Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3049-H3097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 2110
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wittman). Pursuant to House Resolution
661 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 4310.
Will the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) kindly take the chair.

{time} 2110

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 further 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. Chaffetz (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 112 485 offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H3050]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following
new section:

SEC. 3__. GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR USE OF CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL TO PERFORM
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNCTIONS.

(a) Implementation Guidelines and Procedures Required.--
Subsection (a) of section 2463 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``The Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness shall devise and implement guidelines
and procedures to implement this section.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``to performance by
Department of Defense civilian employees'' and inserting ``to
either performance by Department of Defense civilian
employees or performance by contractor personnel''.
(b) Certain Functions.--Subsection (b) of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Special Consideration for Certain Functions.--The
guidelines and procedures required under subsection (a) shall
provide for special consideration to be given to using
Department of Defense civilian employees to perform any
function that is performed by a contractor if the function--
``(1) is closely associated with the performance of an
inherently governmental function; or
``(2) has been performed pursuant to a contract awarded on
a non-competitive basis.''.
(c) Repeal of Exclusion.--Such section is further amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (d) through (g) as
subsections (c) through (f), respectively.
(d) Cross Reference.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (d), as
so redesignated, is amended by striking ``inherently
governmental or any function described in subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C) of subsection (b)(1)'' and inserting ``inherently
governmental function''.
(e) Definitions.--Subsection (f) of such section, as so
redesignated, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Coffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, over the last few years, the
prevailing trend within the Department of Defense has been an increased
bias for the use of Federal employees to perform commercial services.
This pendulum has swung too far in the direction of a noncompetitive,
Big Government model.
Congress is cutting the defense budget by $487 billion over the next
10 years and simultaneously preventing the Pentagon from utilizing free
market competition to drive down the cost of doing business. We must
take the handcuffs off the Department of Defense and allow the
Secretary to shop for the best products and services at the best price.
I am offering amendment 17, which simply returns balance to civilian
employees and private contractors in the Department of Defense. My
amendment removes any bias towards private or public workforce
performance of commercial activities. It allows the Secretary of
Defense more options and discretion to efficiently manage taxpayer
money authorized to run his Department.
In 2010, then-Secretary Gates admitted, ``We weren't seeing the
savings we had hoped for from insourcing.'' Despite the candid
assessment, the Department of Defense remains prohibited from utilizing
any form of competition when looking for new commercial services, and
it is too often directed to insource services that are currently being
performed by private contractors.
Small businesses that received government contracts by virtue of a
competitive bidding process are powerless to stop the loss of their
jobs under the practice of insourcing.
Noncompetitive and nearly unrestricted insourcing practices are
fiscally irresponsible and ones that we cannot afford in the current or
foreseeable fiscal environment.
My amendment will strike the law that prevents the Secretary of
Defense from utilizing private sector competition to provide new
products or services. It replaces those restrictions with the ability
to competitively bid out for new commercial products or services and
select the most cost-effective option. Further, it removes criteria
that compel the Pentagon to insource competitive contracts currently
being performed.
According to OMB, GAO, and the Center for Naval Analyses, savings of
30 percent are achieved when implementing competitive sourcing for
commercial activities currently performed by the government. The
Federal Activities Inventory Reform, or FAIR, Act requires the Director
of OMB to compile a list of activities performed by Federal Government
sources that are not inherently governmental functions.
The Department of Defense, the FAIR Act identified 453,000 jobs that
could be performed by a competitive source. If competition is applied
to all DOD FAIR Act positions, the annual savings could exceed $13
billion.
My amendment recognizes that there are certain functions that should
be performed by Department of Defense civilian employees. It does not
adjust the definition of ``inherently governmental functions'' or
functions ``closely associated to inherently governmental'' and does
not seek to outsource those functions in any way. It will only address
commercial functions and afford the Department of Defense options to
reduce the cost of providing those products and services.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Guam is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield myself 2 minutes.
As the ranking member on Readiness, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment flies in the face of the total force management
provisions adopted by Congress on a bipartisan basis in last year's
defense bill and supported by the sponsor of this amendment. Defense
Secretary Panetta has stated he is committed to promoting and
facilitating improved total force management that is requirements-based
and delivers the appropriate mix of civilian, military, and contracted
support.
The amendment does not simply lift the A 76 moratorium, as the author
suggests. I would note that our committee, on a bipartisan basis,
rejected an amendment to lift the moratorium by a bipartisan 25 36
vote. This amendment simply guts how the Department of Defense manages
its personnel and reduces oversight of many contracted functions. The
amendment is contrary to the bipartisan consensus that this Congress
has forged in how DOD should and can manage its personnel.
So I'm asking, do not vote on lifting the A 76 moratorium. Say ``no''
to this amendment. And I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, there are three principal
changes that this amendment makes to current law:
One is it states that new functions that the Department of Defense
enters into, as far as having contract requirements, can be done by the
private sector. It doesn't say shall be done by the private sector. It
merely gives the Department of Defense an option, a tool to save money.
Functions that have been performed by the Department of Defense
civilians for the past 10 years, irrespectively, whether they're done
cost-effectively or not, again, it doesn't say that the Department of
Defense has to outsource these functions. It says that they may, based
on whether or not it's a cost-effective option.
Expansion of existing functions performed by Department of Defense
civilians, again, if, in fact, there's additional requirements later
on, something that's currently done by civil service employees, current
law says we have to only accomplish it through civil service employees.
This gives them the option.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Coffman
amendment.
Under the guise of efficiency, this is really an assault on the
Federal civilian workforce.
The Coffman amendment is based on the misguided belief that private
contractors are less costly and more efficient--in other words,
outsourcing and

[[Page H3051]]

privatization should be the way we go--when, in fact, the insourcing of
the work has been proven to be more efficient.
POGO, the Project on Government Oversight, said that the private
contractors get paid about 1.83 times, almost twice, more than the
government pays its employees. In fact, government pay is less in all
of the 35 categories that they reviewed.
The amount spent on civilian personnel grew from fiscal year 2001 to
2010 from about $41 billion to $69 billion. In the same time frame, the
private sector grew $73 billion to $181 billion. But, more importantly
than that, the Army has said insourcing saves them 16 to 30 percent.
So we hear now today that this is what we want to give to the
Secretary of Defense. Leon Panetta says he wants to uphold the policy
of the total force management; that there is an appropriate mix of
civilian, military, and private, and what we need to do is let that
continue.
So this amendment is not supported by the facts. It's not even
supported by the Department of Defense. It is clearly an attempt to
just support the private sector on the back of Federal employees, and
for that reason, I ask everyone to vote ``no.''

{time} 2120

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Guam has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I can speak from firsthand experience.
The A 76 program was a pilot program in the territory of Guam a few
years ago. I served as Lieutenant Governor at the time, and I will say
this for the record that this program was a dismal failure, and that's
what we experienced.
The Department of Defense has found in-sourcing to be very effective.
It's an effective tool for the Department to rebalance the workforce,
to realign inherently governmental and other critical work to
government performance from contract support and, in many instances, to
generate resource efficiencies.
So, again, we should vote ``no'' on this amendment. Lifting the A 76
moratorium would be a sad mistake on our part.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose amendment number 54
offered by Congressman Coffman.
By reducing oversight and limiting the Department of Defense's
ability to address contracts that are over cost; high risk; or poorly
performed, it reduces DOD's ability to meet management, readiness, and
critical risk mitigation needs.
What's more, it undermines a bipartisan initiative enacted just last
year that ensures the Department of Defense is able to utilize the
entire defense workforce to protect taxpayers; our readiness to respond
to a national security emergency; and our nation's ability to rapidly
equip our troops with the equipment they need, when they need it.
When our Humvees needed to be uparmored to protect our troops, Rock
Island Arsenal produced and delivered the initial Add-on-Armor kits
within a month of receiving the order. This lifesaving armor had to get
into the field as quickly as possible to save our troops lives, and
only an arsenal had the capability to do it.
They did it again to protect our troops by armoring Stryker vehicles.
The men and women at Rock Island Arsenal worked 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week to produce the Common Ballistic Shield kits that our troops
needed.
Yet this amendment would actually make it more difficult to maintain
critical capabilities and ensure the civilian workforce at Rock Island
Arsenal and across the country are able to respond when our troops and
our country need them.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Keating

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 132, line 7, strike ``106,005'' and insert
``106,700''.
Page 133, line 22, strike ``14,952'' and insert ``14,833''.
At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1078. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR TRANSFER,
REDUCTION, OR ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN AIR
NATIONAL GUARD UNITS.

(a) In General.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2013 for the Air Force may be used during fiscal
year 2013 to transfer, reduce, or eliminate, or prepare to
transfer, reduce, or eliminate, any unit of the Air National
Guard supporting an Air and Space Operations Center or an Air
Force Forces Staff.
(b) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
limitation in subsection (a) if--
(1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense
committees written certification that such a waiver is
necessary to meet an emergency national security requirement;
and
(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date on
which such certification is submitted.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2013, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and approved by the
Secretary of Defense that specifies, with respect to all Air
National Guard units supporting an Air and Space Operations
Center or an Air Force Forces Staff that are proposed to be
reduced or eliminated during fiscal years 2013 through 2017--
(A) the economic analysis used to make each decision with
respect to such unit to be reduced or eliminated;
(B) alternative options considered for each such decision,
including an analysis of such options;
(C) a detailed account of the communications with the
corresponding Air and Space Operations Center or Air Force
Forces Staff that went into each such decision;
(D) a detailed account of the communications with the
corresponding command that went into each such decision;
(E) the effect of each such decision on--
(i) the current personnel at the location; and
(ii) the missions and capabilities of the Air Force; and
(F) the plans for each location that is being realigned,
including the analysis used for such plans.
(2) GAO analysis.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall carry out the following:
(A) An economic analysis of each decision made by the
Secretary of Defense with respect to reducing or eliminating
an Air national guard unit included in the report under
paragraph (1).
(B) An analysis of the alternative options considered for
each such decision, including an analysis of such options.
(C) An analysis of the communications with the
corresponding Air and Space Operations Center or Air Force
Forces Staff that went into each such decision.
(D) An analysis of the communications with the
corresponding command that went into each such decision.
(E) An analysis of the effect of each such realignment
decision on--
(i) the current personnel at the location; and
(ii) the missions and capabilities of the Army; and
(3) Cooperation.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
the Comptroller General with relevant data and cooperation to
carry out the analyses under paragraph (2).
(4) Submittal.--Not later than 90 days after the date on
which the Secretary submits the report under paragraph (1),
the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report containing the analyses conducted
under paragraph (2).
(d) Funding.--
(1) Increase.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the
funding tables in division D, the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in section 301 and 421 for operation and
maintenance and military personnel, as specified in the
corresponding funding tables in section 4301 and 4401,
respectively, are hereby increased by a total of $36,513,000,
to be distributed as follows:
(A) The amount authorized to be appropriated in section
4301 for operation and maintenance, Air National Guard, is
hereby increased by $10,686,000.
(B) The amount authorized to be appropriated in section
4301 for operation and maintenance, Air Force, is hereby
increased by $1,040,000.
(C) The amount authorized to be appropriated in section
4401 for military personnel, Air National Guard, is hereby
increased by $21,993,000.
(D) The amount authorized to be appropriated in section
4401 for military personnel (MERHC), Air National Guard, is
hereby increased by $2,794,000.

[[Page H3052]]

(2) Reduction.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in
the funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201 for Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, as specified in the corresponding funding
table in section 4201, is hereby reduced by $36,513,000, to
be derived from the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse
Defense Segment.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. In the important debate to save National Guard units, we
made some steps forward in this bill and, unfortunately, also took
steps backward. Many in the Chamber may assume that all the National
Guard units were restored in the markup of this bill. That's simply not
the case.
A vital and unique group of Air National Guard units, known as C-
NAFs, have a full-time mission to support Active Duty bases. These
augmentation units take on a large chunk of the workload while only
accounting for a small percentage of the mission's workforce--and the
work is all done domestically. In and of itself, that provides a higher
degree of security because there are discrete sites that are isolated
and more easily secured here in the United States. These units were
created because they're cost effective, and eliminating them will
result in unfinished business, displaced costs and, perhaps the most
alarming of all consequences, endangered lives.
To illustrate, the 102nd Air Operations Group at Otis Air National
Guard Base works 24/7 365 days of the year to conduct 30 percent of the
Air Force Global Strike Command's surveillance mission, and only
accounts for 10 percent of the Command's workforce--30 percent of the
mission and 10 percent of the Command's workforce. The 102nd Air
Operations Group's counterparts at Barksdale Air Base in Louisiana rely
on these great men and women to examine realtime footage and spot out
threats.
When I talk about consequences, including the endangering of lives,
the work of this unit has helped our servicemen and -women avoid
concealed insurgents on the battlefield, and it tracks the
proliferation of nuclear weapons as these events are occurring. It has
the backs of our soldiers in the field, and it affords its own level of
defense against nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Air
Force is only now realizing the impact of this loss.
I apologize for all of the acronyms that are here, but I wanted to
take the actual slide from the Air Force's presentation. This slide is
from May 2. It is an Air Force briefing to Lieutenant General Herbert
Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations for the Air Force.
It proves that units like the 102nd AOG are essential. According to
this slide, which is only 2 weeks old, the 102nd Air Operations Group
is ``essential to the U.S. Strategic Command's time-sensitive planning
mission,'' and the impact of losing this unit will render the Air Force
``unable to fully support extended time-sensitive scenarios.''
Furthermore, the Air Force reiterates that without the 102nd Air
Operations Group, the mission of the Global Strike Command will not be
supported, and the Rapid Assessment Team currently in place at
Barksdale cannot take on more surveillance duties without the 102nd
AOG.
But perhaps the most glaring piece of information on this slide is on
the last line, which simply states:

The National Guard Bureau did not coordinate this cut with
USSTRATCOM, Global Strike Command and the 8th Air Force.

Mr. Chairman, clearly, even the Air Force knows that a big mistake
was made in the decision to eliminate these Guard units. My amendment
simply freezes cuts to the Air National Guard units to support the Air
Force until the impact of the unit's loss is determined and reported to
Congress. This language leaves room to sort out the units that are
essential to our national security and to cut where duplicative
missions exist. For these reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to vote
in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend on his amendment that we
share his love for the Guard across this body. I think most of the
Members here recognized the great job they do day in and day out for
us.
That's why I want to also say how much we appreciate the chairman's
work and the ranking member's work to make sure in this bill that they
have raised and saved many of our Guard priorities, and I thank them
for looking in there and for doing that.
I wish we had been able to save everything in this bill, but friends
on the other side have criticized us for the extra money we've put in
already.
One of the things that you realize, Mr. Chairman, is that at times
you just do have to make an allocation. In this particular situation,
the National Guard Bureau actually looked and said, We want to save and
prioritize our UAV mission because we think that's higher than
headquarters functions. That's what they did. They made a priority
assessment that it was more important for us to save the UAV missions,
which they did, and not headquarters operations. I also realize, as the
gentleman does, that we would like to each preserve these Guard units
in our own areas, but the Department of Defense just felt that that
wasn't possible. They opposed this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would say, if you have to make the choice between
protecting our headquarters units and protecting missile defense, I
think that's an easy decision for us. We want to make sure we are
continuing to protect missile defense. I hope that we will vote against
this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I want to thank Chairman Forbes for his
commitment and support for the Air National Guard and also thank
Chairman McKeon.
This amendment is not about the National Guard or the Air National
Guard or even: How are we going to support our Guard? This amendment is
about cutting missile defense. If you look at the amendment, it looks
to take money from our national security, specifically in the area of
our missile defense. Now, this is one amendment of a series of
amendments that are coming across from the other side of the aisle that
are attempting to cut missile defense.
This occurs at a time when Iran and North Korea continue to increase
as a threat to our country. Secretary Gates even said, as he was
departing, that North Korea is rising to the level of being a threat to
the mainland of the United States--missile defense becoming that much
more important.
Coincidentally, as we know, this also comes on the heels of the
President's having what people know as an open-mic event when the
President was caught surprised that his mic was open so that the
American people could hear a conversation that he was having with
President Medvedev in which he said that after the election--his last
election--that he would have greater flexibility to deal with the issue
of missile defense.
Now, the President, in his secret deal with the Russians has not yet
told us what it is that he would lessen in our missile defense; but I
know, as we look to these amendments, they are consistent with the
issue of: Do we have a strong missile defense? Do we not have a strong
missile defense? Do we follow the President's lead of a weakening of
our national defense and our missile defense?

{time} 2130

On this side of the aisle, I think the American people believe that
we need a strong missile defense, we need to make certain that we're
protecting our homeland; and we're protecting our mainland.
I asked the White House and I asked the President if they would tell
us what was in this secret deal that they have with the Russians, and
they did

[[Page H3053]]

respond to me in a letter of April 13, as Ranking Member Smith
mentioned. This letter does not say at all that there are any terms
that the White House is willing to discuss, but it does say this
sentence:

It is no secret this effort will be more complicated during
election years.

Even in writing and in the open-miking event, the President says that
after this election he'll have more flexibility, meaning that he can't
stand in front of the American people and tell us what his plans are
for missile defense or it could affect his election, meaning the
electorate themselves would not support what this President wants to do
with missile defense. I know the electorate would not support this
Keating amendment.
It is important that we have a strong missile defense as we look to
Iran and North Korea, and this Ground-based Midcourse Defense system
that they want to cut in this amendment is the only one that we
currently have that protects mainland United States. The CE1
intercepter has been tested, and it is three for three in its success.
This is a system that works, that we need to make certain that we
continue, and it certainly is one that I know the American public
supports and wants us to continue.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman
from California each have 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Don't be presumptuous enough to tell me my motivations. We looked for
many pay-fors in this plan. What we have is plain and simple. We have
enhancement of the security of our country because we have a plan that
works and that will save lives and help us resolve missile-defense
issues by tracking them versus a pay-for that we located that was $400
million over budget. I only took 9 percent of that, leaving 91 percent
of that intact because I think this tradeoff enhances our security.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. The gentleman states that his amendment only
takes 9 percent from missile defense. The gentleman is stepping forward
and saying what's in his amendment. The President, however, won't tell
us how much he wants to cut from missile defense as he goes through
this election cycle with the secret deal that he has with the Russians.
The one thing that we know is that this system stands ready to defend
the United States, and it is necessary. Iran and North Korea continue
to increase their threat to the United States. This system deserves our
funding. It deserves the funding that's in this bill. This amendment
should be defeated.
Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 5__. ELIMINATION OF MAXIMUM AGE LIMITATION FOR ORIGINAL
ENLISTMENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED FOR ENLISTMENT.

