[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 70 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2787-H2796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013


                             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 and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4310.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHenry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 656 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4310.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1820


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Ross of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which

[[Page H2788]]

overwhelmingly passed the Committee on Armed Services. In keeping with 
the committee's tradition of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I 
worked collaboratively to produce this bill and solicited input from 
each of our members.
  The legislation advances our national security objectives, provides 
support and logistical resources for our warfighters, and helps the 
United States confront the national security challenges of the 21st 
century. The bill authorizes $554 billion for national defense in the 
base budget, consistent with the allocation provided by the House 
Budget Committee. It also authorizes $88.5 billion for overseas 
contingency operations.
  The legislation continues my priorities set forth when I was elected 
chairman. It contains no earmarks. It carefully analyzes the Defense 
Department for inefficiencies and savings. It helps ensure the 
Pentagon's new national defense strategy is not a hollow one. And 
despite historic cuts to our wartime military, it plugs critical 
capability and strategic shortfalls opened in the President's budget 
submission.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 achieves 
these goals by working to:
  Number one, ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan and globally, 
including the National Guard who are the Nation's first line of defense 
at home, have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time 
they need to successfully complete their missions and return home 
safely;
  Number two, care for our warfighters, veterans, and their families 
with the support they've earned through their service;
  Three, provide critical strategic capabilities in an era of 
austerity;
  Fourth, mandate fiscal responsibility, transparency, and 
accountability within the Department of Defense; and
  Finally, improve the relationship between the Defense Department and 
the supporting industrial base by eliminating red tape and 
incentivizing competition.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2012 we affirmed that the President is authorized to 
detain certain al Qaeda terrorists pursuant to the 2001 Authorization 
for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. Ten years after the horrific 
attacks of 9/11, it was time for Congress to once again ensure that our 
men and women in uniform have the authority they need to continue to 
fight and win the war on terror.
  Foreign terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, 
still pose a grave threat to all U.S. citizens. As a result of last 
year's bill, we've heard from a number of concerned citizens wondering 
what this affirmation meant in relation to the rights of U.S. citizens. 
As a result, in this year's bill, we've incorporated Representatives 
Scott Rigell and Jeff Landry's Right to Habeas Corpus Act, which 
affirms the availability of the ``great writ'' habeas corpus to any 
person detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF. As we all 
know, the writ of habeas corpus is the ultimate protection against any 
unlawful detention by the Executive.
  I am especially proud of the bipartisan work done on defense industry 
reform. We have several provisions in our bill that adopt bipartisan 
recommendations to improve the relationship between the Pentagon and 
the defense industry. In a time of declining defense budgets, we can no 
longer afford to conduct business as usual. This bill encourages small 
businesses to compete for Pentagon contracts and closely scrutinizes 
every penny that the taxpayers send to the Armed Forces.
  Finally, in light of the Pentagon's new national security strategy, 
it's Congress' constitutional obligation to ensure this new force 
posture is not a hollow one. To that end, we provide modest increases 
in combat capabilities, with a particular emphasis on our Navy fleet 
and critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee for 
working with us to bring this measure to the floor. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support passage of this bill. In partnership with you, we 
look forward to passing the 51st consecutive National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the committee members, and the staff 
who, once again, did an outstanding bipartisan job in putting together 
this bill.
  One of the paramount duties of our Congress is to provide for the 
common defense and, most importantly, make sure that our men and women 
who serve us in uniform have all the support they need to fulfill the 
missions that we ask them to do. I believe this bill meets that 
standard.
  I thank the chairman for his willingness to work in a bipartisan 
fashion with me and my staff. I believe we have upheld the tradition of 
this committee and have shown that Congress can, in fact, work together 
to get things done, and I always appreciate that opportunity.
  Most importantly, this bill prioritizes supporting the warfighter. We 
still have around 70,000 U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting 
the war. We need to make sure they have the equipment and support they 
need to do that. I believe this bill meets that mission.
  This bill also recognizes the threats we face and adequately funds 
the need to meet those threats, most importantly, the threat from 
terrorist and nonstate actors like al Qaeda and their affiliates. We 
have strong support for the Special Operations Command as well as for 
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to make sure that we can 
continue to defeat the terrorist networks that would threaten us. Those 
are the top priorities.
  We also make sure that our troops get the 1.7 percent pay raise they 
need and get the support for both the individual troops and for their 
families that are necessary to continue to serve us. We must always 
remember that we have an all-volunteer military. We are dependent upon 
the willingness of people to volunteer. We must make sure that we honor 
that service. We have done that, and we have done it quite well, to the 
point where we have the finest military the world has ever seen, and 
the support from this Congress is critical to maintaining that.
  While there is much in this bill that I think is excellent and that I 
support, I will note just one caution as we go forward: Our bill is $8 
billion over the Budget Control Act. It is over what the Senate is 
going to mark up. At some point, we are going to have to rationalize 
that and figure out how to make our national security strategy and our 
defense budget work in an era where our budgets are coming down.
  We have a sizable deficit, and I believe it's critical that we put 
together a strategic plan and plan for the future. It's not enough to 
go year by year. We don't want to wake up 2 or 3 years from now and 
find out that we've funded more programs than we can afford to 
complete. We need a strategic vision, and we're going to have to work 
to get to that number and get to that cooperation with the Senate.
  I also want to emphasize the importance of an amendment that I plan 
to offer that would change how we handle indefinite detention in 
military custody. I do not believe the executive branch should have 
that power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people 
captured or arrested here in the U.S. I believe the United States 
Constitution and our due process system provides plenty of protections. 
We have arrested and convicted over 400 terrorists using that system. 
We have not used the indefinite detention in military custody power 
given to the President, and we have been able to protect ourselves. 
It's important that we protect the Constitution and that amendment is 
ruled in order, so I would hope that the full House would pass it.
  I am very pleased with the bill. Again, I thank the chairman for his 
outstanding work in making sure that this bill supports the men and 
women in uniform who so bravely serve us. I believe it meets that 
objective. And I appreciate working with Mr. McKeon, all of his staff, 
and all of the members of the committee.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to respond to my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. 
Smith

