, that means the
deployment rate of our marines and our soldiers could actually be
greater than it was in recent years and actually exceed the time during
the surge in Iraq in 2007. That's unconscionable to me.
The key to successful doctrine and to successful defense policy
ultimately begins with investing in people. The second thing we do is
address the threat. Then, after we address the threat, we look at
doctrines to deal with that, and finally systems.
Are there opportunities to make cuts in defense to save money?
Absolutely. But one of the challenges that often gets missed in debates
in Washington, whether it's add money or cut money, is dealing with the
root causes that demand that spending. For example, if we look at
acquisition spending rather than cutting people, there's tremendous
opportunities for cutting of spending. The Federal acquisition
regulations, the defense acquisition regulations prescribe a level of
overhead that would be considered unacceptable in the private sector.
The gentleman from Virginia, who's about to speak, who is a
successful executive in the automotive industry, watched great changes
take place over time in terms of what it took to bring a car to
marketplace. I'm going to mention this in perspective of a defense
example that I personally have been touched by.
Toyota, which is headquartered in my district, redesigns every part
on every vehicle and retrains every employee--the entire customer
service network and distribution and supply chains are redone every 3
years. The average time to bring an end item, a vehicle, online in the
United States military right now is about 15 years.
Now, I keep in my office a little memento. As a former Army aviator
who flew here and in the Middle East and had two delightful tours in
lower Alabama, which the current Speaker pro tem represents, at Fort
Rucker, Alabama, I was very excited about the V 22 Osprey coming
online. I got to go to the factory in Fort Worth and was out on the
floor, and I managed to pick up a piece of scrap that was cut off from
flight test article number 1, the wing spar for flight test article
number 1 for the V 22 Osprey. That was 22 June, 1987. Now, here we are
almost 25 years later and that aircraft has just come into service.
There were starts, there were stops, there were huge additional costs
that were put in by requirements that in many cases are entirely
unnecessary to get a safe and flight-worthy vehicle.
What this comes down to is, if we can collapse these acquisition
timeframes from 15 years to 5, we're going to save all of that cost. We
can afford to make the investments that are necessary in our active
duty soldiers and in our veterans. It allows us to minimize the
institutional impact of these deployment tempos and these wars. I
think, furthermore, it's going to allow a more agile defense industrial
base that will have predictability and can adapt our technology and our
tools to new threats as they emerge, because a lot of the weapon
systems that come online now in fact were designed for another era and
another timeframe.

{time} 2000

To overcome that, we've got to change the process, and that's going
to come by a long period of interagency reform and other efforts. But I
want to tell you, in this Defense authorization, the keys to beginning
that process are addressed.
I think, in a very difficult political environment between the
administration calls for spending cuts without bringing about the
regulatory acquisition reform that's necessary to really sustain that,
the political impasse with the Senate, it's been tremendously helpful
to see the leadership of Chairman McKeon, members of the Armed Services
Committee to make sure that everything that's possible to be done will
keep the money flowing before these rules and regulations can be
changed.
The other thing that I would say as well is I voted against the
Budget Control Act last year precisely because of defense
sequestration. There was an unfair toll that was taken because the root
causes were not addressed in that and, hopefully, this lays the
foundation for that, along with other reforms that are going to be
included in the bill.
At the end of the day, we have the ability to debate tonight freely.
American citizens who are watching this can share whatever views they
want to. They can go to bed and not be in fear because of men and women
who volunteer to stand in harm's way to answer that call when it comes
in the middle of the night, and I'm grateful for that, and they're the
last people that we need to let down. And that's why I'm a strong
supporter of this Defense authorization.
I thank you for the time to share tonight.
Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his comments and
for coming this evening and spending some time with us. And your
comments, before I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, have spurred
some thoughts that I would like to add to the conversation.
One of the things you touched upon is the fact that, as we make cuts
and we downsize government, defense has to be part of that
conversation, and the gentleman from Kentucky recognized that in his
comments, and I recognize that.
But I recall a conversation, as a freshman Member I came here and
we've met some individuals over the time, and one conversation that
really sticks out in my mind when it comes to this issue is a
conversation that we had, a handful of us, with Secretary of Defense,
then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. And what Mr. Gates expressed to us
is he says, Lookit, we can go through this process, and we need to go
through this process and downsizing our military and downsizing and
tightening our belt where we can because of the national debt crisis
that we now found ourselves in.
As former Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen advised the President,
the biggest threat to America was not a military threat; it was the
national debt. And that type of sentiment is shocking to me, and it
should scare all of us in that we have to get this fiscal threat under
control.
But the conversation with Bob Gates was we're going to do this. But
as we were engaging in that conversation, Madam Speaker, he pleaded
with us