Section 505(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``nor more than forty-two years of age''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very
straightforward. It would simply allow individuals of any age to enlist
in the military so long as they were able to meet all of the
requirements to ensure that they're fit for duty.
Under current law, only individuals who are 42 years of age or
younger are allowed to enlist in the military. This seems to be an
arbitrary number. As we can all probably attest, there are some 20-
year-olds that cannot run a mile. Yet there are a growing number of
middle-aged men and women who are extremely physically fit and, whether
due to family, work, or other obligations, were unable to enlist when
they were younger.
I've heard from some of these individuals. Mr. Chairman. They are
competitive runners, triathletes, and general fitness enthusiasts. I
daresay they are stronger and fitter than many younger people, and they
have an added benefit of life experience and maturity. Yet when they
attempt to use these skills to serve their country, the military tells
them, We don't want you, you're too old.
Not long ago, I heard from a man who was in just this situation. He
is a competitive ultra-marathoner, the picture of health. This
gentleman, who after starting a family and establishing a career,
decided he was finally able to realize his dream of serving in his
country's military. Unfortunately, he was told that he was just a few
months too old. As a result, he could not enlist.
While stories like this gentleman's are compelling, there are other
loss potentials to consider, also. One of our colleagues, my good
friend and the gentleman from my home State of Georgia, Dr. Phil
Gingrey, has experienced a similar issue. He's not trying to serve in
combat. He's not trying to get a military retirement. He simply wants
to serve his country using his training as a medical doctor. He went to
enlist in the Navy Reserve; and to his surprise he was told that he was
too old, even as the need for good medical doctors in the military
ranks continues to grow. We should allow people like Dr. Gingrey to
enlist in the military. My amendment would do just that.
We'll hear a number of Members on the floor today who are expressing
concern about the multiple tours that so many of our men and women in
uniform have had to serve, often back to back over many years. I share
this concern; and I believe that if we were to lift this age
restriction, we could open up the military to a new population of
strong, capable individuals, who in many cases have finished their
education and their careers, and have seen their children grow into
adulthood. Many of them aren't seeking military retirement, but rather
have advanced in their careers, put away enough for retirement, and are
ready for a new challenge.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
I understand his belief that anyone who qualifies, regardless of age,
should be able to serve. However, serving in the United States military
is a difficult and challenging profession, especially as one gets older
in years. The Department of Defense does not support this amendment.
Current law allows enlistments up to age 42; however, all of the
services' current policies have restricted enlistment to a lesser age,
with the Army at the maximum age of 35.
Mr. Chairman, we are currently drawing down the force and recruiting
conditions do not require this proposal. Even during the most difficult
recruiting environment at the peak of national emergency, only the Army
exercised the authority and raised its age limit to 42. This policy was
only in place for a few years, and the Army has since reinstated its
old policy of a maximum of 35 years of age because the risks and the
challenges of training older recruits outweigh the minimum gain.

[[Page H3054]]

What the Army found was that older-level recruits tend to have
greater health and physical illness, especially when deployed. And once
injured, these individuals face a longer period of recuperation.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not needed and counterproductive to
recruiting young men and women in the Armed Forces. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm 66 years of age. I'm in the
United States Navy Reserve today, an active reservist as a general
medical officer. There are many reservists not only in the Navy, but in
other branches of the service that are beyond 42 years of age.
We have a critical need for doctors, lawyers, veterinarians,
dentists, other specialties in our military, even as we turn down the
size of our forces. I think it's critical to have the ability for
people who want to serve, who are physically fit, who can meet all the
requirements to be able to do so. That's all this amendment does. It
does not waive any physical requirements. It does not waive anything
that is out there today for someone to enlist. It's just going to
utilize people who have the capability of serving to allow them to do
so. Not doing so is actually discriminating against them just because
they have celebrated a few birthdays.

{time} 2140

I mentioned in my comments about an ultramarathoner that the military
actually wanted. This guy was in better shape than most people who are
in their twenties after they leave boot camp. The Army wanted him, but
because he was just a couple of months too old, the law would not allow
him to enlist.
He would have served this Nation very admirably. He wanted to serve.
He was physically fit. He was capable of doing anything that a 20-year-
old is capable of doing today. And my amendment would allow him--as
well as the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey)--to serve.
Dr. Gingrey is in good physical condition. He just wants to go
utilize his medical experience and provide medical services to our men
and women in uniform, and he should be allowed to do so also.
So I encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the chairman of the
Military Personnel Subcommittee.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia.
As a 31-year veteran of the Army Reserves and National Guard, I fully
appreciate the need for an age limitation. What we ask our young men
and women to do is nothing short of incredible. The physical and mental
toughness that is instilled in them as they enlist is something that
becomes more challenging over time.
I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Georgia, that there
are always exceptions, and I applaud those who maintain a high level of
physical fitness and desire to serve their country, but that is only
one requirement that the military provides. I know firsthand that age
limitation will expand opportunities for younger servicemembers to
serve in command positions.
I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada, Dr. Heck, who is a medical doctor in the Army Reserve and is
also a member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.
Mr. HECK. I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment.
Like my colleague from Georgia, I am also an active reservist and a
physician in the military.
We are fortunate that we now have an all-volunteer force. Indeed, we
are blessed that we have such capable men and women that are willing to
put on the uniform. But as we start to have a drawdown, as we start to
go through total force management, we want to make sure that we keep
opportunities for those that are the brightest, the most capable, and
the fittest for the longest period of time.
I will tell you that being a physician in the Reserves is a lot
different than enlisting in the active duty force. Going through
initial entry training, military occupational specialty training is a
very rigorous course of instruction.
As a physician, I have concerns. I think that while well-intended,
the Secretary has already had the ability to grant waivers for exigent
circumstances and when in the best interest of the Department of
Defense and that this amendment is not required.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Carson of Indiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 5__. PROHIBITION ON USE OF MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS,
ADDICTION SERVICE RECORDS, COUNSELING RECORDS,
OR OTHER DOCUMENTS REGARDING SEEKING ASSISTANCE
WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES WHEN MAKING
DETERMINATIONS ABOUT PROMOTIONS.

(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
when making determinations about promotions or separations, a
promotion board may not request, review, or consider--
(1) the mental health records, addiction service records,
counseling records, or any other documents concerning the
pursuit of assistance with mental health issues, ongoing or
past, of a member of the Armed Forces; or
(2) information contained in any of these records or
documents whether provided by word of mouth or in writing
from commanding officers, noncommissioned officers, or any
other individual.
(b) Limited Exception.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a process by which a member of the Armed Forces can
be excluded from the prohibition and the records and
information described in subsection (a) considered, if--
(1) the member is being considered for a discharge from the
Armed Forces based on a severe or untreatable mental health
disorder;
(2) a physician determines that the member could be a
danger to himself or herself or other persons as a result of
a mental health issue that is unresolved or untreated before
the board meets;
(3) a physician determines that the member will be unable
to complete the duties and responsibilities associated with
the advancement in rank being considered by a promotion board
as a result of a mental health issue that is unresolved or
untreated before the board meets; or
(4) the member consents to consideration of the records or
information, such as to explain negative actions considered
by a promotion board connected with a mental health issue
that has been treated.
(c) Notification.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that notification of the prohibition imposed by subsection
(a), and the limited exception provided by subsection (b), is
made available to members of the Armed Forces not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Carson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which CBO has
determined will have no impact on direct spending or appropriations,
seeks to address an issue that I believe is preventing many of today's
servicemembers from pursuing the mental health and addiction treatment
that they so desperately need.
Quite simply, it prevents promotion boards from considering any other
source of information from official documents, word of mouth, any
source

[[Page H3055]]

about the pursuit of treatment for mental health or addiction issues.
The amendment provides necessary exceptions for individuals who are
determined by a physician to be a danger to themselves or others, would
be unable or unfit to accomplish the duties of higher rank, or if they
give consent to consideration of such information. And lastly, and I
believe most importantly, the amendment requires the Department of
Defense to inform current servicemembers about these prohibitions.
As we all know, Mr. Chairman, mental health issues, like PTSD and
depression, are the signature wounds of our wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Unfortunately, we have entered these wars with an outdated
military culture that stigmatized mental health issues and often
equated pursuing treatment with weakness.
Mr. Chairman, we have made amazing progress since then, and I applaud
the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee for their
efforts. Yet I still hear from servicemembers who are afraid that
pursuing mental health treatment will negatively impact their prospects
for promotion and others who are absolutely convinced that this is a
pervasive problem in the ranks, that many servicemembers believe this.
Now, these individuals are dedicated to their jobs and determined to
progress in their careers, so, not surprisingly, they hesitate in
pursuing treatment.
Of course I understand that HIPAA prevents medical records from being
considered--including those on mental health--with good reason. But we
need to be absolutely sure that the fears of our servicemembers do not
come to pass in other ways. We need to make explicit that promotion
boards are not only prevented from considering medical records but also
information on treatment received by word of mouth, from other areas of
personnel files, or in any other form. This will reflect our modern
understanding of mental health and addiction issues--that they should
be treated, not ignored, and that individuals can overcome them.
But I believe, Mr. Chairman, the most important aspect of this
amendment, the main reason I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting it, is that we need to be sure that our servicemembers know
and are fully aware about these prohibitions.
Some may argue against this amendment, claiming that it perpetuates a
myth, that, in fact, treatment information is not considered. Their
argument perfectly illustrates why this amendment is so necessary.
Because many servicemembers believe they will be penalized for pursuing
treatment. And as long as this is true, we will still have our brave
men and women suffer in silence. With screening and counseling, they
could get healthy. They could perform their duties at a much higher
level. And they could avoid falling into the traps of addiction,
domestic violence, and homelessness that await too many of our veterans
when the return home.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the individuals assigned to the
promotion boards have the best interests of the military at heart, and
I believe that they do their jobs quite well. The quality of our
advanced ranks proves just that. But I want to be sure that we do
everything possible to remove the stigma on mental health treatment
until all servicemembers are comfortable pursuing the treatment that
they need. I believe this amendment is an important step in that
direction. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this
amendment.

{time} 2150

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I oppose the amendment because
it intrudes on the inherent responsibility of commanders to assess the
fitness for promotion of servicemembers under their command. As a
former president myself of the Mid-Carolina Mental Health Association,
I appreciate mental health issues. Our commanders strive to be fair,
and the service policies prevent prejudicial consideration of mental
health treatment that carries no implications for performance and
promotion qualification.
This amendment would require our commanders to withhold evidence of
behavior that is clearly inconsistent with promotion. I am concerned
whether it is even ethical to demand our commanders to ignore such
information that they see as a risk to force readiness. A commander
must make a recommendation on every individual regarding promotion
eligibility. Once aware of facts that would clearly cause a commander
to question a servicemember's fitness for promotion, it would seem
impossible for a commander to render a recommendation that supports the
member's promotion. It is unfair to ask our commanders to be so
disingenuous.
The risk is that this amendment would routinely eliminate important
factors from the promotion process that will result in the promotion of
unqualified members over more deserving members. This provision
attempts to replace the commander's judgment with that of an artificial
standard that cannot account for the complexity of cases.
The role of commanders is pivotal in the promotion systems operated
by the Armed Forces. The Nation invests immense trust in our military
commanders in the most challenging of circumstances, and we must not
betray that trust by limiting their responsibility to choose future
leaders.
Don't tie the hands of our commanders as they assess their
subordinates' fitness for promotion. Continue to put our trust in
commanders and defeat this amendment.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of
the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, whose oldest
son and I served in Iraq together.
As a United States Marine, I filled out dozens of evaluations on my
marines. Some I recommended for promotions, some I did not.
As has already been said, Mr. Chairman, this amendment must be
opposed because it would disrupt the vital role commanders play in the
military promotion process. Our commanders are the best prepared to
make the difficult judgments of balancing interests of the individuals
against the need of the Armed Forces to promote the most qualified
individuals. It is not ethical to ask commanders to overlook
information that they believe directly bears on the member's
qualification for promotion. Commanders strive to be fair, and current
policies prevent prejudicial consideration of mental health treatment
that carries no implications for performance and promotion
qualification.
The provision attempts to replace the commander's judgment with an
artificial standard that cannot account for the complexity of cases.
The Nation invests immense trust in our military commanders in the most
challenging of circumstances, while leading marines and soldiers in
combat, and we must not betray that trust.
I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. How much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the
gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I applaud his intent of trying to
remove the stigma of seeking mental health services in the military.
Again, as a physician in the Army Reserves, I've experienced the issues
that he's trying to address here this evening. But I also have to agree
with my colleagues that have brought up the issues regarding the impact
on the commander's ability to make a truthful and honest recommendation
for promotion.
Having had the honor to command and having had the opportunity to
serve on promotion boards, I know that this information is vitally
important. It's hard to draw the distinction as to whether or not
you're using the information that the person sought care or

[[Page H3056]]

was it because of the behavior that that person demonstrated that
caused them to seek the care. Nonetheless, that information is vital.
When a physical profile or medical profile form is included in a
packet that shows there's a duty restriction, perhaps because of a
psychiatric disturbance or for a generally physical disturbance, that
information is taken into consideration when determining whether or not
that individual is fit for promotion and the duties that would be
assigned subsequent to that promotion.
Again, I applaud my colleague's intent, but I think the answer to
this is better education of our servicemembers to rid ourselves of this
pervasive misconception than trying to pass this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 22 will
not be offered.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Wittman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title V, add the following new section:

SEC. 5__. ESTABLISHMENT OF CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR ARMY NATIONAL
MILITARY CEMETERIES.

(a) Military Chain of Command Required.--The Secretary of
the Army shall establish a chain of command for the Army
National Military Cemeteries, to include a military commander
of the Army National Military Cemeteries to replace the
current civilian director upon the termination of the tenure
of the director.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4724(a)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``who shall meet''
and inserting ``who is a commissioned officer and meets''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We all know the record of problems at Arlington National Cemetery,
and we know the current leadership there has made significant progress
in fixing that system. But my concern with Arlington is not with the
professionals and leaders who have turned Arlington around and worked
tirelessly to ensure the fallen members of our all-volunteer force, our
veterans, and their families are treated with the respect, reverence,
and honor they deserve. My concern is that the scandals and
embarrassment that rocked Arlington National Cemetery went largely
unprosecuted for one reason: no one from the former civilian directors
in the former chain of command at Arlington was held accountable for
their actions and their gross negligence and gross mismanagement
because none of them were subject to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. Additionally, Arlington is managed by the Army and rests
adjacent to a joint military base. Tenants of that command work on that
base daily.
With that, I believe strongly that we need to have a military leader
now in charge of Arlington National Cemetery.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
On the 10th of June, 2010, the Secretary of the Army, a former member
of this body, John McHugh, appointed Kathryn Condon, a former high-
ranking senior civilian Army official with a strong management
background, the first executive director of the Army National
Cemeteries Program. There is every indication that she is qualified and
well suited for the post.
The Army created the new position to oversee Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers Home National Cemetery as a result of the
problems that have been discussed by my friend and colleague, Mr.
Wittman. In its initial recommendation, the Army did not state that the
newly created executive director position should be filled by a
military official, and since that time has not provided any rationale
stating why a military official would be better suited for this
position rather than a civilian with credentials like Ms. Condon's.
This amendment would establish the military chain of command,
requiring the executive director of the Army Cemeteries Programs be a
commissioned officer, replacing the current civilian in that position.
Army oversight over the Cemeteries Program remains very strong by
virtue of the fact that Ms. Condon reports directly to the Secretary of
the Army. There is every indication today that Ms. Condon has performed
her duties in a competent and effective manner. All IG and Advisory
Committee reports show that significant progress at Arlington has been
made under her leadership. Ms. Condon's status as a civilian does not
affect the overall authority of the Army over the program or any aspect
of the operations under her care.
I note that the Secretary of the Army, Secretary McHugh, wrote a
strong letter of opposition to this amendment for the reasons that I
have just addressed, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.

{time} 2200

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, with that I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).
Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wittman, and I do rise to
support this amendment. Having spent time in the military, we were
taught that there were some basic principles. A couple of those basic
principles are unity of command and unity of effort.
I will take nothing away from the civilian appointee that we have in
this position currently, but as we said, this is the Army national
cemetery. And it being the Army national cemetery, I feel it is very
important we have a chain of command, a chain of leadership. That could
fall under the Military District of Washington.
As a matter of fact, the sergeant major of the Military District of
Washington is someone that I served with at Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
when I was a young major, and we understand chain of command. We
understand responsibility and accountability. And I talked to him about
this, and he feels that will be something that will be very well
appropriate, to have a military commissioned officer.
When you look at our arsenals, our arsenals out there have strong
civilian leadership and also strong civilian employees, but yet we have
a military commander. When you look at an organization such as the Army
Material Command, which is some 60 to 70 percent civilian, but yet we
have a four-star general, General Ann Dunwoody, someone that I also
know very well and served with, who is in charge of that organization.
So I think if we want to make sure that we have right type of unity
of command, unity of effort, chain of command in place, we need to make
sure that we have a uniformed military person that's in control and in
command of this Army National Cemetery.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished
colleague from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and the
gentleman from Florida.
I would like to start by talking about what this means to me. This is
about accountability, responsibility, and authority. All of these
leadership themes are well defined throughout the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, but a civilian team does not protect the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. That's the 3rd United
States Infantry Regiment that

[[Page H3057]]

has the responsibility to honor our fallen comrades and conduct
ceremonies and special events to represent the U.S. Army. One of most
known tasks of this unit is the distinguished charge of guarding the
Tomb of the Unknown at Arlington National Cemetery, which it has done
with honor since July of 1937. Again, this is a military unit, it's not
a civilian unit.
Many of our fallen heroes who were killed in action choose to be
buried in Arlington, home to our Nation's military history, the men and
women who sacrificed to make this country what it is today.
The current chain of command under the Department of the Army has a
civilian executive director of the Army National Cemeteries reporting
directly to the Secretary of the Army. Nowhere in the current chain of
command does there exist a uniformed military officer of appropriate
rank with commensurate command authority, accountability, and
responsibility who is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If we are only going to have one major national cemetery that is run
by a branch of the DOD, then there needs to be a uniformed chain of
command that runs the cemetery in a professional, military manner.
In closing, I would state, Mr. Chairman, I have friends that may
choose to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and I would urge
adoption of this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor
of the amendment if he has any more speakers?
Mr. WITTMAN. I do to close.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. With that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, you know, as you've heard, this issue is
really about this: it's about making sure that there's accountability
and that there's responsibility at this Nation's most distinguished
resting place where our heroes that have defended this Nation go for
their final resting place. If we put a uniformed officer in command of
Arlington National Cemetery, then that officer will be held accountable
to the exact same standards as the heroes buried at Arlington once
were; that is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The men and women of our all-volunteer force who fall in combat, and
those who serve and who choose to be buried at Arlington, deserve the
honor of having a uniformed commanding officer to watch over them as
they rest, to set and enforce a standard of military excellence and
commitment, honor and integrity that only those serving in uniform can
fully comprehend.
Folks, these are our Nation's heroes. We owe them nothing less,
especially in light of the problems that we've had there at Arlington.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to put back in place
the distinction and the honor deserved by our men and women who have so
honorably served this Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). The question is on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Cummings

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle G of title VI, add the following new
section:

SEC. 664. MORTGAGE PROTECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES, SURVIVING SPOUSES, AND CERTAIN
VETERANS.

(a) Mortgage Protection.--
(1) In general.--Section 303 of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 533) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 303. MORTGAGES AND TRUST DEEDS.