[[Page H2789]]

from Washington. He's correct, we are $8 billion over the amount that 
was in the Deficit Reduction Act. In the budget the President submitted 
to us, it was $4 billion over. And we went about $3.7 billion above 
that. But in the overall budget that we will pass out of the House--and 
we did pass out of the House, under Budget Chairman Ryan--we increased 
the spending for defense due to the priorities that we feel are most 
important and the constitutional requirement that we have to provide 
for the common defense. But we will cut in other areas of the budget so 
that we comply fully with the Deficit Reduction Act.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee of Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT. I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I have the privilege of serving 
as the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. Our 
jurisdiction includes approximately $65 billion of Department of 
Defense research, development, and procurement programs within the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force.
  I want to first thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Silvestre 
Reyes from Texas, and an incredible staff for their support in the 
hearing process and in completing the markup of this bill. Under the 
leadership of Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, the committee 
effort is truly bipartisan.
  The committee's focus is to support the men and women of the Armed 
Forces and their families, providing the equipment they need and the 
support they so deserve. Our first priority is providing the equipment 
to support our military personnel serving in Afghanistan and other 
areas where they may be under threat of hostile actions.
  Over $2 billion in the President's budget request is recommended to 
be authorized to address urgent operational needs for the warfighter, 
to include counter-improvised explosive device requirements. An 
additional $500 million is provided for the National Guard and Reserve 
Equipment Account.
  The committee bill sustains the Nation's heavy armored production 
base by maintaining minimum sustained production of upgrade 
modifications for Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Hercules 
recovery vehicles. The Army's budget request would result in a 
production break of 3 to 4 years for the upgrade of these heavy-armored 
vehicles, which would negatively impact many small businesses.
  The committee believes maintaining a minimum sustained production is 
a better alternative for taxpayer dollars than closing production lines 
and then paying to reopen the production lines years later. Minimum 
sustained production would also retain the valuable workforce and 
supplier base that would otherwise be lost and provide upgraded 
vehicles to the Army Heavy Brigade Combat teams.
  The committee bill would also retain the Air Force's Global Hawk 
Block 30 unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
aircraft to support the deployed warfighter rather than placing these 
aircraft in storage, as the Air Force plan would do.
  In addition the committee bill would fund over 150 helicopters of 
varying types for the Army and approximately 70 fighter aircraft of 
varying types for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their support in providing an excellent bill to support the 
men and women of our armed forces.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank our ranking member and my colleagues for their 
indulgence in letting me go a little out of turn here.
  By most counts, the United States Department of Defense is the second 
largest organization in the world, behind only the rest of the United 
States Federal Government, if you took out the Department of Defense. 
It is the only organization of that size that doesn't have audited 
financial statements. So in an organization that spends over $500 
billion a year, we cannot say to the taxpayers of our country with 
certainty exactly what is spent where, by whom, and for what.
  My friend, Congressman Mike Conaway from Texas, has made correction 
of this problem a special mission of his since he joined this 
institution. And I would like to thank him because he chaired a panel 
that Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith saw fit to appoint in 
this Congress to look at how to fix that problem. The solution to the 
problem, I think, is well on the way to being achieved. Secretary 
Panetta and Mr. Hale, who's the comptroller of the Pentagon, worked 
diligently on this and made it a very high priority. And the panel on 
which I was privileged to serve had voluminous hearings to find out the 
progress that we were making.
  Suffice it to say that we are impatient--and we should be. But I do 
believe that the cooperative relationship between the panel created by 
the chairman and the ranking member and the Department of Defense is 
leading us to the day when we will have a clear-eyed assessment of 
exactly what is being spent on what, by whom, and when.
  There will be an amendment, in all probability, offered later in this 
debate which would codify the deadline for reaching some of the 
milestones along that path. I will respectfully oppose that amendment 
because I think codification of this requirement will actually retard 
our progress rather than enhance it.
  So I look forward to debate about all aspects of this bill. I'm proud 
to have supported the bill in the full committee markup.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Service Committee and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I commend Chairman McKeon for his leadership in 
developing this bill throughout the course of the year and appreciate 
the working relationship that he and the ranking member have, as 
evidenced by the fact that this bill was reported out of committee by a 
vote of 56 5. And I certainly agree with the comments of Mr. Andrews. 
One of the bipartisan goals of this committee is to make sure the 
taxpayers get every dollar of value possible for the money we spend for 
defense, and that is a goal that I think we are making good progress 
toward.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to express special appreciation to the 
members of the staff of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee, especially Mr. Langevin, our ranking member.
  To summarize that portion of the bill, I think one could do it in 
three parts. One is to support the people and missions of the U.S. 
Special Operations Command while also providing objective oversight of 
what they do. Special Operations Forces are at the forefront of 
protecting this country, but that also puts them at the forefront of a 
lot of legal and policy issues, and that makes communication between 
the Congress and the Special Operations Forces and their lawyers and 
other overseers especially important.
  Secondly, our portion of the bill tries to sow and nurture the seeds 
of future capability, such as our science and technology programs. It's 
always tempting to cut research and development in tight budget times, 
but if you do that, then you are handicapping yourself from having the 
capability you need in the future.
  And, thirdly, this mark tries to take several steps forward on 
oversight and policy in the critical new domain of warfare of cyber. 
Obviously, we have talked a lot about that in recent weeks on the floor 
of this House.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just make the point that we have lots of 
problems around the world, but this bill comes to the floor in a time 
of war. So as we come with these various amendments that cut this, 
that, and the other thing, we all need to keep in mind that there are 
still people out there trying to kill as many Americans as they 
possibly can, as recent news reports reflect. We ought to be cautious 
about that.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. REYES. I want to thank our chairman from California and the

[[Page H2790]]

ranking member for, again, leading the way in a bipartisan effort.
  Although probably not a perfect bill, under the circumstances, with 
troops still deployed in war zones, I think a bipartisan agreement to 
this very important and critical legislation was reached. I especially 
want to thank my chairman, Chairman Bartlett, for working and 
continuing the tradition of working on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased 
that our portion of H.R. 4310 supports, I believe, all the high-
priority acquisition programs in the President's budget.
  Some examples are: it fully funds the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle 
program at about $640 million. It provides $5.8 billion for Army 
helicopters, UAVs and other aviation platforms and upgrades. It also 
provides $1.6 billion for 21 V 22 Ospreys, which are a critical 
component of supporting our troops and their operations in Afghanistan 
today.