[[Page H2702]]

and said, as we do this, as we make these cuts, please do not take
these cuts or these dollars and apply them to other government spending
or expand government in other areas because, what he was essentially
saying was, if you take the money from defense and you put it in
another area and further expand government, every year we are going to
have this problem. We are going to compound the problem so that you
take money from defense, grow government on other sides of the ledger,
or other areas, and you're going to continuously take meat and bone
eventually out of the military spending, and you're going to downsize
the military to a point where it will not be able to do fundamentally
what we need it to do, and that's to protect American citizens.
And the other thing I wanted to comment on, as the gentleman from
Kentucky has rightfully pointed out, is that the threat that we face as
we downsize and pull back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I'm glad we're
coming to an end in those engagements, and I see the finish line,
obviously, in Afghanistan and the Iraqi situation where we have
downsized ourselves and pulled ourselves back, and that's good.
But what we cannot do is we cannot get into a situation where we
downsize our military, where we put them into a position where they no
longer can be effective to annihilate the threats that are out there,
because the threats are still there. The threats are still real, and we
need the platform across the world to make sure that we have the
ability to use the brightest and strongest people we have in America,
the men and women of our armed services, so that they have the
platforms to go, strike, annihilate that threat, and then come back
home.
And that is what we need to make sure we do not cross and we go too
far in these cuts, that the men and women, when we ask of them to go
and defend America and annihilate those threats so that we can fight
them over there, rather than here on American soil, because we never
want to have that experience of 9/11 again.
We have to make sure they have the resources and we stand with them
so that they have those platforms in which to deploy and protect us, as
they have been doing for generations.
With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from Virginia, and
I'm so happy he has joined us this evening.

General Leave

Mr. RIGELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Roby). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I rise tonight,
Madam Speaker, in strong support of the NDAA that we'll vote on this
week. And I also rise to really sound the alarm, Madam Speaker, about
a budgetary cut to our Defense Department that is looming. It's right
around the corner. And early January of next year, if not averted, it
would have a most serious and detrimental impact on our ability to
defend our great country. And I want to talk about that and share this
with the American people. It's a matter of serious and grave
importance, and it really should be understood by every American.

Now, Madam Speaker, I have the great privilege of serving and
representing the Second District of Virginia, southeast corner, all the
Eastern Shore, all of Virginia Beach, a good part of Norfolk and a bit
of Hampton. Includes the Norfolk Naval Air Station, Norfolk Naval
Station, Norfolk Naval Air Station Oceania, with the Dam Neck Annex,
the Joint Expeditionary Base, Little Creek, Fort Story, Joint Base
Langley, Eustis, Wallace Island Surface Combat Systems.
The 1 percent, they live in our district, they serve in our district.
You see them in the lines at a Starbucks or the restaurants and
businesses around town. They're hardworking men and women. They love
their country, and they serve with great distinction.
Indeed, it's the district, of all 435, it has the highest
concentration of men and women in uniform of all 435 districts. And it
really is a high honor and really a high responsibility and duty to
serve and represent the Second District.
I completely identify with my friend, the gentleman from New York,
when the gentleman was referring to how he was inspired by his father's
service. Indeed, that's why I sought this office is to honor my
father's service, who was in World War II as a marine at Iwo Jima, and
really the generation he represents, and also to meet the deep
obligation that we have to our grandchildren and our children, and that
is to pass on the blessings of liberty and freedom. And the principal
way we do that is by meeting our constitutional duty to defend this
great country.
Where we're headed, in January of next year, is in direct conflict
with us meeting that deep obligation, the cuts that potentially will
come if we don't avert it, and I'm doing everything I can with my
colleagues here tonight to avert that. The formal term is
``sequestration.'' And as a businessman, I refer to it as a violent
reduction. It's between 8 and 12 percent reduction. And it happens
immediately.
Even for those who believe that our budget for defense ought to be
less, there's no person that I know of that would agree that this is
the responsible way to do it.
Now, as I look for leadership, the House has passed a mechanism by
which sequestration would be completely averted and, indeed, I have
already introduced an amendment to the NDAA which will come to the
floor and I hope will pass, which will incorporate that mechanism into
the NDAA, so a vote for the NDAA is also a vote to avert sequestration.
To put this in perspective, in addition to the $487 billion that was
reduced by the President's budget, this is another $492 billion. It's
almost a $1 trillion reduction over 10 years. It would have disastrous
consequences for soldiers, veterans, national security and the economy.