``(a) Mortgage as Security.--This section applies only to
an obligation on real or personal property that is secured by
a mortgage, trust deed, or other security in the nature of a
mortgage and is owned by a covered individual as follows:
``(1) With respect to an obligation on real or personal
property owned by a servicemember, such obligation that
originated before the period of the servicemember's military
service and for which the servicemember is still obligated.
``(2) With respect to an obligation on real property owned
by a servicemember serving in support of a contingency
operation (as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code), such obligation that originated at any
time and for which the servicemember is still obligated.
``(3) With respect to an obligation on real property owned
by a veteran described in subsection (f)(1)(B), such
obligation that originated at any time and for which the
veteran is still obligated.
``(4) With respect to an obligation on real property owned
by a surviving spouse described in subsection (f)(1)(C), such
obligation that originated at any time and for which the
spouse is still obligated.
``(b) Stay of Proceedings and Adjustment of Obligation.--
(1) In an action filed during a covered time period to
enforce an obligation described in subsection (a), the court
may after a hearing and on its own motion and shall upon
application by a covered individual when the individual's
ability to comply with the obligation is materially affected
by military service--
``(A) stay the proceedings for a period of time as justice
and equity require, or
``(B) adjust the obligation to preserve the interests of
all parties.
``(2) For purposes of applying paragraph (1) to a covered
individual who is a surviving spouse of a servicemember
described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the term `military
service' means the service of such servicemember.
``(c) Sale or Foreclosure.-- A sale, foreclosure, or
seizure of property for a breach of an obligation described
in subsection (a) shall not be valid during a covered time
period except--
``(1) upon a court order granted before such sale,
foreclosure, or seizure with a return made and approved by
the court; or
``(2) if made pursuant to an agreement as provided in
section 107.
``(d) Misdemeanor.--A person who knowingly makes or causes
to be made a sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property that
is prohibited by subsection (c), or who knowingly attempts to
do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States
Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
``(e) Proof of Service.--(1) A veteran described in
subsection (f)(1)(B) shall provide documentation described in
paragraph (2) to relevant persons to prove the eligibility of
the veteran to be covered under this section.
``(2) Documentation described in this paragraph is a rating
decision or a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs
that confirms that the veteran is totally disabled because of
one or more service-connected injuries or service-connected
disability conditions.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `covered individual' means the following
individuals:
``(A) A servicemember.
``(B) A veteran who was retired under chapter 61 of title
10, United States Code, and whom the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, at the time of such retirement, determines is a
totally disabled veteran.
``(C) A surviving spouse of a servicemember who--
``(i) died while serving in support of a contingency
operation if such spouse is the successor in interest to
property covered under subsection (a); or
``(ii) died while in military service and whose death is
service-connected if such spouse is the successor in interest
to property covered under subsection (a).
``(2) The term `covered time period' means the following
time periods:
``(A) With respect to a servicemember, during the period
beginning on the date on which such servicemember begins
military service and ending on the date that is 12 months
after the date on which such servicemember is discharged from
such service.
``(B) With respect to a servicemember serving in support of
a contingency operation, during the period beginning on the
date of the military orders for such service and ending on
the date that is 12 months after the date on which such
servicemember redeploys from such contingency operation.
``(C) With respect to a veteran described in subsection
(f)(1)(B), during the 12-month period beginning on the date
of the retirement of such veteran described in such
subsection.
``(D) With respect to a surviving spouse of a servicemember
described in subsection (f)(1)(C), during the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the death of the servicemember.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 107 of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 517) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Other Individuals.--For purposes of this section, the
term `servicemember' includes any covered individual under
section 303(f)(1).''.
(3) Repeal of sunset.--Subsection (c) of section 2203 of
the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110
289; 50 U.S.C. App. 533 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection
(a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.''.
(b) Increased Civil Penalties for Mortgage Violations.--
Paragraph (3) of section 801(b) of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil
penalty--
``(A) with respect to a violation of section 303 regarding
real property--

[[Page H3058]]

``(i) in an amount not exceeding $110,000 for a first
violation; and
``(ii) in an amount not exceeding $220,000 for any
subsequent violation; and
``(B) with respect to any other violation of this Act--
``(i) in an amount not exceeding $55,000 for a first
violation; and
``(ii) in an amount not exceeding $110,000 for any
subsequent violation.''.
(c) Credit Discrimination.--Section 108 of such Act (50
U.S.C. App. 518) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Application by'' and inserting ``(a)
Application by''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) In addition to the protections under subsection (a),
an individual who is eligible, or who may likely become
eligible, for any provision of this Act may not be denied or
refused credit or be subject to any other action described
under paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) solely by
reason of such eligibility.''.
(d) Requirements for Lending Institutions That Are
Creditors for Obligations and Liabilities Covered by the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.--Section 207 of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 527) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
``(d) Lending Institution Requirements.--
``(1) Compliance officers.--Each lending institution
subject to the requirements of this section shall designate
an employee of the institution as a compliance officer who is
responsible for ensuring the institution's compliance with
this section and for distributing information to
servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities are covered
by this section.
``(2) Toll-free telephone number.--During any fiscal year,
a lending institution subject to the requirements of this
section that had annual assets for the preceding fiscal year
of $10,000,000,000 or more shall maintain a toll-free
telephone number and shall make such telephone number
available on the primary Internet Web site of the
institution.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I'm honored today to be joined by the
ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee
on Armed Services in offering an amendment to provide urgently needed
help to servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
When Congress passed the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, one of its
many goals was to protect our men and women in uniform from being
foreclosed upon while they're on active duty, serving our Nation
abroad. Under current law, some of the protections in the act are
scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. Unless Congress acts now,
our servicemembers could be placed at greater risk.
Our amendment fixes that by eliminating the sunset provision and
ensuring that foreclosure protections are extended for 12 months. In
addition, our amendment ensures that soldiers serving in contingency
operations do not have to worry about losing their homes, regardless of
when they were purchased.
Our amendment also extends foreclosure protections to the surviving
spouses of servicemembers who are killed in the line of duty. And our
amendment extends foreclosure protections to veterans who are 100
percent disabled at the time of discharge due to injuries they received
during their service.
Finally, the amendment prohibits banks from discriminating against
servicemembers covered by the act, and it increases penalties against
banks to deter future violations.
We crafted this amendment after more than a year of investigating
cases in which servicemembers suffered illegal foreclosures. We heard
directly from these servicemembers, veterans, banks, and government
officials at multiple hearings and forums in both the House and Senate.
I also issued a staff report detailing how several mortgage servicing
companies have now conceded that they violated the act. Frankly, this
amendment should be a no-brainer. Every Member of this Chamber should
be able to agree that our troops fighting overseas should not also have
to fight here at home just to keep a roof over their heads and the
heads of their families.
Our amendment is supported by the American Legion, the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American
Veterans, all of whom have written letters of support.
We owe it to our men and women in uniform to take action now, and
this amendment provides commonsense protections to those who deserve
the most. I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I do rise in opposition but not in strong
opposition because I agree with what the gentleman from Maryland is
attempting to do, but I need to oppose it for several reasons.
First, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is designed to strike a
balance between the needs of a servicemember and their civilian
obligations, and I don't believe that anybody in this body would ever
do something that could make life more difficult for them.
The changes to SCRA made by this amendment are worthy of vetting
under regular order through the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Currently, real estate protections apply to purchases made before being
called to active duty. However, section (A)(3) of the amendment would
extend SCRA coverage to real estate purchased at any time, including
while on active duty under certain circumstances.

{time} 2210

That section alone makes a significant change to a provision that is
over 70 years old. And while I don't necessarily oppose such an
extension, we need to get the views of the major stakeholders,
including the VA and the home mortgage industry.
Secondly, as written, some provisions are open to very wide
interpretation. For example, there is a provision that provides a 12-
month protection from foreclosure to those who are separated or retired
because of a disability and rated by VA as permanently and totally
disabled.
Since it's very rare that a servicemember would actually leave the
military with a 100 percent rating from the VA and the VA adjudication
process, as most of us know, can take months, if not years in some
cases, how would this provision be implemented? That is left unclear in
this amendment. For example, would a bank be required to give back a
foreclosed home if the veteran was found several years later to be
rated as totally and permanently disabled?
The amendment also contains a significant increase in penalties for
violating SCRA provisions. And again, while I don't necessarily oppose
the change, I think we need to hear from the legal community on these
provisions.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, may I inquire as to how much time we
have, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen on both sides have 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
I think Mr. Miller raises some justifiable concerns about how much
we're going to need to look into this further as we go forward. I
believe we can be committed to doing that in conference and have that
conversation.
But the biggest reason to pass this is because of the first thing it
does, and that extends the current law that is set to expire for
servicemembers who are deployed not being foreclosed. We have passed it
in this Chamber; it has not passed in the Senate. If we put this into
the Defense authorizing bill, it gives us another bite at the apple,
another chance to make sure this passes without being sunsetted.
And then the other provisions I think are worthy expansions of the
protection.
Now, just so we're clear, it doesn't expand it forever so that
someone who's 100 percent service disabled would never be foreclosed
upon. It merely gives the judge greater discretion to prohibit that
foreclosure as long as justice would require, which I think is good
protection for people who

[[Page H3059]]

are 100 percent service disabled and for surviving spouses and for the
others that are added to this.
I think there is cause to further vet this. I personally pledge to
work with the majority as we go forward to do that, but I think the
amendment is worthy of support because of how important this issue is.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I appreciate the ranking member drawing
attention to the fact that this is bottled up in the Senate, even
though it has passed the House in regards to the extending of the
sunset provisions of the SCRA.
I would say that, to confirm our concerns, my staff actually talked
with an expert on SCRA who was the author of the 2003 major revisions,
and here were some of his concerns:
Nothing mandates that a deployed servicemember give notice of their
deployment to the financial institution. Without this information, how
will the institution know that the servicemember is now covered by
these new protections under SCRA?
The current Web site that financial institutions use to see if
somebody is on active duty does not differentiate between deployed and
nondeployed, thereby making it extremely difficult for the financial
institution to keep track.
What is going to be the duration of the protection for surviving
spouses--which is something Mr. Smith just brought up--and disabled
veterans? Indefinitely? He says no. But will institutions be
discouraged from making loans to servicemembers because of this
potential problem?
If we believe that we should expand this protection to mortgages, why
not extend the protections to other areas?
These are the types of complex questions that really should be
thought out and reviewed by experts in this area under regular order.
That is why we have committees in this process.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the argument about the
deployment and notice, the Department of Defense has a long-standing
database in place that lenders currently utilize to access this
information, and I think that that would be sufficient with regard to
that.
The question that the gentleman raises, Mr. Miller, is a very good
one with regard to the 100 percent disability. The amendment I've
offered does not include those rated 100 percent disabled after
multiple appeals. It only applies to those rated 100 percent disabled
at the time of discharge. And you're probably right; it won't be but so
many people.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I believe it says rated by VA. DOD makes a
rating when you separate from service, and it says, VA. That is a
problem because of the time that it takes for VA to do their rating.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, when we checked with VA within the
last 2 hours, they said that the average is about 188 days. But be that
as it may, I go back to what the ranking member said--we really ought
to get this into conference. If there are issues that the gentleman is
concerned about, perhaps they could be worked out at that time. But
we've got servicemembers who are being abused right now. I know that,
as chairman of Veterans', I know the gentleman wants to make sure that
he protects our veterans.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I would say that absolutely, if this were just
an extension of SCRA to get past the sunset provisions, we would not
have a problem with that. But I know, as any other Member in here, that
the last thing we would want to do is to cause a problem for our
veterans without thinking through all the potential consequences.
I would note that Mr. Cummings introduced an identical piece of
legislation, H.R. 5737, earlier this week, which would give the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs an opportunity to review these issues. I
would ask the gentleman to give our committee an opportunity to review
this proposal in bill form through regular order. I pledge my
commitment to work with you to make sure that your concerns are
addressed in proper fashion.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Sablan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1023. OVERHAUL, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE OF VESSELS IN
THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA
ISLANDS.

Subsection (a) of section 7310 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``the United States or Guam'' each place it
appears and inserting ``the United States, Guam, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
(2) in the heading for such subsection, by striking
``United States or Guam'' and inserting ``United States,
Guam, or Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that my amendment requires
absolutely no Federal spending, nor is it in any way a precursor to
future Federal spending. All I am proposing is that private businesses
that may want to invest in the Northern Marianas and offer ship repair
services to the United States military not be barred from that
investment by Federal law.
We often hear it said that the Federal Government should not pick
winners and losers. Yet under current law, naval vessels with a home
port in the U.S. are prohibited from being overhauled, repaired, or
maintained in a shipyard in the Northern Mariana Islands. My amendment
fixes that inequity. It proposes to include the Northern Marianas as a
U.S. jurisdiction where our military vessels may be serviced. It opens
the opportunity for private businesses to do this work in the Marianas.
Businesses may not take advantage of the opportunity, we do not know,
but there is no reason for our laws to foreclose this investment if it
is feasible from a business point of view.
We also do not know whether the Navy will ever need repair capacity
in the Northern Marianas, but we do know that the Department of Defense
is realigning our forces to focus on Asia and the Pacific. We know that
one area of impending buildup of military assets is the Marianas. So
although there are sufficient repair facilities now, it would make good
strategic sense for the Navy to have the option at least to repair its
vessels in any U.S. jurisdiction in the Pacific region if that ever
becomes necessary.
I can say for the record that the Navy has told me it has no
opposition to my amendment. Governor Calvo, the Republican Governor of
Guam, and the management of Guam's shipyard, who might be concerned
about competition, instead actively support my proposal. They recognize
that repair facilities in the Northern Marianas could at some point
complement, not compete, with Guam and build the regional economy.

{time} 2220

Governor Fitial, Republican Governor of the Northern Marianas, also
supports changing the Federal law. The Marianas have been hit hard by
recession. Lifting the existing prohibition on business investment
could help our economy and help create jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support this no-cost, commonsense amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3060]]

Office of the Governor of Guam,

Adelup, Guam, May 17, 2012.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Adam Smith,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith: In 2008,
Congress passed PL 110 229, the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008. This legislation was designed to
alleviate the economic disadvantages created by the changes
in visa requirements for our northern neighbor, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), thus
ensuring that the CNMI would be on equal footing with the
rest of the United States in regard to economic development
opportunities.
In order to avoid adverse economic impact on the CNMI PL
110 229 emphasized the economic synergies that could be
generated from a regional economic approach which included
Guam and the CNMI, as evidenced by PL 110 229's creation of
the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program.
Another area of economic opportunity for the CNMI that I
believe could be generated through the regional economic
approach is the amendment to 10 USC Sec. 7310 to allow U.S.
Navy and U.S. flagged vessels to be repaired in the CNMI, as
well as in the United States and Guam. The law was amended in
2006 to include Guam, and it would economically benefit the
CNMI if it was further amended to include the CNMI. Already,
I understand that several companies have expressed interest
in establishing a ship repair facility in the CNMI, and I
believe that such an economic opportunity would be consistent
with regional economic intent of PL 11 229.
In order to expedite the elimination of this current
barrier to the CNMI's development, Representative Sablan of
the CNMI has submitted H.R. 4338. Respectfully, I request
your positive consideration and support of H.R. 4338. I
believe H.R. 4338 would ensure that our region is able to
both benefit from the incredible changes which are taking
place in our communities, as well as to allow us to support
the vital needs of the United States in the future to the
maximum extent of which we are capable. Thank you for your
consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Eddie Baza Calvo.

Guam Shipyard,

Naval Activities Branch,

Santa Rita, Guam, May 18, 2012.
Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Bordallo: I write in support of
legislation to expand domestic ship repair locations covered
by Section 7310 of Title 10 to include the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
Currently, Section 7310 requires that vessels under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy, with a homeport in
the United States or Guam, be overhauled, repaired and
maintained in the United States or Guam, except in the case
of voyage repairs. In March 2012 Congressman Sablan of the
CNMI introduced H.R. 4338 which would amend Subsection (a) of
Section 7310 10 by striking ``the United States, or Guam'' in
each place where it appears, and replacing it with ``the
United States, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands''. More recently, Congressman Sablan offered
an amendment to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 13, which would have the same effect.
At present, there is no shipyard in CNMI capable of
overhaul, repair and maintenance of Navy ships. However, Guam
Shipyard is in discussions with Governor Fitial, about
leasing land at the Seaport to set up a small ship repair
facility in Saipan. We believe there is a market there for
fishing and other small vessels, and perhaps even small Navy
vessels. However, the water depth and other physical
constraints of the harbor at Saipan would not permit its use
to overhaul, repair and maintain the large Navy ships which
form the bulk of the work at Guam Shipyard. Thus, the
shipyard we contemplate opening in Saipan would not compete
with Guam Shipyard for the work it currently performs for the
Navy.
As always, we greatly appreciate the leadership and long-
standing support you have provided on behalf of domestic
repair of Navy vessels, and especially ship repair in Guam.
Your dedicated engagement in Washington on behalf of Guam
Shipyard, has been instrumental in ensuring it remains a
shipyard facility, ready and able to meet Navy ship repair
requirements in the Western Pacific, now and in the future.
Sincerely,
Mathews Pothen,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms.
Hanabusa), my friend and colleague on the committee.
Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Sablan
amendment. The reason is that it really is not necessary at this time
and, at this period of time when we have budget issues and we have
sequestration issues, we don't need to tackle this one as well.
What the amendment seeks is to amend 10 USC 7310 subsection A, which
basically states U.S. Navy vessels home ported in the United States or
Guam may not be overhauled, repaired, or maintained in shipyards
outside the United States or Guam, except for voyage repairs. This is
being sought to be amended to include CNMI.
I'd like to say, first of all, that I understand perfectly well why
my good friend and colleague from the Northern Mariana Islands wants to
do this. I mean, he's representing his constituents. But the points
against it are overwhelming.
First of all, the Navy states it has the requirement for a public or
private sector ship maintenance facility in CNMI. And also the Navy
currently says it can conduct repairs in CNMI, but there is limited
pier space and no drydocking capability, and that they can do the work
elsewhere for the Navy and for the Military Sealift Command.
In addition to that, the shipyard repair capacity in both public and
private shipyards exists today in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Bremerton,
Washington, and Guam for both the U.S. Navy and the MSC ships.
Now, the Navy has no future requirement for the repair capacity in
the Pacific region. And it's been testified to that the buildup on Guam
does not create a demand for additional ship repair capacity. So the
Navy's current regional ship maintenance work log only minimally
supports the current maintenance facilities in Guam, and we don't need
any additional facilities.
In addition to that, the Navy officials have stated there is not
enough U.S. Navy or MSC work in current and future operating plants. It
is for these reasons that I regretfully oppose the amendment.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend and colleague
from Hawaii that there is no need for large vessel repairs. Those are
being presently performed in Honolulu, Hawaii, or on Guam. Actually,
the letter to Ms. Bordallo from Guam shipyard actually says this. It
says the water depth and other physical constraints of the harbor of
Saipan would not permit its use to overhaul, repair, and maintain large
Navy ships, which form the bulk of work at Guam shipyard. So there is
no disagreement with my good friend from Hawaii on this.
Thus, the shipyard we contemplate opening in Saipan would not compete
with Guam shipyard for the work it currently performs for the Navy.
We're not asking for anything here. We're just asking for the
authorization. It may not happen. But then again, it may. And we're not
asking for money here. We're asking for authorization so that private
businesses who want to do it, who find some capacity to do it, can come
in and establish a shipyard or a small repair yard on Saipan in the
Northern Marianas and do the work and compete for the business. And
that's what we need to do here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do we each have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes. The
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands has 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. McKEON. And we have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. That is correct.
Mr. McKEON. We just have one more speaker, so I will reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I just urge my
colleagues to join me in support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to join the distinguished lady from Hawaii in opposing this
amendment, and also in her complimenting the gentleman who brought it.
I know his motives are very good in trying to create jobs in his area.
The problem we have, as the gentlelady from Hawaii has stated, is
that we already have authority to conduct repairs in the Mariana
Islands at this particular point in time. The problem is that there's
limited pier space, and there's no drydock capability.

[[Page H3061]]

To allow private sectors to invest huge monies, or to come back here
later after we get the authorization to say we want more money from
Congress to appropriate there would not be appropriate because, as the
gentlelady from Hawaii said, we already have sufficient capacity, both
in Pearl Harbor, in Washington, in California, and in Guam.
And to show that there are no requirements for this further ship
repair capacity in the Pacific region, you can just look at last year,
where the absence of need was perhaps best exemplified by the fact that
the Navy only received one bid when it had a proposal from shipyards in
the Pacific region for a long-term operating lease for the Guam ship
repair facility property, and that bid was from the current Guam
shipyard operator.
The distance from overseas home ports and from the regions in which
the MSC ships operates makes a shipyard in the Mariana Islands
prohibitive in terms of operating costs to and from there.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that Congress will not go down this line. At
this particular point in time, the Navy has absolutely no additional
requirements or needs that they have for this particular yard there. We
are struggling, at this particular point in time, to keep the other
yards going with the capacity that we currently have, and to invest
this kind of investment there when we're not going to be able to take
advantage of it would not be appropriate for us to do, this body at
this time.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will defeat this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the Northern
Mariana Islands will be postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKeon

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments
en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 35,
37, 44, 60, 63, 69, 71, 80, 84, 86, 87, 91, 94, 109, 110,
117, 130, 137, and 140, printed in House Report No. 112 485,
offered by Mr. McKeon of California:

amendment no. 35 offered by ms. brown of florida

At the end of subtitle G of title X of division A, add the
following:

SEC. 10__. AUTHORITY FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO CONSTRUCT
PROJECTS CRITICAL TO NAVIGATION SAFETY.