                              {time}  1840

  It further provides $2.2 billion for upgrading the Army's tactical 
communications network. It increases funding for the Abrams tanks by 
$181 million. It also increases funding for Bradley fighting vehicles 
by $140 million. And more than anything, it protects our industrial 
base at this pivotal and critical time to ensure that we don't lose the 
expertise and the quality workforce that we have in this country and 
all their capabilities.
  But I guess the most important legislative provision in H.R. 4310 is 
legislation requiring the Air Force to continue to operate the Global 
Hawk Block 30 unmanned aerial system, which just reached operational 
capability in August of 2011. This is important because testimony 
before our committee underscores what we have known all along and in 
the 4 years I was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that we have 
to continue to emphasize ISR capability. This legislation, H.R. 4310, 
holds the Air Force to its plan from last year to continue to operate 
both the Global Hawk and U 2 systems through 2014. So I ask all Members 
to support this critical piece of legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership for the national defense of our country.
  I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act. As you've heard, Mr. Chairman, this bill reflects a 
bipartisan effort to address the many issues impacting the readiness of 
our military.
  This year's bill prohibits funding from being used to plan for 
another round of BRAC, which I believe would be founded on a flawed 
premise that assumes the administration's proposal for a reduced force 
structure is correct. I categorically refuse to accept a diminished 
Department of Defense and believe that additional force structure is 
necessary to support our combatant commanders.
  We have also done our best to craft a bipartisan way forward on depot 
maintenance reform, returning the Nation to a long-standing balance 
between the public and private sectors. Although I will admit this bill 
is not all things to all people, we look forward to continuing to 
improve these portions of the bill in conference.
  This bill also takes several steps to ensure our Navy readiness, 
including the restoration of funding to retain three Ticonderoga class 
guided missile cruisers that the Navy proposed to retire well before 
the end of their expected service life.
  Finally, in this year's bill, we address the administration's efforts 
to reduce military and civilian workforce, while increasing its 
contractor full-time equivalents. By building upon last year's effort 
to direct the DOD to create a policy for total force management, we 
direct GAO, in this year's bill, to provide their assessment of what 
measures DOD is taking to appropriately balance its current and future 
workforce structure against its requirements.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Armed 
Services Committee, especially my Readiness Subcommittee ranking 
member, Ms. Bordallo, for their help in providing the unyielding 
support for the men and women who so heavily rely on our efforts, and 
our staff who work tirelessly to produce this product.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on 
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking 
member for the time, and I also want to thank Mr. Turner, our chairman 
on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, for his leadership, and all of 
the members who work on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee for all of 
their work and contributions to this year's mark.
  I think that there are a lot of issue areas that we can agree upon, 
especially in the Strategic Forces Committee, to make our Nation 
stronger and to really look after our nuclear arsenal.
  I think there are particular provisions that I really like in this 
bill, for example, the cost effective and accountability on some of 
these things. And supporting nuclear nonproliferation, for example, is 
a very important issue, and I think this bill does a good job on that. 
Maintaining a safe and secure and reliable nuclear arsenal, I think 
that is also important. Fully authorizing the environmental cleanup 
that we have to do related to these activities, that is also included 
in this bill. Increasing the regional missile defense systems that we 
have that protect our troops when they are, for example, in Europe, 
when they're deployed, and also our allies for the short- and medium-
range missile attacks that might happen, protecting long-term and cost-
effective investments in our military space assets, these are all areas 
that we have agreed upon.
  However, I am extremely concerned about some of the other issue areas 
where we do not agree. For example, provisions that impede nuclear 
weapons reductions, I think that is incredibly important to allow the 
administration to move forward, not only with New START Treaty, but 
also to look at other ways in which we can bring down our arsenal if we 
don't need it.
  The governance and management reforms that will undermine independent 
oversight related to health and safety, including nuclear safety.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank my ranking member.
  These are very important to our people who work in this arena. What 
is their safety going to be when they're working with nuclear weapons 
in the complexes that we have? I think that the standards and the way, 
the management way that the Republicans like to do are going to 
probably cause some inconsistent standards in protecting our workers--
and risk people's lives, quite frankly.
  Increasing funding for nuclear weapons by more than $400 million over 
the President's budget request when our own Pentagon didn't want that, 
or increasing funding for the ground-based midcourse defense program by 
over $350 million while there are still test failures going out, when 
we have had 9 of 17 tests fail on us, then I don't think we should be 
continuing to invest in the same system. We should look and try to take 
care and find out what went wrong.
  I look forward to trying to work these things out in the conference.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. I thank Chairman McKeon.
  Mr. Chairman, much of this bill is totally bipartisan. Two important 
provisions relate to missile defense and our nuclear weapons 
infrastructure modernization. Let me talk briefly about those two.
  The first, in this bill we restore the funding for our national 
missile defense system, the budget for which the President has 
repeatedly slashed. This bill also sets up a third missile defense site 
for the east coast, adding another layer to homeland defense.

