[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.
____________________