{time} 2010

I'll share with you a few examples of, really, the practical
implications of this and how detrimental they are: the smallest ground
force since 1940; a fleet of fewer than 230 ships when we know that our
maritime needs are not decreasing--they're increasing--principally, in
the Pacific. Now, that would be the smallest level since 1915; the
smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force.
I know that there are other Representatives here tonight, my
colleagues, who want to speak on this issue, so I want to close with
this thought: I mentioned earlier that leadership is really about
setting a clear and compelling vision for our country and then laying
out that it's incumbent upon that person to also have a practical
plan--the steps that the country needs to take to make that vision a
reality.
I am very proud of the House in that we passed a comprehensive plan
to do just that. As I look at where the administration is, there truly
isn't a plan, and our Commander in Chief has not risen to address
sequestration. In fact, he has made it clear that he would veto efforts
to avert sequestration. I look to the Senate, and there is absolutely
no action coming out of there. It hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000
days.
I am respectfully asking the American people to look at the record. I
believe we are an imperfect party in that we haven't done everything
just right, yet the record is clear: We have a plan; it's there; it has
been passed. In the Senate, there is no plan. The administration really
has no plan particularly when it comes to averting sequestration.
So, when my amendment comes to the floor tomorrow--or whenever it
does hit the floor--I trust that my colleagues will see the wisdom of
incorporating that into the NDAA. It would avert sequestration. This
needs to happen in order to meet the deep obligation that we have to
every American in order to honor the veterans who have served, to honor
those veterans who are serving now and our gold star families--those
who have lost loved ones in service to our country. I trust and believe
we will do the right thing.
Mr. REED. I so appreciate the gentleman from Virginia for being down
here and expressing the sentiments that he did.
Before I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, I had a thought as you
were

[[Page H2703]]

expressing your words for the Record and were addressing the Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I think it needs to be clearly laid out because I have
seen some reports in our national media that have kind of set the stage
a little bit, in my opinion, that what is going on here in Washington,
D.C., with the sentiment and the debate is to try to avoid
sequestration. Yes, that is true. We're trying to have an open and
honest dialogue with all Americans as to how we can make sure that our
men and women are not put in harm's way in our armed services, but what
we cannot do is in any way deflect from what is causing this debate to
occur, Madam Speaker. The reason this debate is occurring is that the
national debt is forcing this debate to occur. What we are having is
the conversation of how to address the national debt and to make sure
that defense and the cuts are part of this conversation, but we cannot
go too far and cross that line in the sand that I referred to earlier.
What I am deathly afraid of is that this is going to turn into some
folks trying to paint us on this side of the aisle as just trying to
avoid making cuts to the military. Yes, we are trying to do what is
responsible and make sure that our military is protected, that our men
and women are protected, and that we stand with our veterans and stand
with the benefits that they have earned and that they so deserve. But
we cannot let the debate end there. The debate has to reflect what is
causing this.
This is why I truly do believe that Admiral Mullen echoed those words
to the President--that the biggest threat to America is our national
debt--because with the national debt, what Admiral Mullen was pointing
out to Madam Speaker and to everyone across America is that the
national debt is going to cause us to have the debate in Washington,
D.C., as to whether or not we are cutting too much out of defense and
putting our men and women in harm's way. That is where we are in
Washington today, and we cannot have the simple conversation that we
are trying to avoid cuts for the purposes of avoiding cuts. No. Madam
Speaker, we are dealing with a national debt crisis that is forcing us
to have this debate.
What we are trying to do on this side of the aisle is to make sure
that we do the responsible thing and to make sure that our military is
strong--that she is ready to defend us on a moment's notice from any
threats, foreign and domestic--and that we do not put men and women in
harm's way when we ask them to go and fight for our freedom.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, who has joined us
this evening on this important topic.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from New York for his words and
for his comments on sequestration, on defense spending, on the
challenges that we face in this country. I also want to thank the
Speaker, who is our colleague from Alabama, for her work in making sure
that we are providing the leadership necessary for our Armed Forces.
The gentleman from Virginia mentioned a key word. He mentioned the
word ``leadership.'' The leadership is obvious that this House has
shown in making sure that we are strengthening and keeping our defense
strong in this Nation while also addressing the very serious crisis
that we face with our national debt and deficit: passing a
reconciliation plan, working with Members of this House to make sure
that we come up with ways to find spending cuts, to reduce spending but
to do so in a way that is responsible, to do so in a way that provides
the leadership that our Armed Forces deserve and that the people of
this country deserve.
Last week, a week ago yesterday, I had the incredible opportunity to
go to the Iwo Jima Memorial where I was able to join over 100 veterans
from my district in northern Colorado who had served in World War II
and the Korean war. These veterans came from Greeley, Fort Collins, and
from across the State's eastern plains. They were there to spend one
day in Washington to visit the World War II Memorial and to visit the
various monuments that are here in their honor for their service and
their sacrifice.