[[Page H2791]]

  The bill fully funds the nuclear modernization program that President 
Obama promised when he sought ratification of the New START Treaty. 
National security demands Members make a choice--fully fund 
modernization or don't implement New START.
  Also a focus of this bill is reform of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. If we didn't strike the right balance after several 
bipartisan sessions and hearings Ms. Sanchez and I convened, we have a 
long process ahead of us to work to get it right.
  As the National Academies, Strategic Posture Commission, and others 
have found, NNSA is, quite simply, broken and cannot afford to be left 
unfixed. I am absolutely committed to working with the minority and the 
administration to ensure a more efficient NNSA that has the nuclear 
deterrent and safety as unchallenged priorities. I look forward to an 
administration proposal on the subject.
  I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), our 
ranking member, for her support, leadership, and contributions to our 
process thus far this year. I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his 
leadership.
  Nuclear weapons and missile defense are two very important issues for 
the safety and security of our Nation. Our subcommittee has taken a 
strong commitment to these, and we look forward to this bill moving 
forward to the Senate as we try to strengthen both our missile defense 
capability and our nuclear deterrent.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis) ranking member on the Personnel 
Subcommittee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their leadership, and Chairman Wilson for making our 
subcommittee work a bipartisan effort. I also want to thank the staff 
for producing this important piece of legislation.
  I am pleased the bill includes provisions that are important to our 
men and women in uniform, such as a 1.7 percent pay raise, improvements 
and additional efforts to combat sexual assault, transition assistance 
for members leaving the service, and Impact Aid funding for our 
military children.
  However, I am concerned because the majority on this committee 
adopted several amendments that distract from the wonderful work that 
we have done. Two provisions deal with gays in the military. The first 
would prohibit same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed on 
military installations.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. Chairman, we already had this debate, and the American people 
support gays and lesbians openly serving in our military. Denying a 
servicemember the ability to use a military facility to hold a ceremony 
that others have access to is wrong and it's discriminatory. But most 
importantly, that ceremony would not be in violation of DOMA because 
DOMA only states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. It 
literally does not say anything else.
  The second provision that was passed in committee is even more 
troubling to me. This provision would seek to protect the religious 
beliefs of chaplains and servicemembers. The issue of protecting the 
religious beliefs of chaplains was already addressed last year, and the 
law on this is very clear:
  A military chaplain who, as a matter of conscience or moral 
principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be required to 
do so.
  So this really comes down to protecting discriminatory acts against 
gays and lesbians in uniform, which is contrary to the military core 
values of good order and discipline. I hope we can resolve this issue 
in a way that does not allow discrimination against a group of 
servicemembers based solely on their sexual orientation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. The other issue I want to raise--and 
several of my colleagues have raised this already--is the fact that 
this bill is $8 billion over the Budget Control Act. While we made a 
number of decisions to restore cuts from the President's budget, we 
will need to resolve this difference at some point, and this means that 
programs will need to be cut. My hope is that the pay and benefits of 
our brave men and women will not be the bill-payer when we must reduce 
spending in this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. I'd like to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their leadership in moving H.R. 4310, the Fiscal Year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act, as it overwhelmingly passed the 
House Armed Services Committee.
  The provisions of this bill aptly demonstrate our collective 
commitment to our Nation's heroes--the men and women of our armed 
services who sacrifice so much each and every day for all of us. I've 
seen their efforts firsthand, having the opportunity to travel five 
times to Afghanistan, and I recently had the opportunity to visit 
wounded warriors in Bethesda and Balboa. Each visit reinforces how much 
this Nation owes the members of our all-volunteer force. Against this 
backdrop, I have worked to ensure that decisions made in Congress 
fulfill the appropriate oversight role in taking care of our troops and 
veterans and securing our Nation's defense.
  The bill before us today lives up to those solemn commitments. In 
particular, this bill blocks the proposed increase in TRICARE fees 
proposed by the administration. The administration's proposal places an 
unconscionable burden on our oldest and most vulnerable veterans by 
increasing their fees by 345 percent over a 10-year period. The bill 
recognizes our budgetary limits, but also keeps faith with America's 
veterans and servicemembers.
  This bill ensures that as we consider transition in Afghanistan, we 
adequately understand associated risks. Based on the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee findings, this bill calls for periodic 
assessments of the factors resulting in such trends and the 
effectiveness of transfer agreements we've negotiated with foreign 
countries. This bill, through an amendment, also requires an assessment 
focused on similar trends for the Parwan Detention Facility in 
Afghanistan.
  Finally, this bill helps to preserve our Nation's maritime dominance 
by authorizing new construction of up to 10 destroyers and up to 10 
submarines, as well as preventing early retirement of three cruisers. 
These assets will provide for our common defense, ensure we have the 
necessary resources for our strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific, and 
help to maintain a healthy shipbuilding industrial base.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, can you give us an update on 
the time left on each side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 17 minutes, and the 
gentleman from California has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is the ranking member 
on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to 
thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, Chairman Thornberry, and 
the members of the committee, as well as the staff, for their efforts 
in crafting this year's bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act, 
which affirms our commitment to the dedicated men and women of our 
military, the infrastructure that enables their efforts, and the 
research and development required to maintain our technological edge.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4310 includes provisions I 
advocated to prevent the proposed cut in the production of the peerless 
Virginia-class submarines. These electric boats--which are critical to 
our national security and built in my district through Quonset/
Davisville by the hardworking men and women that work there--are being 
built ahead of schedule and under budget. This bill preserves the two-
boat-per-year model that has enabled such great efficiencies.
  I would also like to note the inclusion of my amendment to accelerate

[[Page H2792]]