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, may accept non-Federal funds and use such funds to
construct a navigation project that has not been specifically
authorized by law if--
(1) the Secretary has received a completed Chief of
Engineers' report for the project;
(2) the project is fully funded by non-Federal sources
using non-Federal funds; and
(3) the Secretary finds that the improvements to be made by
the project are critical to navigation safety.

amendment no. 37 offered by mr. baca of california

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1084. RIALTO-COLTON BASIN, CALIFORNIA, WATER RESOURCES
STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after funds are
made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the United States
Geological Survey, shall complete a study of water resources
in the Rialto-Colton Basin in the State of California (in
this section referred to as the ``Basin''), including--
(1) a survey of ground water resources in the Basin,
including an analysis of--
(A) the delineation, either horizontally or vertically, of
the aquifers in the Basin, including the quantity of water in
the aquifers;
(B) the availability of ground water resources for human
use;
(C) the salinity of ground water resources;
(D) the identification of a recent surge in perchlorate
concentrations in ground water, whether significant sources
are being flushed through the vadose zone, or if perchlorate
is being remobilized;
(E) the identification of impacts and extents of all source
areas that contribute to the regional plume to be fully
characterized;
(F) the potential of the ground water resources to
recharge;
(G) the interaction between ground water and surface water;
(H) the susceptibility of the aquifers to contamination,
including identifying the extent of commingling of plume
emanating within surrounding areas in San Bernardino County,
California; and
(I) any other relevant criteria; and
(2) a characterization of surface and bedrock geology of
the Basin, including the effect of the geology on ground
water yield and quality.
(b) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out the study
in coordination with the State of California and any other
entities that the Secretary determines to be appropriate,
including other Federal agencies and institutions of higher
education.
(c) Report.--Upon completion of the study, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives a report that describes the results
of the study.

amendment no. 44 offered by ms. granger of texas

At the end of subtitle D of title XII of division A of the
bill, add the following:

SEC. 12XX. SALE OF F 16 AIRCRAFT TO TAIWAN.

The President shall carry out the sale of no fewer than 66
F 16C/D multirole fighter aircraft to Taiwan.

amendment no. 60 offered by mr. carson of indiana

At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following
new section:

SEC. 3__. SURVEY AND REPORT ON PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
NEEDED BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED
ON THE GROUND IN COMBAT ZONES.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
when sending members of the United States Armed Forces into
combat, the United States has an obligation to ensure that--
(1) the members are properly equipped with the best
available protective equipment and supplies; and
(2) the members, or their family and friends, never feel
compelled to purchase additional equipment and supplies to be
safer in combat.
(b) Survey Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall conduct an anonymous survey among members and former
members of the Armed Forces who were deployed on the ground
in a combat zone since September 11, 2001, requesting
information on what kinds of personal protection equipment
(such as body armor and ballistic eyewear) the member
believes should have been provided to members during
deployment but were not provided. The Secretary shall include
in the survey questions about whether members, their
families, or other persons purchased any personal protection
equipment because the Armed Forces did not provide the
equipment and the types and quantity of equipment purchased.
(c) Report on Results of Survey.--Not later than 180 days
after the completion of the survey required by subsection
(b), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report----
(1) describing the results of the survey;
(2) describing the types and quantity of personal
protection equipment not provided by the Armed Forces and
purchased instead by or on behalf of members of the Armed
Forces to protect themselves;
(3) explaining why such personal protection equipment was
not provided; and
(4) recommending future funding solutions to prevent the
omission in the future.

amendment no. 63 offered by mr. smith of washington

At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following
new section:

SEC. 3__. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF A MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO
ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH INDIAN
TRIBES FOR LAND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND STATE-OWNED NATIONAL
GUARD INSTALLATIONS.

(a) Inclusion of Indian Tribes.--Section 103A(a) of the
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670c 1(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``Indian tribes,'' after
``local governments,''.
(b) Indian Tribe Defined.--Section 100 of such Act (16
U.S.C. 670) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.''.

amendment no. 69 offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota

At the end of section 352 (page 119, after line 9), add the
following new subsection:
(e) Sense of Congress on the Essential Service Provided by
Fighter Wings Performing Aerospace Control Alert Missions.--
It is the sense of Congress that fighter wings performing the
24-hour Aerospace Control Alert missions provide an essential
service in defending the sovereign airspace of the United
States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks upon the
United States on September 11, 2001.

[[Page H3062]]

amendment no. 71 offered by mr. cummings of maryland

Page 142, line 23, insert ``(and the Secretary of Homeland
Security in the case of the Coast Guard)'' after ``Defense''.
Page 143, line 18, insert ``(and the Secretary of Homeland
Security in the case of the Coast Guard)'' after ``Defense''.
Page 144, line 7, insert ``(and the Secretary of Homeland
Security in the case of the Coast Guard)'' after ``Defense''.
Page 144, line 9, insert ``and the Secretary of Homeland
Security'' after ``Defense''.
Page 144, line 10, insert ``the Commandant of the Coast
Guard,'' after ``Staff,''.
Page 145, after line 24, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) Coast Guard Report.--
(1) Annual report required.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall prepare an annual report addressing diversity
among commissioned officers of the Coast Guard and Coast
Guard Reserve and among enlisted personnel of the Coast Guard
and Coast Guard Reserve. The report shall include--
(A) an assessment of the available pool of qualified
candidates for the flag officer grades of admiral and vice
admiral;
(B) the number of such officers and personnel, listed by
sex and race or ethnicity for each rank;
(C) the number of such officers and personnel who were
promoted during the year covered by the report, listed by sex
and race or ethnicity for each rank; and
(D) the number of such officers and personnel who
reenlisted or otherwise extended the commitment to the Coast
Guard during the year covered by the report, listed by sex
and race or ethnicity for each rank.
(2) Submission.--The report under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted each year not later than 45 days after the date on
which the President submits to Congress the budget for the
next fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code. Each report shall be submitted to the Committee
on Armed Services, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Armed Services
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate.
Page 168, line 14, insert ``(and the Secretary of Homeland
Security in the case of the Coast Guard)'' after ``Secretary
of Defense''.
Page 168, line 17, insert ``and the Coast Guard'' after
``Department of Defense''.
Page 169, lines 5 and 6, insert ``and the Coast Guard''
after ``Department of Defense''.
Page 169, line 14, insert ``(and the Secretary of Homeland
Security in the case of the Coast Guard)'' after ``Secretary
of Defense''.
Page 169, line 17, strike ``the Secretary of Defense
considers'' and insert ``the Secretaries consider''.
Page 169, line 24, insert ``(and the Secretary of Homeland
Security in the case of the Coast Guard)'' after ``Secretary
of Defense''.

amendment no. 80 offered by mr. thompson of california

At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 5__. ADVANCEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL CHARLES E. YEAGER,
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (RETIRED), ON THE
RETIRED LIST.

(a) Advancement.--Brigadier General Charles E. Yeager,
United States Air Force (retired), is entitled to hold the
rank of major general while on the retired list of the Air
Force.
(b) Additional Benefits Not to Accrue.--The advancement of
Charles E. Yeager on the retired list of the Air Force under
subsection (a) shall not affect the retired pay or other
benefits from the United States to which Charles E. Yeager is
now or may in the future be entitled based upon his military
service or affect any benefits to which any other person may
become entitled based on his service.

amendment no. 84 offered by mr. smith of washington

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 5__. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND HARASSMENT
OVERSIGHT AND ADVISORY COUNCIL.

(a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 188. Sexual Assault and Harassment Oversight and
Advisory Council

``(a) Establishment.--There is a Sexual Assault and
Harassment Oversight and Advisory Council (in this section
referred to as the `Council').
``(b) Membership.--(1) The Council shall be comprised of
individuals appointed by the Secretary of Defense who are
experts and professionals in the fields of sexual assault and
harassment, judicial proceedings involving sexual assault or
harassment, or treatment for sexual assault or harassment. At
a minimum, the Council shall include as members the
following:
``(A) The Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office of the Department of Defense.
``(B) The Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force.
``(C) A judge advocate from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps with experience in prosecuting sexual assault
cases.
``(D) A Department of Justice representative with
experience in prosecuting sexual assault cases.
``(E) An individual who has extensive experience in
providing assistance to sexual assault victims.
``(F) An individual who has expertise the civilian judicial
system with respect to sexual assault.
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), members shall be appointed
for a term of two years. A member may serve after the end of
the member's term until the member's successor takes office.
``(3) If a vacancy occurs in the Council, the vacancy shall
be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. A
member of the Council appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
before the end of the term for which the member's predecessor
was appointed shall only serve until the end of such term.
``(c) Chairman; Meetings.--(1) The Council shall elect a
chair from among its members.
``(2) The Council shall meet not less often than once every
year.
``(3) If a member of the Board fails to attend two
successive Board meetings, except in a case in which an
absence is approved in advance, for good cause, by the Board
chairman, such failure shall be grounds for termination from
membership on the Board. A person designated for membership
on the Board shall be provided notice of the provisions of
this paragraph at the time of such designation.
``(d) Administrative Provisions.--(1) Each member of the
Council who is not an officer or employee of the Federal
Government shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
Executive Schedule Level IV under section 5315 of title 5,
for each day (including travel time) during which such member
is engaged in the performance of the duties of the Council.
Members of the Council who are officers or employees of the
United States shall serve without compensation in addition to
that received for their services as officers or employees of
the United States.
``(2) The members of the Council shall be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, while away from their homes or regular
places of business in the performance of services for the
Council.
``(e) Responsibilities.--The Council shall be responsible
for providing oversight and advice to the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments on
the activities and implementation of policies and programs
developed by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office, including any modifications to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, in response to sexual assault and
harassment.
``(f) Annual Report.--Not later than March 31 of each year,
the Council shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the
congressional defense committees a report that describes the
activities of the Council during the preceding year and
contains such recommendations as the Council considers
appropriate to improve sexual assault prevention and
treatment programs and policies of the Department of
Defense.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``188. Sexual Assault and Harassment Oversight and Advisory
Council.''.

amendment no. 86 offered by mr. terry of nebraska

At the end of title V, add the following new section:

SEC. 5__. MILITARY SALUTE DURING RECITATION OF PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES NOT
IN UNIFORM AND BY VETERANS.

Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Members of
the Armed Forces not in uniform and veterans may render the
military salute in the manner provided for persons in
uniform.''.

amendment no. 87 offered by mr. carson of indiana

At the end of subtitle A of title VII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 704. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.

(a) In General.--Section 1074m of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) and (C) as
subparagraph (C) and (D), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Once during each 180-day period during which a member
is deployed.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon; and
(B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(C) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) by personnel in deployed units whose
responsibilities include providing unit health care services
if such personnel are available and the use of such personnel
for the assessments would not impair the capacity of such
personnel to perform higher priority tasks; and''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1074m(a)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``subparagraph (B)
and (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C) and (D)''.

[[Page H3063]]

amendment no. 91 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 725. INCREASED COLLABORATION WITH NIH TO COMBAT TRIPLE
NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER.

The Office of Health of the Department of Defense shall
work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health
to--
(1) identify specific genetic and molecular targets and
biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer; and
(2) provide information useful in biomarker selection, drug
discovery, and clinical trials design that will enable both--
(A) triple negative breast cancer patients to be identified
earlier in the progression of their disease; and
(B) the development of multiple targeted therapies for the
disease.

amendment no. 94 offered by mr. rivera of florida

At the end of subtitle A of title VIII (page 297, after
line 23), insert the following new section:

SEC. 802. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH PERSONS THAT HAVE
BUSINESS OPERATIONS WITH STATE SPONSORS OF
TERRORISM.

(a) Prohibition.--The Department of Defense may not enter
into a contract for the procurement of goods or services with
any person that has business operations with a state sponsor
of terrorism.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) State sponsor of terrorism.--The term ``state sponsor
of terrorism'' means any country the government of which the
Secretary of State has determined has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism pursuant to--
(A) section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979
(50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) (as continued in effect pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act);
(B) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371); or
(C) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2780).
(2) Business operations.--The term ``business operations''
means engaging in commerce in any form, including acquiring,
developing, maintaining, owning, selling, possessing,
leasing, or operating equipment, facilities, personnel,
products, services, personal property, real property, or any
other apparatus of business or commerce.
(3) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
(A) a natural person, corporation, company, business
association, partnership, society, trust, or any other
nongovernmental entity, organization, or group;
(B) any governmental entity or instrumentality of a
government, including a multilateral development institution
(as defined in section 1701(c)(3) of the International
Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(3))); and
(C) any successor, subunit, parent entity, or subsidiary
of, or any entity under common ownership or control with, any
entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

amendment no. 109 offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania

At the end of title X, add the following new section:

SEC. 10__. REPORT ON DESIGNATION OF BOKO HARAM AS A FOREIGN
TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees--
(A) a detailed report on whether the Nigerian organization
named ``People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's
Teachings and Jihad'' (commonly known as ``Boko Haram''),
meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist
organization under section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); and
(B) if the Secretary of State determines that Boko Haram
does not meet such criteria, a detailed justification as to
which criteria have not been met.
(2) Form.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex if appropriate.
(3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on
Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence
of the Senate.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to infringe upon the sovereignty of Nigeria to
combat militant or terrorist groups operating inside the
boundaries of Nigeria.

amendment no. 110 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas

At the end of subtitle H of title X of division A, add the
following new section:

SEC. 10__. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON RECOGNIZING AIR MOBILITY
COMMAND ON ITS 20TH ANNIVERSARY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On June 1, 1992, Air Mobility Command was established
as the Air Force's functional command for cargo and passenger
delivery, air refueling, and aeromedical evacuation.
(2) As the lead Major Command for all Mobility Air Forces,
Air Mobility Command ensures that the Air Force's core
functions of global vigilance, power, and reach are
fulfilled.
(3) The ability of the United States to rapidly respond to
humanitarian disasters and the outbreak of hostilities
anywhere in the world truly defines the United States as a
global power.
(4) Mobility Air Forces Airmen are unified by one single
purpose: to answer the call of others so they may prevail.
(5) The United States' hand of friendship to the world many
times takes the form of Mobility Air Forces aircraft
delivering humanitarian relief. Since its inception, Air
Mobility Command has provided forces for 43 humanitarian
relief efforts at home and abroad, from New Orleans,
Louisiana, to Bam, Iran.
(6) A Mobility Air Forces aircraft departs every 2 minutes,
365 days a year. Since September 11, 2001, Mobility Air
Forces aircraft have flown 18.9 million passengers, 6.8
million tons of cargo, and offloaded 2.2 billion pounds of
fuel. Many of these flights have assisted combat aircraft
protection United States forces from overhead.
(7) The United States keeps its solemn promise to its men
and women in uniform with Air Mobility Command, accomplishing
186,940 patient movements since the beginning of Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
(8) Mobility Air Forces Airmen reflect the best values of
the Nation: delivering hope, saving lives, and fueling the
fight.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment
of Air Mobility Command, the people of the United States
should--
(1) recognize the critical role that Mobility Air Forces
play in the Nation's defense; and
(2) express appreciation for the leadership of Air Mobility
Command and the more than 134,000 active-duty, Air National
Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Department of Defense civilians
that make up the command.

amendment no. 117 offered by mr. quayle of arizona

At the end of title X, add the following new section:

SEC. 10__. CONSOLIDATION OF DATA CENTERS.

Section 2867 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (10 U.S.C. 2223a note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``April 1,
2012,'' the following: ``and each year thereafter,''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(C) Additional element.--The performance plan required
under this paragraph, with respect to plans submitted after
the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, shall be consistent
with the July 2011 Government Accountability Office report to
Congress, entitled `Data Center Consolidation Agencies Need
to Complete Inventories and Plans to Achieve Expected
Savings' (GAO 11 565), as updated by quarterly consolidation
progress reports submitted by the Department of Defense to
the Office of Management and Budget''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by adding at the end the
following: ``Beginning after the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, such
report shall include progress updates on consolidation goals
achieved during the preceding fiscal year consistent with the
framework outlined by the July 2011 Government Accountability
Office report to Congress, entitled `Data Center
Consolidation Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans
to Achieve Expected Savings' (GAO 11 565), as updated by
quarterly consolidation progress reports submitted by the
Department of Defense to the Office of Management and
Budget.''

amendment no. 130 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

Page 725, after line 6, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents):

SEC. 1696. ASSESSMENT OF OUTREACH FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS
OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY WOMEN AND MINORITIES
REQUIRED BEFORE CONVERSION OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS
TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

No Department of Defense function that is performed by
Department of Defense civilian employees and is tied to a
certain military base may be converted to performance by a
contractor until the Secretary of Defense conducts an
assessment to determine if the Department of Defense has
carried out sufficient outreach programs to assist small
business concerns owned and controlled by women (as such term
is defined in section 8(d)(3)(D) of the Small Business Act)
and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially
and economically disadvantaged individuals (as such term is
defined in section 8(d)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act) that
are located in the geographic area near the military base.

amendment no. 137 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts

At the end of title XXVIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 28__. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY--LINCOLN
LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

(a) Improvement and Modernization Project.--The Secretary
of the Air Force

[[Page H3064]]

may enter into discussions with the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology for a project to improve and modernize the
Lincoln Laboratory complex at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts. The project may include modifications and
additions to research laboratories, office spaces, and
supporting facilities necessary to carry out the mission of
the Lincoln Laboratory as a Federally Funded Research and
Development Center (in this section referred to as
``FFRDC''). Supporting facilities under the project may
include infrastructure for utilities.
(b) Use of Facilities.--The right of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology to use such facilities and equipment
shall be as provided by the FFRDC Sponsoring Agreement and
FFRDC contract between the Department of Defense and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(c) Rule of Construction Regarding Construction
Authority.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to carry out a
construction project at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts, unless such project is otherwise authorized by
law.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in the FFRDC
Sponsoring Agreement and the FFRDC contract as the Secretary
of the Air Force considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.

amendment no. 140 offered by mr. cummings of maryland

At the end of title XXXV add the following:

SEC. 35__. IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIONS TO ENABLE QUALIFIED
UNITED STATES FLAG CAPACITY TO MEET NATIONAL
DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Identification of Actions.--Section 501(b) of title 46,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``When the head''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Administrator of the Maritime Administration
shall--
``(A) in each determination referred to in paragraph (1),
identify any actions that could be taken to enable qualified
United States flag capacity to meet national defense
requirements;
``(B) provide each such determination to the Secretary of
Transportation and the head of the agency referred to in
paragraph (1) for which the determination is made; and
``(C) publish each such determination on the Internet site
of the Department of Transportation within 48 hours after it
is provided to the Secretary of Transportation.
``(3)(A) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Armed Services of
the Senate--
``(i) of any request for a waiver of the navigation or
vessel-inspection laws under this section not later than 48
hours after receiving the request; and
``(ii) of the issuance of any waiver of compliance of such
a law not later than 48 hours after such issuance.
``(B) The Secretary shall include in each notification
under subparagraph (A)(ii) an explanation of--
``(i) the reasons the waiver is necessary; and
``(ii) the reasons actions referred to in subparagraph (A)
are not feasible.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the
amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the
majority and the minority.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Rivera).
Mr. RIVERA. Mr. Chairman, right now, I believe many Americans would
be surprised, perhaps shocked to know that there are foreign businesses
that also do business with terrorist nations that are currently engaged
in contract and procurement activity with the Pentagon, with the
Department of Defense. This, I believe, and I think most Americans
would believe, is not only a threat to American security, but it is
also threatening American jobs because these foreign businesses are
taking opportunities from American-based businesses that could be
contracting and procuring with the Pentagon.