I met three brothers who served on the same ship in the Korean war. I
met a gentleman who was 92 years old who had never been on an airplane
since his time in World War II. As I was leaving, as they were
departing for their bus, a gentleman who was 85 years old came up to me
and put his hand on my shoulder. He stopped me and I turned around.
He said, You know, I don't have much time left here--I really didn't
know where he was going and what he was talking about--but he said,
We're counting on you.
And I've thought about that. I thought long and hard about those
words: ``we're counting on you'' to do the right thing, to do what is
right for our country, to do what is right for our military, to do what
is right for our men and women across this country who go to work each
and every day to try to make ends meet but who are protected by people
they've never met around the globe.
There is no doubt that we have a very serious fiscal challenge in
front of us. There is no doubt that we are $15 trillion in debt. There
is no doubt that $1.5 trillion deficits must make tough decisions
around this place happen. The one thing that we cannot do is jeopardize
the safety and security of this country and put our men and women in
uniform at risk.
I am somebody who has come to the House floor time and time again,
who has gone back to the district, and who has stood with many of my
colleagues--with the gentleman from New York--to say, You know what? I
believe we can reduce spending at the Department of Defense. I believe
there are ways that we can reduce spending. We can find waste, abuse.
We can reduce duplicative programs, including those programs that may
be within the Department of Defense. But we can never, never jeopardize
the security of this country, the security of our men and women in
uniform--those people who are serving on the front lines of freedom
around the world--by cutting too far and too deep.
The question that, I think, every American and every person in this
Chamber ought to be asking is: Where is the leadership from the White
House? Where is the plan to avoid these cuts that jeopardize not only
our men and women but the very security of this country? Where is that
plan to avoid very costly cuts that jeopardize the future of this
Nation?
We passed a plan out of this Chamber to reduce spending by $1.2
trillion but to do so in a way that provides the leadership that this
Nation desperately needs.
Our men and women are standing up around this country--those men and
women I met at the Iwo Jima Memorial a week ago, who stood in the
trenches in Korea and World War II, who are counting on us to do what
is right. Their legacy of freedom didn't end when the wars ended. It
continues to this very day as they stand with their brothers and
sisters in arms to make sure that this country has the ability to
protect and defend itself.

{time} 2020

Ultimately, the leadership provided by this House will make sure that
we continue to fund our defense, that we continue to fund our men and
women in uniform appropriately, and that our national security will
remain protected against any and all threats. I believe the Secretary
of Defense has even recognized the grave challenges that the
sequestration poses for our men and women in uniform. But I think it's
time the question be asked to the President of the United States:
Mr. President, where is your plan to protect our men and women in
uniform? Where is your plan to continue the great protection of this
country?
While my colleague from New York and my colleague from Virginia come
and speak about the great risks and challenges that we face, everybody
recognizes that we have to address our debt-and-deficit situation. It
reminds me of a time when Zell Miller, a Senator from Georgia, asked
the question: What are we going to do? Are we going to provide the
ammunition for our men and women in uniform with spitballs, or are we
going to do what is right, by providing them the ability to defend
themselves?
With that, I thank again our colleague from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) for
her leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. REED. I so appreciate the gentleman from Colorado coming and
offering his comments on this important issue.