the deployment of the most promising directed-energy initiatives. Just 
recently, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments issued a 
report that clearly showed that many directed energy technologies have 
matured to the point that ``cultural factors and the lack of resources, 
not technological maturity'' are the most significant barriers to 
operational deployment. These technologies have the potential to 
fundamentally shift how our military operates in the complex 
environments of the future and enables DOD's objectives of a ``smaller, 
lighter, more agile, flexible joint force that can conduct a full range 
of military activities.''
  Additionally, this legislation prioritizes and supports the 
Department's cybersecurity and IT efforts. Cyber has long been a chief 
focus of mine; and while I'm encouraged that this legislation continues 
to address this critical issue, much remains to be done. FBI Director 
Mueller has said that cybersecurity could soon be more of a threat than 
terrorism, yet our Federal Government still lacks a single point of 
accountability for cybersecurity, and our critical infrastructure lacks 
many basic protections.
  I am hopeful that the Rules Committee will allow floor consideration 
of two amendments I offered that would enable a comprehensive approach 
to cybersecurity across the government and secure the infrastructure on 
which our military and our Nation depend.
  On balance, this is a good bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their hard work, as well as the staff.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schilling).
  Mr. SCHILLING. I'd like to thank Chairman Buck McKeon for his hard 
work and dedication to getting this put together, and all of the staff 
members.
  I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013. This bill shows our support for our troops and allows 
them to continue their mission in defending our country. We are facing 
difficult fiscal choices, but we must not penalize our brave men and 
women who are in harm's way.
  I am particularly supportive of how this bill supports small 
businesses that contract with the Department of Defense, our organic 
base that ensures our soldiers are equipped and ensures that those who 
would do harm to our Nation are not allowed within its borders. I am 
also pleased that it will provide insight on how TRICARE can be better 
suited to the needs of the children of our warfighters, and that it 
will provide more flexibility for the DOD to bring our soldiers who are 
missing in action home from previous conflicts.
  I am privileged to represent the Rock Island Arsenal in the Illinois 
17th District. These hardworking men and women support our warfighters 
with the tools they need to accomplish their goals and missions. I look 
forward to continuing my work on the House Armed Services Committee 
with my colleagues to ensure that our organic base is ready and able to 
respond when our warfighters need them.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
bill and pass it for the 51st year in a row.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to 
highlight the Defense Business Panel's work over the past 6 months and 
discuss our proposals for a series of procurement, contracting, and 
export control reforms that seek to help small and medium-sized 
businesses access the nearly $400 billion-a-year defense market.
  Burdensome regulations and arcane auditing requirements are driving 
many companies to quit the defense market and are deterring new 
suppliers from entering the market. I am pleased that many of the 
bipartisan recommendations from the Defense Business Panel's report, 
``Challenges to Doing Business with the Department of Defense,'' have 
made it into this year's National Defense Authorization Act and have 
received overwhelming support by the HASC committee members.
  To ensure the Pentagon uses small businesses more, the FY13 NDAA 
requires the Department of Defense to award 25 percent of the total 
value of all prime contracts each year to small businesses. The panel 
heard from many companies around the Nation about how to modernize our 
export control regime. Tomorrow we may be debating an amendment that 
would grant the administration authority to remove commercial 
satellites and components from the Munitions List to the Commerce 
Control List. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  The panel focused on the steps that can be taken to commercialize 
innovative products that originate from small businesses. This year's 
NDAA will restore 1 percent funding for expenses for the 
commercialization and readiness program and will require program 
offices to import SBIR Phase 2 programs into programs of record, when 
appropriate.
  We accomplished much to help small businesses over the panel's 6 
months of work, but we've only scratched the surface. More can be done 
to help small businesses contract with the DOD, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to implement these changes.
  Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), who is the chairman of this panel, for his leadership, and 
the chairman of the full committee and ranking member, Mr. McKeon and 
Mr. Smith, for appointing the panel.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. West), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, and a man who has led troops in battle.
  Mr. WEST. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, and thank you, Ranking Member 
Smith.
  I stand today to offer my support for H.R. 4310, Fiscal Year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  To echo the comments of my colleague from Washington (Mr. Larsen), I 
am very happy to see that the recommendations from the Defense Business 
Panel will be included in this legislation because we have to 
streamline our processing and our contracting opportunities as well for 
our small businesses.
  I'm also very happy to know that the End Strength Reduction Act was 
included in this legislation to make sure that we have the proper 
procedures in tearing down the reduction of our forces, and making sure 
we periodically go back and reassess our national security objectives 
to make sure that our end strength of our military meets those 
objectives.
  I'm also very pleased to know that we continue to protect the well-
earned TRICARE health care benefits for our veterans and for military 
retirees, staying away from the tripling of those health care rates. We 
will continue to index that toward the COLA.
  We will continue to provide for the proper support of our military 
families and their children and the programs on our installations.
  But most importantly, I am very happy to know that we will continue 
to resource our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our Marines, 
because as we are standing here today debating this piece of 
legislation, someone is out there being the watchman on the wall. 
Someone is out there about to go on a patrol, and they are trusting and 
depending upon us to do the right thing through the amendment process 
of this legislation to ensure that they are given the resources so they 
can provide victory and once again provide for the common defense of 
this great Nation.
  We must make sure that our military cannot be seen as a bill payer 
for fiscal irresponsibility. And the most important thing is, when you 
look at our track record for predicting the next conflict, it is not a 
good track record.
  We must make sure that we do not destroy our military and decimate 
its capabilities and capacities while we're trying to rectify the 
fiscal situation here. Let's stay focused on our primary responsibility 
of providing for the common defense.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member on the 
Seapower Subcommittee.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Seapower

[[Page H2793]]