{time} 2230

This amendment would prohibit businesses that engage in business
activity with terrorist nations--and those are nations that have been
officially designated as sponsors of terrorism by our own government--
from contracting and procurement opportunities with the Department of
Defense.
This is an issue of protecting not only American security but of
protecting American jobs, and I encourage its passage.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment includes
two of my amendments.
The first seeks to address what many consider to be a serious mistake
made by our military and this Congress over the last decade of war,
that is, allowing some of our troops, including several of my
constituents, to deploy without certain equipment that they need to be
safe in combat. Instead, these troops had to rely on their families and
friends to send them this vital equipment.
My amendment calls on the DOD to survey troops who have served since
September 11 in order to find out what, if any, equipment they did
without and what equipment they relied on family and friends to send
them.
I want to be clear. This is not an effort to condemn our military or
the Armed Services Committee. In fact, I applaud their valuable efforts
in this area. Yet, now that we are winding down our war in Afghanistan
and we are out of Iraq, we need to understand our mistakes to avoid
making them again in future conflicts.
My second amendment is very simply a reintroduction of language
adopted last year by unanimous consent but that was, unfortunately,
removed in conference.
It addresses the fact that our servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan
only receive mental health assessments prior to deployment and after
returning home. Yet it is during deployment--in combat--that these
events leading to mental health issues are most likely to occur. Over
months of deployment without diagnosis or treatment, their performances
could suffer; they could develop dangerous addictions; and in tragic
but far too common instances, they could hurt themselves or others.
My amendment requires the DOD to provide mental health assessments to
our troops during deployment, improving the chances of catching and
treating PTSD and other issues early.
I ask all of my colleagues to stand up for the physical safety and
mental well-being of our troops.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to urge the support for my amendment, which requires the
Secretary of State to submit a report to the Congress explaining
whether Boko Haram meets the criteria for designation as a foreign
terrorist organization. If the Secretary determines that Boko Haram
does not merit a foreign terrorist organization designation, the
amendment would require the Secretary to inform Congress which criteria
are not met.
Mr. Chairman, 6 months ago, the Department of Justice reached out to
the Department of State in urging this determination. My committee, the
Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, held hearings and
issued a report identifying the activities of Boko Haram, which is an
Islamist terrorist-based group based in Nigeria that has quickly
evolved from wielding machetes to using deadly, vehicle-borne
improvised explosive devices. This is the same kind of conduct that was
conducted by other terrorist organizations, and only later did the
Department identify them as FTOs.
I urge its support.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank both the ranking member and the
chair.
I have so much to say about this very passionate issue. I will
quickly say that I have two amendments. One deals with outreach on
behalf of small and minority businesses for defense contracts, and I
truly believe it is enormously important for the vast number of those
businesses; but I really rise today to talk about triple negative
breast cancer, which has killed so many women.
I am very, very pleased to say that my amendment, with the Office of

[[Page H3065]]

Health within the Department of Defense, will identify specific genetic
and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer,
provide information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and
clinical trial design that will enable both triple negative breast
cancer patients to be identified in the progression of the disease and
also to provide for therapies.
I do this in the loving memory of Yolanda Williams, whose funeral I
spoke at last year. She was the daughter of Dr. Lois Moore and the wife
of Mr. Williams, and she had two beautiful daughters. This wonderful,
caring woman died so quickly because of triple negative breast cancer.
Also, in the loving memory of Betty Sommer's daughter, Stacey Michelle
Gaecke, she shares her story that she also died from triple negative
breast cancer.
I ask for the support of my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment # 91 to H.R. 4310
``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would direct the
Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with
the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and
molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer,
TNBC. In addition, my amendment is intended to result in information
useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials
design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in
the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted
therapies for the disease.
Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer
for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer
Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive
subtype associated with lower survival rates.''
I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort DOD
and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast
cancer strain.
Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as
hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the
triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted
treatment.
Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women
in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among
African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in
2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with
breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.
Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39% higher
death rate from breast cancer than other groups.
African American women are also 12% less likely to survive five years
after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that
African American women are disproportionally affected by triple
negative breast cancer.
More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African Americans are
of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to
this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

The Story of Yolanda Williams

Mr. Chair, last year, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one
of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda
died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many
other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not
respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was
only 44 years old.
This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also
harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because
triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often
metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. 70% of women
with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than
five years after being diagnosed.
Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on
this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston,
Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working
tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative
breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to
follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple
negative strain.
I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation
from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment.

(Fast Facts)

Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among
women in this country.
The survival rate for breast cancer has increased to 90%
for White women but only 78% for African American women.
African American women are more likely to be diagnosed with
larger tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.
Triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC, is a term used to
describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen
receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an
excess of the HER2 protein on their cell membrane of tumor
cells.
Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) cells are:
Usually of a higher grade and size;
Onset at a younger age;
More aggressive;
More likely to metastasize.
TNBC also referred to as basal-like, BL, due to their
resemblance to basal layer of epithelial cells.
There is not a formal detailed classification of system of
the subtypes of these cells.
TNBC is in fact a heterogeneous group of cancers; with
varying differences in prognosis and survival rate between
various subtypes. This has led to a lot of confusion amongst
both physicians and patients.
Apart from surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only
available treatment, targeted molecular treatments while
being investigated are not accepted treatment.
Between 10 17% of female breast cancer patients have the
triple negative subtype.
Triple-negative breast cancer most commonly affect African-
American women, followed by Hispanic women.
African-American women have prevalence TNBC of 26% vs 16%
in non-African American women.
TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age.
African American women have a prevalence of premenopausal
breast cancer of 26% vs 16% for Non-African American women.
Women with TNBC are 3 times the risk of death than women
with the most common type of breast cancer.
Women with TNBC are more likely to have distance metastases
in the brain and lung and more common subtypes of breast
cancer.
____

Letter From Betty Sommer Causes for a Cure

It is with loving memory of my beautiful, loving, vivacious
daughter, Stacey Michelle Gaecke, that I share her story. It
is with great hope and fervent prayer that somehow, somewhere
we will discover the unknown factors to be able to treat
those unfortunate to be diagnosed with triple negative breast
cancer.
I remember her sweet voice when she called to tell me that
she had found a lump in her right breast, had made an
appointment with her gynecologist, but was sure it wasn't
anything and that I didn't need to come back to town to go
with her as she would be fine. Of course, I was with her when
her gynecologist acknowledged the mass in her breast, but
indicated that because we had no history of breast cancer in
our family and because of her tender young age, she truly
felt that there was no reason for concern. Because my
daughter-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 28,
we knew that age and family history didn't mean there was no
reason for concern. The doctor also agreed that next steps
would be diagnostics.
On February 13, 2009 as she laid on the cold, hard table in
the breast center, they told us, even before pathology, that
they were relatively certain that it was breast cancer and
that there was also lymph node involvement. I remember
telling Stacey everything would be okay and with tears
running down her cheeks, she said, ``I don't think so Mom.''
As anyone who has walked the cancer journey, the next weeks
are a whirlwind of tests of all kinds, blood and lab tests
and one doctor visit after another. When the path report came
back and we were told that she had triple negative breast
cancer, we knew it wasn't the best type to be diagnosed with,
but had no idea how aggressive and deadly this sub-set of
breast cancer is.
She had both a great oncologist and breast surgeon, but
with the standard care of treatment currently administered;
unfortunately, after weeks and weeks of chemo, this
aggressive cancer began to grow again right before her
bilateral mastectomy. After what appeared to be a successful
surgery, although 9 of 13 lymph nodes showed involvement, she
began with radiation that literally fried her skin and tissue
to the point it looked like raw meat.
In October, 2009 her PET scan indicated that there was no
cancer detected. We quickly learned not to use the words
``cancer free.'' In light of this great news, we took a
family and friend cruise in November to celebrate her
victory. It was a special time and even with the good news, I
noticed that she was having trouble walking and complained of
pain in her hips and legs. These symptoms continued, but none
of the diagnostic testing showed any signs of cancer.
On Christmas Eve, 2009, Stacey ended up in the emergency
room with a bad gallbladder and it was then doctors
discovered that her breast cancer had metastasized to her
lungs and her liver. When her surgeon showed our family
pictures of her liver, it was unbelievable that in 2 short
months her liver was close to 50% compromised. Triple
negative breast cancer is extremely aggressive, fast
spreading and seems to know how to dodge the chemicals and
treatments that are currently given.
We took her home for Christmas knowing we would be lucky to
have her with us for the next Holiday season. The following
weeks revealed that there was also metastasis to the bones,
which was what had been causing her pain even in November.
From the time she came home at Christmas, she

[[Page H3066]]

lived in constant pain and had to be sedated heavily to the
point that she slept most of the time.
She started on a clinical trial about the third week of
January and with any success and with great hope, we could
have our sweet girl with us for an anticipated 6 to 9 months.
Because this cancer is so aggressive and so deadly, we left
for a regular treatment on Friday, February 5th and within
hours she was having unusual symptoms that sent us for
testing, then to the hospital and on Monday, February 8th at
8:30 am, she took her last breath. We buried her on Saturday,
February 13, 2010 . . . exactly one year from her diagnosis
at age 39, leaving behind a husband and two sons, ages 10 and
12.
Within a year from her passing, we had another close
friend, a beautiful young mom nearly the same age who left
behind 3 beautiful children who will grow up without their
mother. Young women and mothers are dying because, at this
time, we are still treating with standard care of treatment.
The same treatment for every type of breast cancer isn't
going to stop the deaths of these young women. Triple
negative resists this standard care of treatment and research
is needed to identify specific genetic and molecular targets
and biomarkers.
It is a mother's plea that we continue to find innovative
research to put an end to, not only triple negative breast
cancer, but to hopefully eradicate cancer within our
lifetime.
____

Race/Ethnicity and Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Worse survival for African American women with breast
cancer has been reported by the National Cancer Institute
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry,
the Department of Defense database, large single-institution
studies, and literature-based meta-analyses. After
controlling for stage, demographics, socioeconomic variables,
tumor characteristics, and treatment factors, racial
disparity in survival existed among both premenopausal and
postmenopausal women who were diagnosed with early-stage
breast cancer. This racial disparity in survival among
patients with early-stage breast cancer occurred in patients
with both endocrine-responsive and nonresponsive tumors.
African American women with breast cancer, especially those
who are premenopausal, have a higher incidence of
biologically more aggressive cancers with a basal-like
subtype or that were triple negative (ie, lacking receptors
for estrogen, progesterone, and HER2 neu).
The prevalence rates of the subtypes of breast cancer
appear to differ by race. In studies of women in the United
States and Britain, triple negative (or basal-like) tumors
appear to be more common among black women, especially those
who are premenopausal, compared to white women.
Distribution patterns of established breast cancer risk
factors among 890 young breast cancer cases and 3,432
population-based controls

Mr. Chair, I rise to support my amendment #130 to H.R. 4310
``National Defense Authorization Act,'' would require the Secretary of
Defense prior to the awarding of defense contract to private
contractors, to conduct an assessment to determine whether or not the
Department of Defense has carried out sufficient outreach programs to
include minority and women-owned small business.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that
promotes diversity. I stand proudly before you today to call for
renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective policies that
will make the United States the most talented, diverse, effective, and
powerful workforce in an increasingly globalized economy.
This amendment will require the Department of Defense to consider the
impact that changes to outsourcing guidelines will have on small
minority and women owned business by requiring them to engage with
these businesses.
Promoting diversity is more than just an idea it requires an
understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure
the inclusion of minorities and women in all areas of American life.
Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they
represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent
of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and
provide three out of four new jobs in this country.
Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to
keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to
loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their
businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services.
The Small Business Administration, SBA, a federal organization that
aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key
provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program
accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in
America.
I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize
their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development
programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's
Business Center programs.
These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas,
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
My amendment would require the Department of Defense to assess
whether their outreach programs are sufficient prior to awarding
contracts. The Department of Defense should investigate what impact
their regulations have on minority and women owned small businesses.
Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of our Members to support
the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member
Smith for accepting my amendment as part of this en bloc package.
In the last months of the Bush Administration, a change was made
authorizing veterans and active-duty military not in uniform to render
the military-style hand salute during the playing of the national
anthem. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake said at the
time, ``The military salute is a unique gesture of respect that marks
those who have served in our nation's armed forces. This provision
allows the application of that honor in all events involving our
nation's flag.''
This change, authorizing hand-salutes during the national anthem by
veterans and out-of-uniform military personnel, was included in the
Defense Authorization Act of 2009 and improved upon a little known
change that was contained in the previous National Defense
Authorization Act which authorized veterans to render the military-
style hand salute during the raising, lowering or passing of the flag,
but it did not address salutes during the national anthem.
These were important changes; however, they should have been
broadened even further to authorize veterans and active-duty military
not in uniform to render the military-style hand salute during the
reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Current Flag Code states that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag,
``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all,'' should be rendered by standing at
attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not
in uniform, men should remove their headdress with their right hand and
hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in
uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military
salute. (Sec. 4. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery)
My amendment is an idea brought to us by our local VFW that simply
seeks to create parity for veterans in and out of uniform who are
reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Veterans of this great nation take
deep pride in being able to express honor in the way only veterans can,
each time they reaffirm their pledge of allegiance to our great nation
and its colors.
I thank Chairman McKeon for his support of this amendment allowing
vets to render a hand salute.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair I want to thank Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking
Member Adam Smith for their efforts.
I also want to thank Reps. Gary Miller, David Dreier, and Ken
Calvert--and Senator Diane Feinstein for their support of this
bipartisan amendment.
My amendment directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a
study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in California.
The USGS study would look at perch lorate contamination in the
area's groundwater.
Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that impairs thyroid function
in humans--and has been found to be harmful to women and children.
This contamination is the direct result of the area having been
acquired by the U.S. Army in 1942--to develop an inspection,
consolidation, and storage facility for weapons bound for the Port of
Los Angeles.
Having lived in Rialto for decades, I am very aware of the
perchlorate problem we have in our drinking water.
Currently the EPA is undertaking a $25 million dollar effort to clean
up the contamination.
But for the efforts of the EPA to be successful, we must first know
the full scope of the problem.
We can only gain this crucial information by conducting an extensive
study--and my amendment would make this study a top priority for the
USGS to expedite.
This study is critical to the health and well-being of my
constituents.
The contamination at the Rialto site was measured at more than one
thousand times the drinking-water standard for perchlorate, according
to the EPA.
My constituents deserve to have clean drinking water for themselves,
their families, and our future generations.

[[Page H3067]]

According to the USGS, groundwater makes up 79 percent of the
available drinking water supply in the Inland Empire.
How much of this supply is polluted--we don't know; and we won't
know unless the USGS does a comprehensive study!
I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing relief to the people of
the Inland Empire--and to support my amendment.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the
Baca amendment and I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member
Smith for their work on the underlying bill.
This amendment directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a
study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in California.
The USGS study would look at perchlorate contamination in the area's
groundwater.
Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that impairs thyroid function
in humans--and has been found to be most harmful to women and children.
This contamination is the direct result of the area having been
acquired by the United States Army in 1942 to develop an inspection,
consolidation, and storage facility for weapons bound for the Port of
Los Angeles.
Having lived near Rialto for decades, I am very aware of the
perchlorate problem we have in our drinking water.
Currently the EPA is undertaking a $25 million dollar effort to clean
up the perchlorate contamination.
In order for cleanup efforts to be successful, we must first know the
full scope of the problem.
We can only gain this crucial information by conducting an extensive
study.
The contamination at the Rialto site was measured at more than 1,000
times the drinking-water standard for perchlorate, according to the
EPA.
Constituents of Southern California deserve to have clean drinking
water for themselves, their families, and our future generations.
According to the USGS, groundwater makes up 79 percent of the
available drinking water supply in the Inland Empire.
How much of this supply is polluted, we don't know; and we won't
know unless the USGS does a comprehensive study!
I urge this body to join me in bringing relief to the people of the
Inland Empire by supporting this amendment.
Again, I thank Representative Baca for putting forward this common
sense amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Baca Amendment
to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment would provide
needed funds for the U.S. Geological Survey to complete a comprehensive
study of perchlorate contamination in the Rialto-Colton Basin in
California.
This perchlorate contamination is a direct result of U.S. Army
activities in the region beginning in 1942 for the inspection,
consolidation, and storage of ordnance bound for the Port of Los
Angeles and the use of perchlorate salts and solvents in these
activities. Perchlorate is a known toxin that impairs thyroid function
and can cause a broad array of adverse health conditions.
Contamination in the ground water has been measured at 1,000 times
the EPA drinking-water standard for perchlorate. And the EPA is
currently involved in a massive $25 million dollar effort to clean up
the contamination. However, an in depth analysis of the perchlorate
plume in the basin has not yet been conducted. For the efforts of the
EPA and other agencies to be ultimately successful, we must know the
full scope of the problem.
The study supported by this amendment will provide much needed data
regarding the extent of groundwater contamination in the Rialto-Colton
Basin. This information is invaluable to providing a safe reliable
water supply to the residents of the Inland Empire and to cleaning up
environmental contamination 70 years in the making.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment,
numbered 35, to the National Defense Authorization Act. This straight
forward amendment requests a review and study by the Secretary of the
Air Force on the decision to cancel or consolidate the Air National
Guard Component Numbered Air Force Augmentation Force in Fiscal Year
2013.
This Air National Guard Augmentation Force enhances Active Duty Air
and Space Operations Centers, or AOCs, across the Continental U.S. and
across the globe on a regular basis. They support each AOC's respective
mission and provide a rapid and familiar response to ensure mission
success. Many AOCs have stated bluntly that their work would be greatly
degraded if their Augmentation Force went away.
This amendment quite simply requests a review of the United States
Air Force's decision to consolidate and cancel some of these Groups in
the FY13 budget to ensure this decision is indeed cost effective and
does not harm national security. The Air Force's Total Force
Integration Phase IV Memo recognized the need for additional
augmentation units, I now question how and if that need has subsided,
and if it has, what has diminished it. I would like to thank our troops
at home and abroad for their service in keeping this country safe. I
would also like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House
Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this year's Defense
Authorization bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In title X, strike section 1064 and insert the following:

SEC. 1064. FINDINGS ON DEPLOYMENT OF TACTICAL NUCLEAR FORCES
IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States and allied forces are currently
capable of responding to aggression by the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (``North Korea'').
(2) The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to the
Republic of Korea (``South Korea'') would destabilize the
areas of responsibility of the United States Pacific Command
and United States Forces Korea.
(3) Such deployment would not be in the national security
interests of the United States.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. My amendment would strike language in the
bill directing the administration to consider redeploying tactical
nuclear weapons to the western Pacific region, and it would replace
that language with a finding that such a deployment would not be in the
best national security interests of the United States. The
irresponsible language in the bill has already provoked a strong
negative reaction from the South Korean Government and has forced the
State Department to clarify that deploying nuclear weapons in South
Korea is not on the table.
Tactical nuclear weapons would be extremely destabilizing in the
region. It would accelerate North Korea's development of nuclear
weapons, and America would lose its moral ground in its diplomatic
efforts to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons.
It would undermine decades of diplomatic efforts to secure a nuclear-
free Korean Peninsula, especially the Joint Declaration on
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula which both North and South
Korea signed in 1991; and it would dramatically heighten tensions with
China, perhaps with Russia, whose leaders would be understandably
concerned by American tactical nuclear weapons in their backyards. Mr.
Chairman, our forces in the region, including our ballistic missile
submarines, our intercontinental ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise
missiles, B 52 and B 2 bombers, are fully capable of countering North
Korea.
I would quote General Walter Sharp, recently retired as commander of
U.S. forces in Korea, who said less than 1 year ago:

I don't believe tactical nuclear weapons need to return to
the Republic of Korea. The U.S. has sufficient capabilities
from stocks in different places around the world in order to
be able to do what we need to do to be able to deter North
Korea from using nuclear weapons. They don't have to be
stationed here in Korea for either deterrent capability or
use capability.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2240

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Franks).