[[Page H2704]]

Just briefly before I yield, I am reminded from the gentleman's
comments when he referenced leadership and the story that the gentleman
tells of the 85-year-old veteran who put his hand on his shoulder and
said, We're counting on you, because that is the sentiment that forced
or caused me to run for Congress in the beginning and to become a part
of this freshman class of 2010.
I look at the national debt, I look at the economic turmoil that we
find ourselves in, the fact that we cannot create jobs in America to
the level so that people can put food on their table and put a roof
over their head and go to bed comfortable and confident that they're
going to get up tomorrow with a job to go to. I see the turmoil we face
in America right now at the same magnitude as that generational crisis
that that 85-year-old war veteran stood up for in World War II to stand
as a united country to save Lady America and the freedom that she
represents.
What I'm hearing in Washington, D.C.--and I'm sad to say out of the
gentlemen in the administration, I see leadership that is trying to
divide this country when we face a crisis the magnitude of such that is
generational. Ladies and gentlemen of America and Mr. Speaker, the time
is now to unite, not divide, and conquer this issue of the national
debt because it is forcing us to have the conversation of cuts to our
military that is going to put men and women in harm's way. That is not
acceptable on our watch.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I know the gentleman from Virginia
would like to speak, but I'm going to yield the balance of the time to
the leader of the freshman class, the gentlelady from Alabama (Mrs.
Roby) who scheduled this Special Order.
Mrs. ROBY. Thank you to my friend from New York. I appreciate you
being here tonight and controlling the time for a little while.
As we have a few more minutes, I would like to yield to the gentleman
from Virginia.
Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentlelady, my friend. It's a pleasure and a
privilege to serve with the gentlelady on the House Armed Services
Committee. I appreciate her leadership on the House Armed Services
Committee and in holding this time tonight to talk about just the
critical subject of defending this great country.
Just last night, I was with Congressman Forbes and Congressman
Wittman in Chesapeake, Virginia, listening for over an hour to local
contractors speaking about how this looming issue of sequestration is
already affecting not only our larger economy in our region, but also
just our ability to defend our great country. Companies are making
decisions right now and critical and talented people are being laid off
right now in advance of the sequestration that very well could occur in
January of next year.
If I go back to my previous comments, I was talking about the failure
of leadership, as I see it, the administration and also the Senate,
because it's so important to understand kind of how we got here. In the
role of Commander in Chief, it is really incumbent upon the President,
in my view, to articulate and put forth a plan that would avert what
his Secretary of Defense has made so clear is completely unacceptable.
The level of cuts, the severity of the cuts, the suddenness of the cuts
is really what we're referring to here. It's not the almost half a
trillion that was already proposed in the administration's budget.
That's bad enough. We're here tonight, I think in part, to sound the
alarm to the American people that this is an additional almost half a
trillion dollars of cuts. Mr. Speaker, you cannot build 90 percent of a
submarine; you cannot build 90 percent of a carrier. It will be a legal
nightmare. Contracts will have to be broken and then renegotiated. It
will be a quagmire from just a legal standpoint.
So I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for the opportunity to
again address this critical issue. And I call upon the administration
and I call upon the Senate to meet the House where we are, which is to
put forth specific plans. This is leadership.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mrs. ROBY. Thank you to my friend from Virginia.
I just point back to H.R. 5652, which is the Sequester Replacement
Reconciliation Act that we passed in this House. Here we spend so much
time while we're here in Washington, when we're back home in our
districts, for me when I'm at the grocery store or pumping gas or
taking my kids to school, talking about jobs and the economy. We're
talking about the things that we here in this Congress have done to
create so much uncertainty for you, the small business owner, and the
reflection of the lack of jobs because of decisions that are made here.

All you have to do is look at the Sequester Replacement
Reconciliation Act to see that what we need to be focusing on is
priority. It's about priority. What is our job as Members of Congress
as laid out by the Constitution of the United States? As I've already
pointed out, it's to provide for a strong national defense. When we
talk about jobs and the economy and then the stripping away of the
tools that our men and women in uniform need in order to defend this
country--I just want to give you a little snapshot to end on what that
picture looks like.
Specifically, 200,000 soldiers and marines would have to separate
from service, bringing our force well below pre-9/11 levels. We would
have a fleet of fewer than 230 ships. That would be the smallest since
1915. We would have the smallest tactical fighter force in the history
of the Air Force and a reduction of 20 percent in defense civilian
personnel to go to your point.
These industries--aerospace, defense, and industrial base--directly
employ more than 1 million people and support more than 2 million
middle class jobs across the United States, all in an effort to protect
our men and women who are fighting for and defending the freedom and
liberty that everyone in this room so enjoys.