and Projection Forces Subcommittee, I want to thank Chairman Akin for 
his hard work in helping our subcommittee put together our portion of 
the FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act. Throughout the process, 
there was a strong bipartisan effort to deliver what is truly needed by 
our men and women in uniform.
  There are a number of provisions with which I'm particularly pleased: 
The multiyear procurement authority for up to 10 Virginia Class attack 
submarines. This provision also gives incremental funding authority and 
restores advance procurement in FY 13 that will allow the Navy to 
procure a second Virginia class submarine in FY 13.
  Also, the multiyear procurement authority for up to 10 DDG 51 Arleigh 
Burke Class Destroyers and the extension of the Ford-Class Aircraft 
Carrier incremental funding from 5 years to 6 years.
  The bill also contains several Littoral Combat Ship provisions. 
However, I want to be clear that these provisions do not indicate that 
the subcommittee no longer supports the LCS program. These provisions 
simply ask the Navy to update the subcommittee on the program's status, 
and ask the GAO to analyze the program and ensure that any issues that 
previously have occurred will have been addressed and corrected. This 
will provide the Navy the opportunity to address any and all concerns 
that may still exist.
  I want to thank our committee for its hard work, Chairman McKeon and 
Ranking Member Smith for their excellent work and leadership. I also 
want to thank the HASC staff, Tom MacKenzie, Heath Bope, Phil 
MacNaughton and Emily Waterlander, and the personal staff, Justin 
Johnson, Blair Milligan and Kaitlin Helms, for their efforts and 
expertise throughout this authorization process.
  This is a bill we could and ought to support, and stand up for our 
men and women in uniform. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague and the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 
leadership on behalf of the military families, servicemembers, and 
veterans of our country.
  The Military Personnel titles of the Fiscal Year 2013 National 
Defense Authorization Act are a product of an open, bipartisan process. 
These personnel titles provide our warfighters, veterans, and military 
families the care and support they deserve, additionally ensuring that 
proposed drawdown plans do not cut to the heart of the Army and Marine 
Corps.
  Specifically, this year's proposal will first authorize a troop pay 
increase of 1.7 percent, and extend bonuses and special pay; 
additionally, limit the end strength reduction for the active Army and 
Marine Corps; also provide significant new regulations for combating 
sexual assault within the military, and extend access to family housing 
and commissary and exchange benefits for troops who are involuntarily 
separated.
  Additionally, we will extend some TRICARE benefits to members of the 
Selected Reserve who are involuntarily separated. And finally, make 
clear that the nonmilitary contributions to health care benefits 
through a career of service represent prepayment of health care 
premiums in retirement.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Ranking Member Congresswoman Susan 
Davis and her staff for her contributions in this process. We are 
joined, of course, by dedicated members of the subcommittee. Their 
recommendations are clearly reflected in this mark.
  Finally, I want to appreciate the service and dedication of the 
subcommittee majority staff, John Chapla, Debra Wada, Jeanette James, 
Mike Higgins, Craig Greene and Jim Weiss, along with my military 
legislative assistant, Chad Sydnor, and Military Fellow, Marine Master 
Gunnery Sergeant Michelle King.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4310.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the 
Readiness Subcommittee.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the defense 
authorization bill for FY13. The underlying legislation continues to 
make sure that our men and women in uniform are provided with the 
resources to be well trained and equipped.
  Although the war in Iraq is over and we begin a drawdown of the surge 
forces in Afghanistan, we continue to face challenges with our 
readiness. The bill supports the Department's reset efforts, which are 
important to addressing readiness challenges in our global commands, 
particularly in the U.S. Pacific Command.
  The bill provides authorization for more than $11 billion in funding 
for military construction projects, including family housing. And our 
bill does not authorize an unwarranted round of base closures and 
realignments.
  The bill also continues this committee's support for the realignment 
of military forces in the Pacific, including the military buildup on 
Guam. As we refocus on the Asia-Pacific region, our bill makes efforts 
to remove restrictions that are impeding the DOD's ability to move 
forward with the realignment. The revised agreement between the United 
States and Japan is a step in the right direction, and our bill helps 
move that effort forward.
  I'm greatly concerned by amendments that were adopted at Full 
Committee markup that roll back efforts by DOD to invest in biofuels. 
This investment is needed for our long-term security needs, both 
operationally and at military installations across the world. The cost 
of traditional fields has skyrocketed, and those increased costs are 
eating away at readiness requirements. We need to make the investment 
in alternative fuels now, in order to free the Department from the 
shackle of foreign fossil fuels in the future.
  I strongly support the bill's prohibition on the retirement of the 
Global Hawk aircraft. The Global Hawk is a critical ISR asset, and the 
Air Force rationale for wanting to retire this aircraft and continue 
flying on aging aircraft for the foreseeable future was lacking. As we 
refocus to the Asia-Pacific region, commanders in the AOR need more ISR 
assets, not less. I'm glad we keep the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft 
flying.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.

                              {time}  1910

  Ms. BORDALLO. Again, Mr. Chairman, along these lines, I believe the 
bill takes important steps to protect the Air National Guard from 
unwarranted cuts in mission realignments. I appreciate that the bill 
does not increase most TRICARE fees and copays and that it prohibits 
the department from implementing new fees.
  I want to thank Chairman Forbes for his strong partnership on the 
Readiness Subcommittee and also to thank members of the staff.
  Again, I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
measure as well.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for working so 
diligently with me to protect the civil liberties that we enjoy so much 
in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, as we debate the protection of these civil liberties in 
this bill, we need to ask ourselves: What are we trying to provide? We 
must protect every citizen's basic due process rights. What are those 
basic due process rights?
  Specifically, it would be the right to notice, the opportunity to be 
heard, the right to a neutral forum, the right to counsel when before 
the court, and the right to an appeal. Some of my colleagues are 
proposing the creation of additional rights. Doing so does not further 
protect us under the Constitution nor does it further the protections 
of our constituents.
  They say we must allow foreign terrorists captured domestically to be 
tried in criminal court, enveloping them with all of the protections 
granted to civil criminals. It gives them access to our national 
security intelligence that ordinary Americans currently are denied. We 
incentivize them to come to America. The base text of

[[Page H2794]]

the bill makes it clear and precise that anyone detained is afforded 
access to the basic rights of due process that I mentioned earlier. 
Therefore, those basic rights are now enshrined.
  I urge Members to support the underlying bill, accompanied by the 
Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment, and to oppose any other attempts to 
create additional rights for foreign terrorists.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  There are no additional rights contained in this amendment. We have 
the rights that are in the Constitution that are the due process. The 
gentleman's comment that additional rights are being granted by this is 
patently false. The Constitution is clear. It provides all persons in 
the United States the same rights. All we are doing is going back to 
the Constitution and repealing the authority of the President to 
circumvent those rights and reduce them. That's a very critical point 
that we will talk further about tomorrow.
  I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
  Yesterday, we debated H. Res. 568, which draws a red line for 
military action at Iran's achieving a nuclear weapons ``capability,'' a 
nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear 
program. As a result, the language in that bill makes a negotiated 
solution impossible.
  Now, this bill, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, in 
section 1221 makes military action against Iran a U.S. policy. Right in 
the bill, it talks about deployments and military action. To create a 
plan, under article B of section 1222, it says that the Secretary of 
Defense shall prepare a plan for the Fifth Fleet to conduct military 
deployments. In section A of article II, it says that there should be 
prepositioning, sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions--bombs, 
fuel, and other materials--for both air- and sea-based missions against 
Iran. So that sets the stage for war. Then section B calls for an 
execution of the war, bolstering United States' capabilities to launch 
a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and 
military targets.