[[Page H3068]]

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I would say first and foremost that the true
destabilizing force in the Western Pacific today is nuclear weapons in
the hands of North Korea. There have been many efforts to try to pursue
solutions in that regard: six-party talks and many different things. It
is time that the United States have some additional options. The
language in the NDAA that we have merely says that we need a report to
be conducted regarding the efficacy of additional nuclear or
conventional weapons in the Western Pacific region. It technically
doesn't even mention South Korea. It is true that the South Korean
people and some of the South Korean leaders have debated and some of
them are arguing for the redeployment of the tactical nuclear weapons
on the peninsula because they see North Korea's nuclear forces as the
most destabilizing aspect.
This amendment that the gentleman puts forward simply says that it
would not be in the national security interests of the United States,
and I think that that's not in evidence at this point. I believe that
having this language in our defense bill actually strengthens the
administration's hand to promote some sort of a more just solution here
and takes the country and the world in a safer direction.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that I believe this amendment should
be opposed, and the language in the NDAA should be preserved.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the good
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes an
enormous amount of sense. There is no question North Korea is a threat,
but there are two very salient points. First of all, as Mr. Johnson
stated, we have a number of troops in South Korea. We have a number of
options, including nuclear submarines and bombers in the region. We
have on the table what we need to deal with that threat militarily.
Yes, Mr. Franks had an amendment in the committee that asked us to
look at ways to expand that, including the possibility of deploying
tactical nuclear weapons to the region, which I think is very dangerous
to talk about. But specifically, it would be very dangerous to deploy
those tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea. That's why this
amendment is limited to saying that that would be a bad idea.
We all remember the Cuban missile crisis, how people are likely to
react to nuclear weapons being deployed close by them. And North Korea
is hardly a predictable actor. I can say with quite a great deal of
confidence that if we were to put tactical nuclear weapons in South
Korea, it would be an incredibly dangerous thing to do in terms of
predicting how North Korea would react.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. This amendment simply states what I think is
the obvious: It would be a bad idea to put tactical nuclear weapons
into South Korea. To some degree, it makes more--rational perhaps is
too strong a word--user friendly Mr. Franks' amendment in the
committee, by at least making it clear that this very bad option for
our national security interests is not going to be contemplated.
This amendment says that we should not put tactical nuclear weapons
into South Korea. I think that is clearly the right policy, and I urge
adoption.
Mr. McKEON. May I inquire if the gentleman has any more speakers?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have no speakers, and I'm prepared to
close.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. McKEON. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Congressman Franks
from Arizona, cited the fact that he believes that this language that I
seek to remove from the NDAA actually strengthens the administration's
hand. I would submit that what it does is imposes on the
administration--insofar as delicate negotiations and diplomacy are
being invoked--to try to convince the North Koreans that it's in their
best interest to abandon their nuclear aspirations.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend
and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman McKeon.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment.
The Johnson amendment strikes from this bill the call for a study. A
study is just the obtaining of knowledge. It strikes in this bill a
study on what our options need to be in response to an increasing
threat from North Korea. This study is necessary for us to understand
what our options are.
What has changed? Why are we concerned about North Korea? Why do we
need to pursue these options? One, we know that they most recently have
unveiled a road-mobile missile launcher that Secretary Gates has said
is an ICBM that puts the United States mainland directly at risk.
Secondly, Secretary Panetta testified in front of our committee that
there appears to be a link between China and the road-mobile missile
launchers that we've seen and perhaps the missile technology, and we
know that North Korea has been pursuing nuclear capabilities.
Our normal response to this has been our missile defense capability,
where we've tried to bolster our missile-defense capability as North
Korea gets increasingly dangerous in its quest to reach the United
States with ICBMs and again a nuclear-capable North Korea. But we have
grave concerns as to whether or not our missile-defense system would be
there in order to be able to protect us. That's why we need to pursue
additional options, because we continue to have from the other side of
the aisle amendments to reduce our missile defense.
At the same time we know that the President most recently was caught
in an open-mic discussion with the President of Russia, President
Medvedev, indicating that after the election had occurred in the United
States, when he would have, as he described it, more flexibility, that
he would address the issue of missile defense. So we know that the
President in his discussions with Russia has a secret deal that's
supposed to be unveiled after the election that can't see the light of
day during this election, holding the American people hostage to what
its terms are. As this secret deal proceeds, this President could
continue to weaken our missile-defense system as we have the rise of
North Korea.
Mr. Franks in his amendment in our committee merely asks for
information and for a study. What should our response be as we see
North Korea reaching for capability to reach the United States? We know
of their nuclear capability. We've seen them unveil their road-mobile
missile launchers, and we know that this President, in his secret deals
with the Russians, has said, I'm looking for greater flexibility in
missile defense.
Our only defense currently for North Korea and its quest for missile
technology that can reach the United States--this is important that we
rise to the issue of asking the question, as Mr. Franks has, what do we
need to do, especially in light of the President's secret deal with the
Russians.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following new
section:

[[Page H3069]]

SEC. 1065A. REPORT ON PLANNED REDUCTIONS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
OF THE UNITED STATES.

Not later than January 15, 2013, the Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall jointly
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
whether--
(1) the planned reductions to the number of nuclear weapons
of the United States pursuant to the levels set forth under
the New START Treaty are in the national security interests
of the United States; and
(2) such reductions should continue.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.

{time} 2250

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress regarding the impact on national security of reducing our
nuclear weapons stockpiles, as required by the New START Treaty.
For strong supporters of New START, such as myself, it's self-evident
that reducing our stockpiles when we already have the capacity to
destroy the Earth many times over is clearly in our national security
interest. But I understand that there is some doubt amongst my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I respect those views, and
we should address them.
So this amendment offers a simple solution, that is, let's require
our senior military leadership to give us their views. I believe that
my view, which is that cutting our nuclear stockpiles is perfectly
consistent with our security interests, would be validated. But in the
national interest, it seems not only prudent but essential to put that
question to our senior military leadership. And I'm willing to do that,
even if it risks me getting back the wrong answer, or an answer that I
don't want to hear.
I'm, frankly, surprised this amendment is controversial because it's
just common sense. I would ask any colleague who opposes this amendment
why they wouldn't want to hear the views of our military leadership,
why would we not want to hear from our senior commanders on this issue?
Is there any valid reason? Let's ask our military leadership and get
the expert opinions we need to move forward with a clear understanding
of the policy's implications.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Ohio
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to redundant
reporting and requests on items that are already available. Section
1045 of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, condition nine of
the Senate's resolution of ratification for the New START Treaty,
already requires almost exactly the same report as this amendment would
require. But the President--not the Secretary of Defense or the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--is required to provide this
report forward.
The report is required to be submitted whenever there is a shortfall
in funding from the section 1251 plan levels. Because the FY12 omnibus
appropriations resulted in a 5 percent shortfall, the reporting
requirement was triggered, and the report was due in February. Congress
has yet to receive the report. So perhaps one of the things that we
need to do is to just have the administration file the reports that are
already being requested instead of requiring an additional report.
This amendment is duplicative of an existing reporting requirement.
We think that we should work together to ensure that the administration
provides us with the reports that are already due.
We too have very serious concerns as to how this administration is
moving forward with its New START implementation. Part of the concerns
that we have, obviously, is that the preamble to the New START
agreement includes a statement that the Russians state that our missile
defense system is part of the overall effect of the balance between the
two nations. The administration says that the preamble, referring to
missile defense, does not apply. But yet we see the President in an
open-mic discussion with Medvedev saying, After the election, I will
have greater flexibility on missile defense.
So there is some confusion as to whether or not this administration
believes that missile defense and New START are tied together. We
certainly are going to look for a greater illumination by this
President of what his secret deal is and whether or not it involves New
START.
Part of the discussion that we have in the reports that are due is
holding this administration accountable to answer the questions that
are already on the table, file the section 1045 report that was due in
February and answer the question, What's the secret deal?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that
the voluminous report that my colleague on the other side just referred
to, that was included in last year's NDAA and has not been submitted.
I'm just asking for a simple report.
I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Washington.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am just asking for a simple
yes or no answer instead of a long report. Is this in the national
security interest or isn't it? I think that's a worthy thing to get a
straightforward answer to.
But I want to talk one last time about the alleged secret deal that's
been spoken of. And I must compliment Mr. Turner. He obviously went to
an excellent propaganda school. If you keep saying something over and
over again, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it,
eventually people will believe that there might actually be something
there, even though it is a complete fabrication.
There is no secret deal. The President would like to negotiate with
Russia in a way to better protect our national security over missile
defense. That is what he said. Yet they keep saying ``secret deal,'' as
if something exists when there is not a shred of evidence that it does.
And it is absolutely clear-cut that all the President was saying was
that during an election year, an issue like this would be subject to
demagoguery precisely like this, and it would be difficult to do.
Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and others will probably
oppose whatever agreement the President might be able to reach in the
future with the Russians. And that's fine. We can have a robust debate
about it.
But to continue to stand up here on the floor and talk about a secret
deal Mr. Turner knows doesn't exist is very disingenuous and not
helpful to the larger debate. We can have the debate about what we
should be negotiating with the Russians and shouldn't be.
Some long for the days of the Cold War, wish we could go back to a
full-blown confrontation with Russia. I don't, and the President
doesn't. He would like to find a way where we can work together to
create a more peaceful world. I would like to give him the opportunity.
But no deal exists, secret or otherwise. There is not a shred of
evidence for that. Yet we keep hearing that said, and we know why we
keep hearing it said, so it can be demagogued, so people can begin to
believe something exists when there is absolutely not a shred of
evidence that it does.
I urge support for the gentleman from Georgia's amendment and for
people to try to break through all of that and understand that just
because the words ``secret deal'' keep being said doesn't change the
fact that there is no such thing.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 45 seconds. The
gentleman from California has 3 minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself 1 minute.
We have had this back-and-forth about the President's comments. But
enough of us heard it--in fact, I think we heard it over and over and
over from the media, with the President on an open mic saying--and I
don't think there's any dispute about this--Please take back to Mr.
Putin that I will have greater flexibility after the election.
You know, we could debate whether or not there's a secret deal, but I
don't

[[Page H3070]]

think there's any debate to the fact that the President said that, not
wanting the general public to realize that he said that, but he did say
it. So that leaves a question in America's mind of what he was talking
about.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
You have to be a little concerned, a little nervous if he's that
interested in sending a message to Mr. Putin that after the election, I
will have a little more leeway. I think it's very important. Why not
lay it out for the American people? What did he mean when he said he
would have more leeway? What does he plan to do with that additional
leeway? I would like to see the President go to the American people and
say that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what did he say? Well, it
doesn't matter because whatever he said, please know that treaties have
to be confirmed or ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds majority.
Mr. Chairman, let's ask our military leadership whether the New START
military reductions are in our security interests, whether it
vindicates supporters of arms control, like myself, or vindicates those
who believe we need to build more. Let's get that answer from the
people who are in the best position to answer the question. And those
people are our leaders in the military and in the Defense Department.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. We certainly share our concern with the other
side of the aisle as to how New START will be implemented and its
effect on our missile defense system.
The issue of President's secret deal with the Russians is not really
one that's open to interpretation. This is not some speculation. This
is not an issue of my opinion that there's a secret deal. You can go to
YouTube and type in ``President Obama, Medvedev,'' and you will see
them sitting with an open mic.

{time} 2300

You will, with your own ear, hear the President say, This is my last
election, which should be offensive to every person in the electorate
because it says, As soon as I am free from having to respond to the
election process or to the electorate, I will be--and what he says is:
I will have more flexibility after my election. That's freedom. He asks
for space from Mr. Medvedev, who said, gleefully, it seemed to me--and
that is editorializing--I'll go tell Vladimir. So Vladimir knows
something we don't.
So we can say, Well, what does Vladimir know? Well, we know that
Putin said in a March 2, 2012, interview with RIA Novosti about the
President and his negotiations on missile events:

They made some proposals to us which we virtually agreed to
and asked them to get them down on paper. They made a
proposal to us just during the talks, they told us: We would
offer you this, this, and that. We did not expect this, but I
said, we agree.

This is Putin saying this--We agree.
Now that's a deal. When the other side says, we agree, that's a deal.
Do we know what the terms are? No. That's a secret. So a secret deal
on missile defense is something we know is happening. You can go to
YouTube and see the President talking to Medvedev. You can see him
saying, I'm going to go tell Vladimir. You can look up Mr. Putin's
interview on March 2, 2012, when he says his response was, we agree.
And what's the President's response when we ask, What are the terms
of this deal, Mr. President--the terms that you won't let the
Republican see? He says, Nothing.
The Acting CHAIR. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have an amendment made in order under the
rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1066. PROHIBITION ON UNILATERAL REDUCTION OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 24 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by section 1051, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``Sec. 498. Prohibition on unilateral reduction of nuclear
weapons

``The President may not retire, dismantle, or eliminate, or
prepare to retire, dismantle, or eliminate, any nuclear
weapon of the United States (including such deployed weapons
and nondeployed weapons and warheads in the nuclear weapons
stockpile) if such action would reduce the number of such
weapons to a number that is less than the level described in
the New START Treaty (as defined in section 130f(c) of this
title) unless such action is--
``(1) required by a treaty or international agreement
specifically approved with the advice and consent of the
Senate pursuant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the
Constitution; or
``(2) specifically authorized by an Act of Congress.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``498. Prohibition on unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as we have been hearing all
night, earlier this year in a conversation between President Obama and
the Russian President the microphone was left open inadvertently and
the President pleaded for ``space'' and promised ``flexibility'' on the
issue of missile defense after his reelection. And though this
conversation was not intended for public consumption, the President's
comments were clearly deliberate.
The President believes in a world without nuclear weapons. That would
indeed be wonderful. He also apparently believes that unilateral
reduction of our capabilities will be met by others following suit and
reducing their arsenals if only the U.S. gives up its nuclear weapons
first. That's not reality, Mr. Chairman.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has eliminated over
80 percent of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Yet instead of others
following our lead, new nuclear weapon players, such as North Korea,
have emerged. India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in the
1990s.
Following the ratification of the new START treaty with Russia,
Moscow started the most extensive nuclear weapon modernization program
since the end of the Cold War. President George W. Bush offered to
cooperate with Russia on missile defense, believing there was a
collective interest in defending against emerging threats from nations
like Iran and North Korea. Such cooperation, however, has proven
elusive, with Russia being less interested in cooperating against Iran
than in degrading our missile defense capability.
Clearly, countries have their own motives and security interests that
are not necessarily derived from the United States' actions. President
Obama seems resolved to push forward regardless, even if that means
compromising our own missile defense capabilities. This is reckless and
dangerous in today's world. Iran is getting ever closer to developing a
nuclear weapon and consistently threatens Israel, openly calling for
that Nation's destruction. In the wake of Kim Jong Il's death, North
Korea continues to move forward with its latest test firing of a long-
range missile.
This amendment would ensure that without a treaty approved by the
Senate or an authorization by an act of Congress, the President may not
reduce our nuclear arsenal. Please join me in limiting the ``space''
and the ``flexibility'' that this President desires, further putting
our Nation's security at risk.

[[Page H3071]]

I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. We have over 5,100 nuclear warheads. Now I
have seen it cited at one point that that gives us the power to destroy
the Earth 23 times. I will confess that I have not done an extensive
fact check on that estimate. So let's just say it's only 10 times. That
we have the nuclear capability to destroy the Earth 10 times--less than
half of what some of the estimates have been.
That strikes me and I think every other rational observer as a more
than sufficient deterrent. This is not a matter of saying that we're
going to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons and hope that everybody
else does. It's a matter of recognizing the expense of maintaining that
stockpile versus some other choices that could be involved in
protecting our national security.
And I know a number of Members on both sides of the aisle in this
committee can look at shipbuilding, at planes, at support for our
troops, and imagine a number of different ways that we could spend that
money more effectively on national defense, not to mention the deficit.
It's a very simple opposition to this argument. If this President or
any President determines that it's in our best interest to reduce that
stockpile, he should be able to propose it. Now it's a budget item. It
has to come through Congress. It has to be debated.
But the larger point is, again, we have over 5,100 nuclear warheads.
Now it's true that we used to have even more than that. We used to have
the capability to destroy the war beyond what I think we could even
imagine. But we have more than a sufficient deterrent capability right
now. So to close off the option of making reductions there that make
national security sense, I believe is unwise, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself 15 seconds.
I find it curious that it would be unwise to require that the Senate
concur in a reduction of the nuclear weapons arsenal or that an act of
Congress be approved prior to that occurring.
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I want to thank Mr. Price.
Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what he has just said about the
importance of this amendment. This amendment merely says that the
President shall not unilaterally do these reductions without it being
pursuant to a treaty or a statute passed by Congress, just that
Congress has to be involved.
This provision parallels a provision in the new START Implementation
Act. It recognizes the concern that Congress has from the information
that is coming out of the administration. The Associated Press just
reported that the Obama administration is weighing options for sharp
new cuts to the nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80
percent in the number of deployed weapons following just on new START,
which has additional reductions, coupled with the President's open-mic
statements that he wants greater flexibility on missile defense in a
secret deal with the Russians. You have to come to a point where
Congress has to be concerned that they be in the loop, that the
President not take unilateral actions to both reduce our nuclear
weapons at the same time that he's negotiating to diminish our missile
defense system with the Russians as part of his secret deal.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. One
thing we know, that under this administration's watch we will see, if
we don't change it, up to a trillion dollars of cuts to national
defense coming down the pike. What does that mean? We have seen the Air
Force say that they're on the ragged edge. We've seen this
administration propose to take seven cruisers and dismantle those
cruisers. What that would mean is doing away with twice the surface
capability of the entire British Navy.
We've seen the possibility of as many as 150,000 pink slips that
could then be coming down to our men and women in uniform and the loss
of as many as 1.5 million jobs. And I don't know whether or not there's
a secret deal or what that secret deal is with the Russians, but one
thing we know is we are moving dangerously close to the point where we
will no longer be able to guarantee the security of the United States
and U.S. interests, and that's why it's important that we support this
amendment, and I hope we'll do that.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think there are some legitimate questions about our national
security. Certainly, if we saw that level of cut of a trillion
dollars--and a number of issues the gentleman raised are worthy of
concern. This amendment talks about a very narrow area of interest, and
that's our nuclear weapons stockpile, which as I indicated, is more
than sufficient.
Just one final word on the secret deal. Whatever agreement the
President may come up with--and he certainly doesn't have one at the
moment--as Mr. Johnson indicated earlier, it requires a two-thirds vote
of the Senate. So I think we can all relax about what exists there.

{time} 2310

It will be a public debate. Now, as Mr. Forbes acknowledged, he
doesn't know if such a thing exists or not. And it's interesting to
keep talking about something that we don't know whether or not it
exists, but whether it comes up or not, there will be a full debate
here. I believe, however, when it comes to our nuclear weapons, that is
an area where again, we can save money in order to protect other very
necessary parts of our national security.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offer by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 printed in House
Report 112 485.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Rigell

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. __. CONDITIONAL REPLACEMENT FOR FY 2013 SEQUESTER.