{time} 2030

I could go on and on. You know that we could talk well past the hour,
although we don't have that time.
Very quickly, I will thank my friend from Virginia once again. And is
there anything else my friend from Colorado would like to add?
Mr. GARDNER. I know our friend from Virginia talked about the
concerns of the Secretary of Defense, yet we still have no plan from
this White House on how to deal with the very serious problem that
faces our troops and jeopardizes our country's security.
I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for her leadership tonight.
Mrs. ROBY. I thank you both.
Again, to all of our veterans and military servicemembers and
personnel, we just say thank you.
And I urge my colleagues to support the National Defense
Authorization Act this week, as we move through the open process that
we have, so that we can continue to give those men and women and their
families all that they need to ensure that they are able to accomplish
the mission.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHILLING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Roby for
holding this important leadership hour. I rise today to speak on some
important issues facing our military as well as some provisions within
the National Defense Authorization Act.
Here is the bottom line: Our national debt, which is approaching $16
trillion--or $50,000 for every person in this country--is a national
security threat and we must find ways to bring our spending under
control.
This House has acted to change the debate from how much can
Washington spend to how much spending can we cut? We've led by example
and cut our own office budgets by almost 12 percent. With the belief
that more common sense in Washington can lead to uncommon savings for
the taxpayer we have taken a government wide approach to cutting
spending
The House has also stressed efficiencies when it passed a bill by my
colleague Allen West that would cut the Department of Defense's
printing budget by 10 percent.
However, placing our warfighters at risk is not the solution to our
debt problem. There are proposals out there to make deep cuts to the
Department of Defense that would only create dangerous consequences for
the stability of our fighting forces. One proposal would reduce
Department of Defense civilian employee levels beyond what our organic
industrial base can handle. As a member who represents a vital part of
our organic base, the Rock Island Arsenal, these proposals strongly
concern me.
The largest concentration of civilians in the Army is within the Army
Materiel Command and the largest concentration of civilians within Army
Materiel Command is found in our

[[Page H2705]]

arsenals and depots--or our organic base. This organic base is what
ensures that our military is warm and ready to go at a moment's notice.
That is why I am also concerned about proposals that would reduce
organic base specialization in areas like manufacturing.
Without the ability to specialize in these areas, our warfighters
could be left flatfooted when emergencies happen. For example, the Rock
Island Arsenal was able to produce up-armor kits for the doors of
Humvees for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan when their vehicles were
being attacked with IEDs. The Arsenal's ability to do this work quickly
gave industry the time it needed to create long-term fixes for them and
provided our troops with the tools they needed to most safely and
effectively accomplish their missions.
During this time of fiscal constraint we must be careful not to
penalize our organic base--which provides quality to the warfighter and
value to the taxpayer. We must preserve and strengthen our organic
base, not weaken it. The workers at the Rock Island Arsenal are a great
example of how manufacturing skill can yield success for our
warfighters.
In addition to serving on the House Armed Services Committee, I also
serve on the Small Business Committee where our focus is solely on job
creation through helping small businesses.
Small businesses have proven that they can perform a service or
produce goods for the government at a lower cost and often at a faster
pace than their larger counterparts, but many challenges remain for
businesspeople seeking to break through the bureaucracy.
My colleague on the Small Business Committee, Representative Judy
Chu, and I introduced H.R. 3985, the Building Better Business
Partnerships Act in February, which passed through the Small Business
Committee last month, to reform mentor-protege programs that exist to
help small businesses win government contracts.
The Building Better Business Partnerships Act allows the Small
Business Administration to oversee civilian mentor-protege programs to
streamline the process for each agency and ensure the programs are
benefitting all small businesses.
This bipartisan language was successfully included in the FY 2013
NDAA in Committee to help small businesses compete for and win more
government contracts so they can create jobs and get folks back to
work.
This week, the House will debate the Defense Authorization bill. Our
Constitution requires that we ``provide for the common defense'' and
for fifty years in a row, Congress has acted to authorize defense
programs. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to deliver a
strong, common sense defense bill for the United States of America.
Again, I want to thank Congresswoman Roby for holding this leadership
hour. This July, the Rock Island Arsenal will celebrate 150 years of
protecting our brave men and women. As a member of the House I will
continue to pursue policies that allow our arsenals to thrive and grow
their workload so that the Rock Island Arsenal can celebrate another
150 years and beyond.

____________________