  They're not threatening us. We're threatening them with this. Then we 
call for a showdown in the Strait of Hormuz in section C.
  Now look. We've been through this before. I led this Congress in 
October of 2002 to challenge the Bush administration's march towards 
war against Iraq, and it proved that it was wrong to do that. There 
were no weapons of mass destruction. This is Iraq all over again, and 
we should at least have a separate debate on whether or not we should 
be recommending an attack on Iran without including it in this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of section 552 of H.R. 4310. In fact, I rise in 
favor of the entire National Defense Authorization Act but specifically 
of this provision which justly awards the victims of Fort Hood and the 
Arkansas recruiting station shootings with the Purple Heart.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct honor of representing Fort Hood, 
Texas. We call it the ``Great Place.'' The day after the attack at Fort 
Hood, I was there. At that point in time, I began working on 
legislation to award combat status to the victims so that they could 
all receive the appropriate benefits that they deserve.
  The shootings at Fort Hood and in Little Rock left 14 dead and 44 
wounded. These soldiers were at a deployment processing center in Fort 
Hood and at a recruiting station in Arkansas when they were fired upon. 
Many of them at Fort Hood were getting ready to go to war or were 
returning from war for the reassignment to other assignments. In my 
opinion, the shooters extended the battlefield from Iraq and 
Afghanistan to Fort Hood and Little Rock in order to claim their 
targets before they reached their destinations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  While I am pleased to see the victims receive the Purple Heart, we 
should continue to work towards awarding the victims combat status and 
the appropriate recognition that they may deserve, including 
recognizing the civilians who were killed. But make no mistake, at Fort 
Hood, they targeted soldiers.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this 
language but to continue to work towards awarding combat status for the 
victims as well. This is a bipartisan issue. I am very grateful to 
Chairman King for getting on board with this issue and for driving the 
force, as are all of our soldiers, and I am very grateful for the 
bipartisan consideration this concept had on both sides of the aisle. I 
support the National Defense Authorization Act. It is good for our 
country.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. To the ranking member and the chair of the committee, 
thank you for a long slog of hard work and for the production of a bill 
that has much good in it.
  Certainly, we have to provide for our military. We need a strong, 
agile, smart, and deadly national defense program. That's certainly in 
this bill. We also need to provide for our soldiers--for the men and 
women--and those who serve this country, and that's in this bill. The 
issue of those who have served and who have come home remains an issue 
that we'll probably take up in other legislation.
  Provisions in the bill also provide for the intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance necessary for us to be smart, and the 
bill provides for us to be agile in air mobility. Those are good 
things. However, there are many parts of this bill that I find 
objectionable, which has led to my ``no'' vote on this legislation. Let 
me quickly list those:
  Certainly, we've already talked about, here on the floor, the issue 
of due process. It needs to be addressed, and I want to congratulate 
the ranking member of the committee for his work in developing a very 
good proposal that deals with the due process issue, which provides 
that every person in this country has full access to the civil 
liberties in the Constitution;
  The Afghanistan war is not taken care of in this bill. In fact, there 
are provisions in this bill that, in all likelihood, would increase the 
number of soldiers in Afghanistan by some 20,000 and leave them there 
in perpetuity. We cannot do this. We've got to bring this war to an end 
very, very quickly, and the bill does not go in that direction. In 
fact, it goes in the opposite direction. We just heard a discussion 
about Iran, and I will simply second that portion of the bill as being 
out of place and incorrect;
  There are also things in this bill that are a vast waste of money: 
missile defense on the east coast, a missile system that doesn't work 
to protect us from a nonexistent threat. Why would you spend $100 
million this year and up to $5 million to $7 million in the succeeding 
2 years? We ought not do that;
  Some things are also to be found at home. The Lawrence Livermore Labs 
need to be protected.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that is 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. Does the gentleman have further speakers?
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. We do not have further speakers at this 
point, and I believe we're prepared to close.
  Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I want to again thank the chairman and thank the folks 
who worked on this bill. As you see from the debate, there are a lot of 
controversial issues that wound up in this bill, issues of enormous 
importance, from our policy towards countries like Afghanistan and 
Iran, to civil liberties and on. It takes a great deal of work on 
behalf of the staff and a great deal of commitment to a bipartisan 
spirit to work through that, have fair debates, have the votes, carry 
on, and always remember that underlying it all is

[[Page H2795]]