(a) Contingent Effective Date.--This section and the
amendments made by it shall take effect upon the enactment
of--
(1) the Act contemplated in section 201 of H. Con. Res. 112
(112th Congress) that achieves at least the deficit reduction
called for in such section for such periods; or
(2) similar legislation that at least offsets the outlay
reductions flowing from the budget authority reductions
mandated by section 251A(7)(A) and 251A(8) as it applies to
direct spending in the defense function for fiscal year 2013
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as in force immediately before the date of enactment of
this Act, combined with the outlay reductions flowing from
the amendment to section 251A(7)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 made by subsection
(c), within five years of enactment.
(b) Revised 2013 Discretionary Spending Limit.--Paragraph
(2) of section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013, for the
discretionary category, $1,047,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;''.
(c) Discretionary Savings.--Section 251A(7)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended to read as follows:

[[Page H3072]]

``(A) Fiscal year 2013.--
``(i) Fiscal year 2013 adjustment.--On January 2, 2013, the
discretionary category set forth in section 251(c)(2) shall
be decreased by $19,104,000,000 in budget authority.
``(ii) Supplemental sequestration order.--On January 15,
2013, OMB shall issue a supplemental sequestration report for
fiscal year 2013 and take the form of a final sequestration
report as set forth in section 254(f)(2) and using the
procedures set forth in section 253(f), to eliminate any
discretionary spending breach of the spending limit set forth
in section 251(c)(2) as adjusted by clause (i), and the
President shall order a sequestration, if any, as required by
such report.''.
(d) Elimination of the Fiscal Year 2013 Sequestration for
Defense Direct Spending.--Any sequestration order issued by
the President under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 to carry out reductions to direct
spending for the defense function (050) for fiscal year 2013
pursuant to section 251A of such Act shall have no force or
effect.
(e) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than August 15, 2012, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate a
detailed report on the impact of the sequestration of funds
authorized and appropriated for Fiscal Year 2013 for the
Department of Defense, if automatically triggered on January
2, 2013, as required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a), as
in effect immediately before the date of enactment of this
Act.
(2) Contents of report.--The report required by this
section shall include--
(A) an assessment of the potential impact of sequestration
on the readiness of the Armed Forces, including impacts to
steaming hours, flying hours, full spectrum training miles,
and all other readiness metrics;
(B) an assessment of the impact on ability of the
Department of Defense to carry out the National Military
Strategy of the United States and any changes to the most
recent Chairman's Risk Assessment required by section 153 of
title 10, United States Code;
(C) a listing of the programs, projects, and activities
across the military departments and components that would be
reduced or terminated as a result of automatically triggered
cuts;
(D) an estimate of the number and value of all contracts
that will be terminated, restructured, or rescoped due to
sequestration, including an estimate of potential termination
costs and increased contracts costs due to renegotiation and
reinstatement of the contract; and
(E) an estimate of the number of civilian, contract, and
uniformed personnel whose employment would be terminated due
to sequestration, including the estimated cost to the
Department of executing such a drawdown.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that our duty to our country and our men and
women in uniform requires us to do everything in our power to prevent
sequestration. Sequestration is not a rational course correction, but
instead it is a violent, sudden, and severe budget cut, the adverse
consequences of which cannot be overstated. Sequestration creates
undeniable havoc in production, personnel, and in contract
administration. If allowed to become reality, only two groups will
benefit: our Nation's enemies and the legions of lawyers who will be
engaged in endless litigation against the Federal Government.
To be clear, these are not the cuts often debated in reference to the
President's budget. Sequestration cuts to defense are in addition to
those cuts, the sum of the two, totaling nearly $1 trillion over 10
years. Now, even if one holds the view that defense spending must come
down, this is not the method in any respect to accomplish that
objective.
My amendment allows us to avert sequestration. Specifically, the 2013
sequester is eliminated consistent with the House-passed budget,
provided one of two events happen: first, reconciliation legislation
required by the budget resolution is enacted; or, two, legislation
offsetting, within 5 years, the cost of the fiscal year 2013
discretionary sequester and the fiscal year 2013 sequester of defense
mandatory programs is enacted.
It also requires a report on the impact of sequestration prior to it
taking effect, which is crucial.
This amendment is critical to preventing sequestration, which must be
done if we are to meet our obligation to defend this great country; and
the men and women who are truly defending this country are the men and
women in uniform. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
There are two big problems with this. First of all, it's a 1-year
solution. It would eliminate sequestration for fiscal year 2013 alone.
And as we have seen this year already, the constant every year
wondering whether or not something this large is going to happen is
enormously disruptive to our economy and enormously disruptive to our
defense industry and all the other places that suffer sequestration.
This sets us up for another 1 year after 1 year after 1 year, as we
have seen with expiring tax cuts, with expiring proposed cuts to
Medicare.
This every year trying to figure out whether or not we are going to
deal with it is almost as damaging as the cuts themselves. So whatever
we do here, we're going to have to come up with a 10-year solution.
We're going to have to come up with the $1.2 trillion in deficit
reductions that are necessary to avoid sequestration.
And I agree with my colleagues--coming up with that money and
avoiding sequestration is enormously important, but simply doing it 1
year at a time really doesn't help.
The second problem with this is the way it is structured. It takes
defense out of the possibility of facing sequestration and dumps it all
on the rest of the discretionary budget. And what happens here
basically is the Republican proposal on this is defense should not be
touched, and there should be no revenue, and we have to deal with an
over trillion-dollar deficit. It's going to be well over $8 trillion,
$9 trillion over the course of the next 10 years.
What that means is you're going to have to have a devastating level
of cuts in every other Federal program--Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, all other discretionary spending, transportation, education.
Now, I am a strong defender of the defense budget and of national
security, but I am also a strong defender of our infrastructure, a
strong defender of Medicare and Medicaid. This simply shifts defense
out from under and puts the entire burden on everything else.
Just to do a little quick math for you, we had a $1.3 trillion
deficit last year, roughly 40 percent of the budget, almost, in
deficit. So if you decide no revenue, we're not going to bring in any
more money, and we're not going to cut anything from defense, which is
20 percent of the budget, so now you're down to 80 percent of the
budget. And I can't do this math off the top of my head, but if you
have to cut 40 percent from 100 percent, if you go down to 80, you'll
probably have to cut pretty close to 50. So, look at everything else in
the Federal Government and imagine a 50 percent cut. I don't think
that's realistic.
You know, I have no great love for taxes, but if the alternative is
devastating all other spending programs, we have to at least consider
revenue as part of the solution. This amendment, as with all Republican
budget proposals, precludes that option and puts everything on the back
of every other piece of spending, save defense, and raises no revenue.
I don't believe that is a responsible approach.
I also agree with Secretary Panetta who said proposing this,
something that the President will not support, something that the
Senate will not support, stops us dead in our tracks from having any
hope of truly getting to a solution which will prevent sequestration,
which I agree needs to be done. I don't agree that this amendment puts
us on a path to do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my
friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we passed a budget. We showed
what we would do to deal with all of these fiscal problems and fiscal
priorities. We showed defense spending decreases off the defense
request from

[[Page H3073]]

last year. We showed a responsible way to get savings from the Pentagon
budget.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, to their credit, they
brought a budget to the floor that turned off the sequester and showed
alternative savings as well. The Senate, nothing, no budget for 3
years. The President, he tells us he doesn't want the sequester to kick
in, that it's a bad thing to happen, but he's not doing anything to
show how he will prevent the sequester from happening.
Two weeks ago, we passed a reconciliation bill. That bill said
specifically how we will cut spending in other areas of government to
prevent the sequester from occurring next year, 1 year.
The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, authored
an amendment to do the same thing, other savings to pay for 1 year of
the sequester set aside. So both the House Republicans and the
Democrats in the House proposed the same kind of solution, 1 year set
aside.
Let's just look at what people are saying about what the sequester
will do to our national defense:
The President, in his own budget, said that the sequester would
inflict great damage to the country's national security;
The Secretary of Defense says it would hollow out our defense;
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that sequestration
would pose unacceptable risks to the Nation's security;
The Chief of Naval Operations says that the sequester would have a
severe and irreversible impact on the Navy's future;
The Chief of Staff of the Army says that he is definitely afraid of
what would happen to our military if this takes place.
All this amendment does is it gives us one more avenue and
opportunity to take the spending cuts we have already articulated and
to put them in place to prevent the sequester from happening, from
seeing all these bad things take place. It gives another opportunity
within this conference report, when that arrives, to prevent the
sequester from happening by swapping those cuts out with other savings
elsewhere in the budget.
Our government is projected to spend about $45 trillion over the next
10 years.

{time} 2320

This is a trillion. So the math that the gentleman from Washington
mentioned doesn't quite add up. But if we start dropping defense 10
percent in January, that is going to have a destabilizing effect on our
national security.
There is plenty of other government spending that's being wasted that
can be cut to pay for this. Sixty-one percent of the Federal Government
has been on autopilot, off limits. It has not been touched since 2006.
There are plenty of areas that we can get savings from like this
amendment proposes to. Let's get it from there, and let's not put our
men and women at risk who are putting on the uniform and serving us and
fighting for our country.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself 1 minute.
I agree with a lot of what the gentleman said. For instance, he's
right that we have to look at that other 61 percent of the budget. He
is, however, wrong that it hasn't been touched since 2006. We Democrats
touched it and reduced Medicare by $500 billion. And you Republicans
beat--well, I can't say that--beat us up, shall we say, over the fact
that we had done that. So there is a considerable amount of hypocrisy
here.
We want to avoid sequestration, without question. But to not allow
for any revenue--which, again, is what this amendment does--just cuts,
protecting defense, not protecting anything else, allowing for no
revenue despite the fact that revenue has gone down by almost 30
percent over the course of the last 10 years, puts us on the path to
sequestration. That's a path I don't want to be on. But we have to be
broader in our thinking about it other than just devastating every
other portion of the budget as the approach. Protect defense, no
revenue. That's not a solution to sequestration.
With that, I yield the last minute to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there is hypocrisy here, and there is also great faith
in ignorance on the part of the public. We have in this defense budget,
it's $8.3 billion above what was agreed to in the Budget Control Act
last year, and now he says that's not enough.
Under the Ryan budget, the entire discretionary expenditures in the
United States will go down eventually to 3.5 percent of GDP from 12.5
percent. Since Governor Romney says defense should not go below 4
percent, that means minus one-half percent for everything else
government does--less than zero for the post office, for
transportation, for education, for the Weather Bureau, for NASA. For
everything government does other than Social Security, Medicare and
veterans and debt service--zero dollars. That's where this budget that
the other side of the aisle is espousing and has voted for to a person
leads us, to zero dollars for all government functions other than
defense and veterans.
The Acting CHAIR. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle H of title X of division A, add the
following new section:

SEC. 10___. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PRESERVATION OF
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY
PERSONNEL STATIONED OR RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(2) Approximately 40,000 servicemen and women across all
branches of the Armed Forces either live in or are stationed
on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a
law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of
Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on the
possession of firearms.
(3) Military personnel, despite being extensively trained
in the proper and safe use of firearms, are therefore
deprived by the laws of the District of Columbia of handguns,
rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding
persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for
lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and
families.
(4) The District of Columbia has one of the highest per
capita murder rates in the Nation, which may be attributed in
part to previous local laws prohibiting possession of
firearms by law-abiding persons who would have otherwise been
able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own
homes and businesses.
(5) The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms
Owners' Protection Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, provide comprehensive Federal regulations
applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In
addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish
possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals
and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws
that only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
(6) On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller held
that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to
possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus
ruled that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and
requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept
unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to
be unconstitutional.
(7) On July 16, 2008, the District of Columbia enacted the
Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act
17-422; 55 DCR 8237), which places onerous restrictions on
the ability of law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms,
thus violating the spirit

[[Page H3074]]

by which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in
District of Columbia v. Heller.
(8) On February 26, 2009, the United States Senate adopted
an amendment on a bipartisan vote of 62-36 by Senator John
Ensign to S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2009, which would fully restore Second
Amendment rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
active duty military personnel who are stationed or residing
in the District of Columbia should be permitted to exercise
fully their rights under the Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and therefore should be
exempt from the District of Columbia's restrictions on the
possession of firearms.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to urge my
colleagues to support my nonbinding amendment, No. 39, which would
express the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who
live in or are stationed in Washington, D.C. should be exempt from
existing District of Columbia firearm restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the District of Columbia has
historically had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in
the Nation. In fact, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court--in the
District of Columbia v. Heller case--ruled that the District's handgun
ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept
unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock is
unconstitutional. In that decision it also said that the Second
Amendment is applicable to an individual, not just a militia.
Well, just 1 month later, the District of Columbia enacted the
Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008, which places onerous
restrictions on the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess
firearms, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, by which the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled in D.C. v. Heller.
Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 40,000 servicemen and -women
across all branches of the Armed Forces that either live in or they're
stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
Indeed, many of them are stationed at the Pentagon. Unless these
individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role,
they are subject to the District of Columbia's onerous and highly
restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.
Mr. Chairman, there are servicemen and -women who have been
prosecuted because of this unconstitutional prohibition, despite their
training in the use of firearms. This is a travesty. Studies have
clearly shown that firearms are a crime deterrent. The de facto handgun
ban leaves law-abiding citizens unable to protect themselves from
violent acts or individuals breaking the law.
This amendment recognizes that the D.C. handgun law, especially in
regard to trained servicemen and -women, punishes individuals well
equipped to protect themselves and others while emboldening
perpetrators of violent crime. Mr. Chairman, if we trust these brave
men and women to defend our country, why do we not trust them to
legally exercise their Second Amendment rights?
I would like to note that the NRA is supportive of my amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to amendment
No. 39. The amendment reflects a pattern by Republicans in the 112th
Congress of singling out the District of Columbia for unique treatment
and outright bullying.
There is no Federal law that exempts active military personnel in
their personal capacities from otherwise applicable Federal firearms
laws, except with respect to residency requirements, or from any State
or local firearms laws. Yet the amendment expresses the sense of
Congress that active duty personnel in their personal capacities should
be exempt from gun laws only in one jurisdiction, the District of
Columbia.
If the gentleman on the other side who sponsored this amendment
believes that active duty personnel should be exempt from Federal,
State, or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an amendment that
would apply nationwide? Perhaps he did not offer such an amendment for
the same reason that the Republican sponsor of H.R. 3808--to ban
abortions for 20 weeks only in the District of Columbia, on which the
House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution held a hearing today--did
not introduce that same 20-week bill to apply nationwide. Or perhaps
Republicans pick on the District because they think they can.
The proponents of this amendment, as well as the D.C. gun bill which
would eliminate D.C.'s gun laws, live in the past, acting as if the
changes the District has made in its gun laws after the Supreme Court
Heller decision in 2008 had not happened, and as if a Federal district
court and a Federal appeals court had not already upheld the
constitutionality of the District's new gun laws. They act as if the
Supreme Court's McDonald decisions in 2010 had never occurred.

{time} 2330

In McDonald, the Court said that the Second Amendment does not confer
``the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''
This amendment represents the third attack by this Congress on the
District's gun safety laws. Although the amendment is nonbinding, we
will fight every attack on our rights as a local government,
particularly when we are singled out for unequal treatment.
This amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for
actual inroads into the District's new gun safety laws. Republicans
have been trying, this week, to use the District of Columbia to move
issues they dare not propose for the Nation at large, instead of
focusing on jobs. And our allies, our city, and I have spent the week
fighting back equally hard.
The majority can expect a fierce fight from us whenever a bill
degrades our citizens and treats them in any way as second-class
citizens, as this bill proposes to do this very evening.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia that, first and foremost, this is a sense of
Congress resolution, nonbinding resolution. It's not to be, in my
opinion, Mr. Chairman, confused with any other ban or amendment that
she referenced. It's certainly not to be confused with H.R. 645, a bill
that would eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws, which she was so concerned
about in the last couple of years.
This is just simply saying, very clearly, Mr. Chairman, and
especially to the governing body, the City Council and Mayor of the
District of Columbia, look, we want to help you. We are recommending
that you take this action. We're not forcing you to do this.
This is, again, as I say, a nonbinding resolution. It is just the
sense of Congress, which, after all, has jurisdiction over the District
of Columbia. We want to say to the governing body, we think it's a darn
good idea for you to enact this waiver for these military men and
women, 40,000 of them, as I say, stationed either in D.C., at the
Pentagon, at Fort Myer in Virginia or Maryland, that have the ability
and the training, the necessary judgment and mentality to actually help
the 500,000 residents of the District of Columbia.
I don't think that my colleague and any colleagues on the other side
of the aisle who might be in opposition to this, I think that
opposition is misguided. They're missing an opportunity to support
something that would be good, indeed, good for the safety of the people
of the District of Columbia.
If we criminalize the possession of firearms, then it might be a
trite and hackneyed expression, but only criminals then would have the
right to bear arms.
Now, this bill that the District of Columbia passed in the aftermath
of the Supreme Court decision, Heller v. District of Columbia, that
upheld the Second Amendment rights for individuals and said that what
law existed in the

[[Page H3075]]

District of Columbia was unconstitutional.
So they come up with some arcane, very difficult, almost impossible
rules and regulations in regard to the possession of firearms so that
they, de facto, make it impossible. So I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, support this amendment, sense of Congress,
nonbinding.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 45 seconds remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, if this is such a benign amendment for the
good of the District of Columbia, I can't imagine why the gentleman
hasn't offered it for the Nation at large. Why help us when we haven't
asked for your help? Why not help everybody?
Why not help people in Virginia? More of the Members of our Armed
Services pass through Virginia than pass through the District of
Columbia.
You don't want to help us. Nobody on that side has helped us this
year. If you want to help us, come ask me first, and I'll tell you what
kind of help we need.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 41 will
not be offered.

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in House Report 112 485.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title X, add the following new section:

SEC. 1084. REDUCTION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Reduction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, but subject to subsection (b), the President, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Energy, and the Administrator for Nuclear Security, shall
make such reductions in the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under this Act in such manner as the President
considers appropriate to achieve an aggregate reduction of
$8,231,100,000.
(b) Exclusions.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
President shall not reduce the amount of funds for the
following accounts:
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today is very
straightforward. It would limit the Department of Defense funding to
the amount authorized under the Budget Control Act of 2011. This would
result in an $8 billion reduction in spending from the level authorized
by the House Armed Services Committee.
The amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues, Representatives Paul,
Woolsey, Stark, Blumenauer, Schrader and Frank, ranking member of the
House Financial Services Committee and a long-time advocate for
reasonable defense-spending reform.
As you know, Mr. Chair, last year Congress passed the Budget Control
Act, which put in place spending caps on discretionary spending.
Despite these statutory limitations, the House Armed Services Committee
set overall military spending billions of dollars above what the
Pentagon requested, or what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.
While many of us did not support the discretionary caps under the
Budget Control Act, our amendment simply brings Pentagon spending in
line with the law. It does this while protecting our active duty
military personnel and retirees. Let me repeat: not a single penny
would come from active duty and National Guard personnel accounts, or
from the defense health program.
The Pentagon budget already consumes almost 50 cents out of every
discretionary dollar that we spend. And adding billions of unrequested
dollars, at the expense of struggling families during the ongoing
economic downturn, is just downright wrong.
So I ask my colleagues, if we are really concerned with the deficit,
then vote for this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
This is a very clear opportunity to see the difference of the two
sides of the aisle, how they feel about supporting the defense of our
Nation. We have taken, with the Deficit Reduction Act, half of the
savings has come out of defense. Less than 19 percent of the budget
goes for defense, but half of the savings. So if we had a big pie and
we had 19 percent of the spending comes out of defense; but then when
we take the savings, we're taking half out of defense.
Mr. Chairman, if we continue to try to solve our deficit problem on
the backs of our military, our troops, who's going to have our backs
the next time we're attacked?
Over my lifetime, we have cut back the military after every war. This
is the first time I've seen us cut back during the war.
We have troops right now going outside the wire, and they, when they
get back to camp, they watch ``Fox News.'' I've been there. I've seen
it.