making sure that we fund the defense of this country, and we fund the 
troops who are tasked with protecting it. I think our committee and our 
staff do an outstanding job of dealing with those challenges.
  I want to talk again about the indefinite-detention issue. The 
gentleman who spoke a couple of minutes ago raised some concerns, and I 
think it gives us a pretty good preview of what some of the opposition 
to that amendment is going to be tomorrow. I just want to counter those 
arguments.
  The first notion that ``additional rights'' are being granted as a 
result of this is quite simply absurd. What this says is: the due 
process that's in the Constitution is what you get if you are arrested. 
What we have done in this body is empowered the President to get rid of 
those rights in certain cases and indefinitely detain people without 
charge in many instances and without trial. What we're saying is that 
it is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and it is not 
necessary. President Bush did not use that authority for the last 5 
years he was in the administration, President Obama has not used it, 
and yet we have protected this country. To give away that basic due-
process right, if you are arrested--that you have the basic rights in 
the Constitution--is no small thing, and it is not necessary.
  Lastly, I want to talk about this argument that somehow this will 
incentivize terrorists to come to the U.S. I've heard a lot of 
arguments. That has got to be the dumbest one I've ever heard. First of 
all, it is sad to say there are many terrorists affiliated with al 
Qaeda who are trying very hard to come here and inflict harm on us 
right now. That's why we have all kinds of efforts in this bill and in 
Homeland Security to stop them. They are not going to become any less 
incentivized to do that whether this bill passes or not. Sadly, we must 
deal with that.
  Second of all, they are certainly not going to want to come here and 
operate as opposed to operating in someplace outside of the U.S. where 
we don't have as much reach. That argument has nothing to do with this 
amendment. This is a very straightforward argument I think we should 
have. Is this a power that the President needs to have to keep us safe? 
It is not. It is undeniably an enormous amount of power to go outside 
of the Constitution, to go outside of due process, and empower the 
executive branch to indefinitely detain somebody without the due 
process that we've developed over the course of 230 years. That is an 
enormous step for this Congress to take.
  We have to ask ourselves the question: Is it necessary? It clearly is 
not. We have arrested, prosecuted, and stopped countless terrorist 
attacks over the course of the last 8 years. Over 400 terrorists were 
arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in this country, such as 
Abjulmutallab, who was the underwear bomber in Detroit in December of 
2008. He was stopped, arrested, interrogated, prosecuted, convicted, 
and sentenced to life in prison.
  We have a justice system and a law enforcement system in this country 
that is more than adequate to meet the threat. We do not have to 
undermine the Constitution to do that. That will be the core of the 
argument. I look forward to those who are opposed to it arguing why 
that doesn't keep us safe. I think it will be a great debate, and I'll 
urge people to vote for it. But I hope we'll have that public debate on 
the floor tomorrow. It is an incredibly important issue no matter which 
side of it you're on. It is an important issue that is worthy of this 
full House having a full and robust debate, and I look forward to doing 
that tomorrow.
  Again, I recognize all of the important things that are in this bill. 
I'm confident when we come to the amendment process, we will have a 
bill worthy of support of this House, and I will then urge Members to 
support it so we can fund the defense of this country and fund the 
brave men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces, and make 
sure they have all the support they need to do what we ask them to do 
in defending this country.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of work done on this bill, and I 
want to thank my ranking member--my partner in this effort--and all of 
the staff who have put in countless hours to get us to this point for 
the work that they have done.
  As you can see from the opening debate, we have many things that we 
agree on and some things that we disagree on. I feel good about that 
because I once heard that if two people agree on everything, one of 
them is an idiot. I think that there will be things that we have honest 
disagreements on, and we'll have much to talk about tomorrow. And I'm 
sure we'll have many hours to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, for the second year, there have been misconceptions 
raised by the ACLU and others relating to last year's provision dealing 
with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. In 2012, we 
affirmed that the President is authorized to detain certain 
belligerents who are part of or substantially supporting al Qaeda, the 
Taliban, or associated forces. This interpretation was not a new 
creation. It has been used by both the Bush and Obama administrations 
and has been upheld by our Federal courts.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial board has described the NDAA's 
affirmation as a ``modest law.'' Former Attorneys General Meese and 
Mukasey have noted that:

       Given the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda 
     in the Arabian Peninsula, the affirmation was a critical step 
     in reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat 
     terror.

  Importantly, at no point did last year's bill detract from the rights 
of U.S. citizens. No one could possibly be in favor of the unlawful 
detention of innocent American citizens. And nothing could be further 
from the aim of the NDAA, which was to reinforce the protection of 
American citizens from terrorist attacks. While we felt confident that 
the NDAA in no way impacted this issue, we took the feedback we 
received seriously and analyzed the issue. In particular, I worked very 
closely with my colleague, Chairman Smith of the Judiciary Committee, 
as well as numerous outside experts and former U.S. Government 
officials.
  In acknowledgement of the concerns that have been raised, we felt 
that it was important in this year's bill to explicitly reaffirm that 
anybody detained in the United States, pursuant to the AUMF, can 
challenge the lawfulness of their detention in U.S. Federal court. The 
great writ of habeas corpus is a citizen's most fundamental protection 
against any unlawful depravation of liberty.
  Some want to go further and have this bill prohibit military 
detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists in the United States. 
And for all the blood and treasure we have spent taking the fight to 
the enemy to prevent terrorists from coming to the United States, I 
find this astonishing. Why would we weaken our ability to fight foreign 
terrorists here at home? Why would we take lawful options off the table 
for our national security officials? We must not forget that it is, in 
fact, foreign terrorist organizations like the al Qaeda of the Arabian 
Peninsula who would like nothing more than to deprive us our life and 
liberty. We must have all lawful options available to us in order to 
effectively dismantle and defeat them.
  My understanding is that the Rules Committee is meeting as we speak. 
There have been, I think, about 240 amendments submitted to be debated 
on the bill. Last year, I think they approved 150. I don't know how 
many or what amendments will be approved. We'll find that out as we go 
through the evening and tomorrow. But I know that we will have a good 
and healthy debate; and at the end of the day, the important thing that 
we must remember is that this committee's responsibility is to look out 
for the common defense of this Nation. We do so by supporting our 
troops, those who were on the battlefield and those who are stationed 
in various places around the world. We must see that they have 
everything they need to carry out their missions and to return home 
safely to their loved ones and that their loved ones that are left 
behind are given the things that they need, the support that they need 
to continue to support their loved ones who are out fighting for our 
freedoms.

[[Page H2796]]

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the debate tomorrow. I 
encourage all the Members of our conference and our colleagues in the 
Congress to support this very important bill to help them carry out 
that important mission.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                          Committee on the Budget,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation 
     contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Budget. However, in order to expedite floor 
     consideration of this important legislation, the committee 
     waives consideration of the bill.
       The Budget Committee takes this action only with the 
     understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests 
     over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or 
     altered.
       The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the 
     House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Paul Ryan,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                   Committee on Homeland Security,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman. Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Homeland Security 
     in matters being considered in H.R. 4310, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     certain sections of the bill, I do not intend to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security, and that a copy of this letter and your 
     response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be 
     included in the Committee Report and as part of the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the 
     House. I also ask that you support my request to name members 
     of this committee to any conference committee that is named 
     to consider such provisions.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Peter King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I am most appreciative of your decision not to request 
     a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 
     bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                         Chairman.

                              {time}  1930

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). All time for general 
debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ross of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson of 
Pennsylvania, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________