{time} 2340

They find out what's going on, and they listen to this debate, and
they feel that there are some who don't have their backs. Well, it's
not this side of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. In reclaiming 30 seconds of my time, I just
want to respond to the gentleman and say that that's further from the
truth, what he just said.
First of all, our active duty troops in the field are covered by the
Overseas Contingency Operations funds. Secondly, the Pentagon did not
ask for this money.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank the gentlelady from California for
bringing this amendment forward.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I am
proud to be a cosponsor and to show the difference between both sides
of the aisle, because with all of the fiscal challenges that we face,
it's just common sense that the most generously funded government
agency, the Department of Defense, would tighten its belt just like
everyone else.
Sure, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy to cut
and are big budget cutters when it comes to food stamps and Medicare
and the safety net and anti-poverty programs. But when it comes to war
and when it comes to weapons, they actually are the biggest spenders of
all. I think the bare minimum we can ask is to keep the DOD budget at
the level agreed to last year when we passed the Budget Control Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LEE of California. I yield the gentlelady an additional 10
seconds.
Ms. WOOLSEY. The majority is asking poor children, seniors, and
women's health needs to make due with less. The same must apply to the
Pentagon. Vote ``yes'' on the Lee-Frank amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I will just note that the President
increased over $4.5 billion over the Deficit Reduction Act, and we went
$3.7 billion more than the President's in order to protect TRICARE and
some other others things for the troops.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes the chairman of the Budget Committee,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Look, as the gentleman said, the President didn't ask for this amount
of money. He asked for more money: in fiscal year 2012, $554 billion;
the pre-sequester cap, $546 billion; the President's request, $551
billion. Our budget resolution was $554 billion. This bill, the base
bill, is $548 billion. The gentlelady's amendment is $539.7 billion.

[[Page H3076]]

The gentlelady's amendment is cutting defense below the BCA caps,
below the President's request. To the other gentlelady from California,
all of these programs she mentioned are increasing.
The attempts that have been made by the majority have been to slow
the rate of increase. This is being cut--real reductions in this
category of spending--when all the other domestic spending is
increasing, hopefully, at a slightly slower pace.
So let's remind ourselves that this is the first priority of the
Federal Government. We are in war right now. The President, himself,
and his budget are saying that we have to be higher for the safety and
the security of our troops.
If the gentlelady's amendment passes, which actually brings it down
below the BCA levels, then she is giving all the discretion to the
executive branch, to the President, in order to decide how to allocate
those dollars--ceding the power of the purse from the legislative
branch to the executive branch--which is clearly not in our interest as
guardians of the elected branch, the legislative branch of Congress.
Ms. LEE of California. First of all, sometimes we respectfully
disagree with the President.
I think that this $8 billion in cuts to bring us back to the Budget
Control Act of 2011 is reasonable given the very difficult times we are
faced with now and the fact that, of all the government agencies, the
Pentagon has benefited the most from generous funding. We've got plenty
of outdated and unnecessary Cold War-era weapons systems that can and
should be canceled. I think this is a reasonable amendment.
I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Schrader).
Mr. SCHRADER. Barely 10 months ago, we passed a bipartisan Budget
Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis. On Tuesday, our total
national debt increased to over $15.7 trillion. Clearly, the problem we
passed the BCA to address is getting worse, not better.
As our own military leaders have acknowledged again and again, our
debt and deficits are the largest national security threat that our
Nation actually faces. Backpedaling on the Budget Control Act, as
suggested here, is irresponsible.
We need to be building on the fiscal foundations in order to provide
for our children's futures and for the future of the military. We spend
a lot of hours here talking about how much we can't afford to cut back
military spending and not nearly enough time talking about how to
prepare for the military of the future.
In my opinion, the smart military budget of the future emphasizes our
National Guard. It has proven more than a ready reserve in the sands of
Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan. The National Guard is an
affordable strategic asset of a unique capability. The rising cost to
our military is probably personnel. The National Guard will help reduce
that cost 4 1.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 15 seconds remaining.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me yield the 15 seconds to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. In 15 seconds, I will simply say that this amendment is
the least we can do. We should go with the Budget Control Act. The
other side of the aisle says we haven't passed a budget. This is the
effective budget. The fact of the matter is that we have doubled
military spending, exclusive of Afghanistan and Iraq, in 10 years. We
ought to start reducing it now.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute and 15 seconds.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish we were wrong, and I would hope that they are
right in that we could continue to cut defense--cut it to the bone, cut
it to the marrow--and that we could just live one big, happy,
paradisiacal life, but history shows that that isn't the way things
work.
As Reagan said, it is important to have peace through strength. You
will remember before he was elected, when President Carter tried to
deal with the hostage situation in Iran, that our helicopters couldn't
even fly across the desert. We'd cut back the military so far that we
had a hollow military.
There is a lot of talk about General Eisenhower and about President
Eisenhower, and the thing he said, ``Beware of the military-industrial
complex.'' He also said we have to have a very strong military because,
if we don't, someone will take advantage of us. We have to be so strong
that they're afraid to attack us for fear of annihilation.
I was talking to one of our leading military leaders just a few
months ago. Mr. Smith was in the meeting also. At the end of the
meeting, he looked at me, and he said, In my 37 years, I've never seen
a time more dangerous.
If we are right and if we go through with all of these cuts and
hollow out our military, we are talking about cutting $100 billion a
year for the next 10 years.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

{time} 2350

Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 366, line 16, strike ``HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS'' and
insert ``RIGHTS UNAFFECTED''.
Page 366, line 17, strike ``Nothing'' and insert ``(a) Rule
of Construction.--Nothing''.
Page 366, line 21, insert ``or to deny any Constitutional
rights'' after ``habeas corpus''.
Page 366, line 23, strike ``person who is detained in the
United States'' and insert ``person who is lawfully in the
United States when detained''.
Page 366, line 25, insert ``and who is otherwise entitled
to the availability of such writ or such rights'' before the
period.
Page 366, after line 25, insert the following:
(b) Notification of Detention of Persons Under
Authorization for Use of Military Force.--Not later than 48
hours after the date on which a person who is lawfully in the
United States is detained pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note), the President shall notify Congress of the detention
of such person.
(c) Habeas Applications.--A person who is lawfully in the
United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107 40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note) shall be allowed to file an application for habeas
corpus relief in an appropriate district court not later than
30 days after the date on which such person is placed in
military custody.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong
support of the amendment and thank my colleagues--Mr. Landry, Mr.
Gohmert, and Mr. Goodlatte--for their hard work and their strong
leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank the chairman
for incorporating the Rigell-Landry bill in the underlying bill, the
Right to Habeas Corpus Act.
The amendment before us this evening provides absolute clarity that
every American has full protection under, and access to, the Great Writ
of Habeas Corpus. Specifically, it requires that a detained person has
the ability to file an application for habeas corpus relief in an
appropriate district court no later than 30 days after the date on
which the person was placed in military custody.
Further, it requires that the administration--current and those to
follow--that Congress is notified within 48 hours of a person having
been detained under the AUMF in the United States.

[[Page H3077]]

The 30-day access to habeas corpus and the 48-hour reporting
requirement strengthen the underlying bill. They strengthen liberty.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
Three quick points:
First of all, habeas has already been guaranteed by the Constitution.
There were those who accused last year's defense bill of having
stripped habeas, but it didn't, so guaranteeing habeas does nothing to
further protect the rights of individuals. That's first of all.
Second of all, the bill itself, the way it is worded, which is to
say: Nothing shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of
habeas corpus or deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or
established by or under article III of the Constitution for any person
who is lawfully in the United States when detained.
It has been ruled constitutional to place people in military custody,
to hold them indefinitely. This amendment does not eliminate the right
to hold people indefinitely or place them in military custody. It does
not do what the next amendment--my amendment--actually does, which is
protects those rights.
Third, I find it interesting that the authors of this amendment think
that it does. They think that basically this will protect from
indefinite detention and from military custody any person lawfully in
the United States. At the same time, they are arguing that our
amendment that clearly does that for everybody is giving rights to
terrorists. What they are doing here, by their own admission--and I
disagree with that argument. By their own argument, they are perfectly
okay with giving rights to terrorists as long as they're lawfully in
the United States. If they are not, that's a big problem.
I will expand upon that argument later.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 1 minute to my
friend from Louisiana, also a cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Landry.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a proud member of the Tea Party.
I opposed the debt ceiling. I opposed some of the CRs. I opposed our
involvement in Libya. I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the
Constitution. When I joined this body, I raised my hand to God and
swore to uphold the Constitution and protect it from all threats both
foreign and domestic. I am a veteran.
With this oath, my duty to protect our citizens' liberties is matched
by my duty to protect their lives. That is exactly what the text of
this bill, when combined with this amendment, does. It ensures that
every American has access to our courts and ensures that they will not
be indefinitely detained.
Equally important, our amendment does not harm our Armed Forces'
ability to protect this Nation. Unfortunately, some in this body choose
to believe that our soil here is not a battlefield in a war on terror.
They want to treat the al Qaeda cell in Seattle differently or better
than the al Qaeda cell in Yemen.
To yield to these Members to adopt their view does nothing to protect
the liberties of our citizens. It only harms their safety. For that
reason, I urge them to adopt this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just again point out that he wants
to protect the al Qaeda cell here as long as they are lawfully in the
U.S. It doesn't make any sense.
I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Amash).
Mr. AMASH. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues,
Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Landry and Mr. Rigell. I think their amendment is
very well intentioned, and they care very deeply about this issue. I've
had many conversations with them about it.
But the first part of the amendment does nothing. It says the AUMF
does not deny habeas corpus or any constitutional rights for any person
who is detained in the United States who is otherwise entitled to the
availability of habeas corpus or such constitutional rights. In other
words, if you have constitutional rights, you have constitutional
rights.
The second part of the amendment might be harmful. It says:

Persons detained by the military are allowed to file a
habeas petition not later than 30 days after the date on
which such person is placed in military custody.

First, the Constitution already gives detainees the power to file a
habeas at the moment they are detained. At best, the 30-day window does
nothing; and at worst, it can be read to allow the government to deny
habeas for 29 days or to deny habeas if the petitioner didn't file
until after 30 days.
So I would like to express my disapproval of the amendment.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 40
seconds to another cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Amash's
efforts to protect liberty.
Let us be clear, there should be no ambiguity when the constitutional
rights of U.S. citizens are at risk. The fear that Americans have over
indefinite detention is well-founded. We have the obligation, and now
the opportunity, to be crystal clear in this language, and I believe
that this amendment moves this NDAA in the right direction of
protecting these cherished constitutional rights.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment asserts that it intends to
protect the right of habeas corpus, which is to say the right to get
into court. But the problem is not habeas. It's not the right to get
into court. That is granted by the Constitution. The problem is what
you can assert once you get into court. It says nothing about that. It
says nothing about the circumstances in which individuals might
actually be subject to military detention when arrested within the
territory of the United States.
It's actually dangerous. It narrows constitutional rights because it
narrows the scope of the statutory habeas corpus protection to
individuals lawfully in the United States when detained as opposed to
those detained in the United States. Someone with questionable
immigration status might not have any habeas rights under this
amendment.
Secondly, as Mr. Amash pointed out, by saying that you can file it
not later than 30 days, it could be read to say that, unlike current
law where you can file habeas the moment you're detained, you have to
wait 30 days, or you might not be able to file after 30 days.
So it's an affirmatively dangerous amendment. It narrows the right to
habeas corpus, and it doesn't do anything to protect the real problem
here, which is not habeas. That was never the problem.
The real problem is the right of detention, when you get into court
through habeas and the court says, You have no rights, because
indefinite detention is permitted. That's the problem we ought to be
dealing with. This amendment doesn't deal with it, and it makes the
habeas arguably more difficult and more narrow.
If we value due process and if we value liberty, this amendment
should be defeated.
Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
I do have the right to close; is that correct?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has the right to
close.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the
balance of our time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. This amendment is pure and simply a
smokescreen. The proponents of this amendment believe that the
President of the United States should have the power to indefinitely
detain people in the U.S. They believe that these people should be
placed in military custody. I wish we could have that debate, and we
will to some extent on the next amendment.

[[Page H3078]]

This was offered as a smokescreen to give people who want to claim
that civil liberties are their top priority someplace to hide. It
doesn't protect any rights whatsoever. It was pure and simply offered
as a smokescreen.
Let's have the debate on the next amendment about whether or not the
President of the United States should have this extraordinary amount of
power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody or military
tribunals people captured or detained within the United States. I, as I
will explain in the next amendment, don't believe that that
extraordinary amount of power is necessary to keep us safe. I think it
is an amazing amount of power to give a President over the individual
freedom, to give the government the power to take away someone's
individual freedom without the due process rights that have been
developed in our Constitution and our court system.
This amendment doesn't change that. Vote it down. Let's have a real
debate on the next amendment.

{time} 0000

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, the issue here is, do you want to fix the
possible problems with the Authorization for Use of Military Force back
in 2001 when all of the cosponsors were not even here and possibly the
NDAA? Or do you want to extend new rights that are not constitutionally
required? Because those of us that have sponsored this amendment want
to fix the possible problem of inappropriate detention. That's why this
amendment was offered.
I take a particular affront because I do not question the motivation
of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). I know the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Amash). We've stood alone on too many bills together. I
know their intent is good.
This is not a smokescreen. This is intended to fix a problem. In the
underlying bill that came before the floor, it has a fix for habeas
corpus in paragraph A. I added the provision that gets us to where we
were before the AUMF. That's what I wanted to fix, not as a
smokescreen. But what this does is say, if you had these constitutional
rights before the AUMF, you've still got them now. And nothing in the
AUMF, nothing in the former NDAA, nothing in the new NDAA can change
that. You have those rights.
I understand we don't have CARE supporting this amendment as they do
the following proposed amendment. But listen, what this would do if the
subsequent amendment wins instead of this one, you are giving rights to
people illegally in this country, for example, to people who are
foreign terrorists, who sneak their way in here and kill people, rights
that immigrants who are undocumented don't have.
People say, Gee, we have a right to an article III court. This
Congress has the right to never create an article III court. No one in
America has the right to an article III court. This Congress has a
right under article I, section 8 to create or not create inferior
courts.
I'm glad we created them. I would say we should if we didn't. But the
right is to go back to where we were before the AUMF. That's what this
amendment does, and we appreciate the support of Heritage and The Wall
Street Journal in saying that the subsequent amendment is not the way
to go, extending additional rights. Let's fix the problem, and this
amendment does that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1044. DISPOSITION OF COVERED PERSONS DETAINED IN THE
UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Due
Process and Military Detention Amendments Act''.
(b) Disposition.--Section 1021 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``The disposition'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (g), the
disposition''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(g) Disposition of Persons Detained in the United
States.--
``(1) Persons detained pursuant to the authorization for
use of military force or the fiscal year 2012 or 2013
national defense authorization acts.--In the case of a
covered person who is detained in the United States, or a
territory or possession of the United States, pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force, this Act, or the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,
disposition under the law of war shall occur immediately upon
the person coming into custody of the Federal Government and
shall only mean the immediate transfer of the person for
trial and proceedings by a court established under Article
III of the Constitution of the United States or by an
appropriate State court. Such trial and proceedings shall
have all the due process as provided for under the
Constitution of the United States.
``(2) Prohibition on transfer to military custody.--No
person detained, captured, or arrested in the United States,
or a territory or possession of the United States, may be
transferred to the custody of the Armed Forces for detention
under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, this Act,
or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013.
``(h) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be
construed to authorize the detention of a person within the
United States, or a territory or possession of the United
States, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force,
this Act, or the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013.''.
(c) Repeal of Requirement for Military Custody.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 1022 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is hereby repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1029(b) of such Act is
amended by striking ``applies to'' and all that follows
through ``any other person'' and inserting ``applies to any
person''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
First of all, the previous amendment doesn't say anything about pre-
2001. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash) correctly stated, it
says, If you have constitutional rights, you have them. It doesn't say
anything about restoring them prior to 2001. It doesn't address the
issue, and I apologize. I do not question Mr. Gohmert's motives. I
suspect that's what he wanted to do. That's not what his amendment
does.
If you want to protect the rights of people in this country, then you
need to support this amendment, the Smith amendment. And this is a very
important debate.
Back in 2001, we passed the authorization for the use of military
force. Post-9/11, it made sense, I think, to be careful, to give the
President the power he needed to protect us. But what we've learned in
the last 10 years is one power that he does not need is the power to
indefinitely detain or place in military custody people here in the
United States. Our justice system works. The Department of Justice
works. The FBI works. They have arrested, convicted, and locked up over
400 terrorists and have gotten all kinds of actionable intelligence out
of them.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will yield myself an additional 15
seconds.
This is an extraordinary amount of power to give to the President, to
give the government the power to take away an individual's rights and
lock them up with nothing more than one quick court hearing, without
the due process rights protection in our Constitution. It's not needed.
This is our opportunity to repeal it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H3079]]

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment turns the global fight on
terror into a CSI investigation.
On its face, the supporters will say exactly, but let's see the
results. The mission of those who fight the war on terror, now it's how
do we prevent acts of terror from inflicting billions of dollars of
damages to save lives?
You see, our law enforcement and prosecutorial system in this country
is, by nature, an after-the-fact determination, meaning, we rarely have
the ability to arrest a potential murderer until after he commits the
crime. The deterrent is the length of the sentence for the murder that
deters people from trying to harm or kill another.
That's not the case in terrorism. We set the punishment level to the
severity of the crime. But the level under terrorism, there's no known
level. What deters a person from flying a plane into a building? So how
does passing this amendment protect the furtherance of that crime or
would we simply be satisfied with investigating after the fact?
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would point out that our Justice
Department has arrested countless terrorists before they act by
discovering their plots and stopping them. That is what they're
designed to do, and it's what they've done quite effectively.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, the frightening thing here is that the
government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan Authorization
for Use of Military Force as a justification for entering American
homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them, and not give them a
charge in a trial. That's the frightening thing. That's the thing that
the Smith-Amash amendment fixes. It's the only amendment that does it.
I sometimes hear this strange argument that the Constitution applies
only to citizens, not persons. If you read the Fifth and 14th
Amendments, it applies to persons. Those are the amendments that
provide for due process. James Madison said the Constitution applies to
persons. And logic dictates that the Constitution applies to persons.
It applies to noncitizens.
Is the government allowed to make noncitizens worship a State
religion? Is the government allowed to take noncitizens' property
without compensation? Can the government quarter troops in noncitizens'
homes? Can the government conduct unreasonable searches and seizures on
noncitizens' homes? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Everybody here
understands that's ridiculous. No one disputes that all persons in the
U.S. are covered by the Constitution.
HASC claims to protect persons. The House Armed Services Committee in
the NDAA claims to protect persons with respect to habeas. The Gohmert
amendment claims to protect persons, not citizens. And the Smith-Amash
amendment protects persons. It's a phony argument.
The Smith-Amash amendment is the only amendment that will protect
citizens.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. AMASH. We have a very clear choice here. A Federal court has
ruled section 1021 in the NDAA unconstitutional. There is one amendment
that fixes it. Will you do it? And if you don't, how will you explain
it to your constituents?
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. West), a distinguished member of the committee.

{time} 0010

Mr. WEST. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I find it very interesting that back in 1942, when there were German
Nazi saboteurs that were captured off the coast of Long Island, that
they were prosecuted in a military commission. One of them was
sentenced to 30 years imprisonment; others were sentenced to death. And
I understand that this is a different type of battlefield that we're
on, the 21st century battlefield. We're all on this battlefield. No one
would have ever thought that Major Malik Nadal Hasan would stand in
Fort Hood, Texas, and shoot 43 Americans and 13 of those would be
killed.
I find that we have to understand that we are at a war. We are not in
a police action. We cannot look to guarantee to those who seek to harm
us the constitutional rights that are granted to Americans. If we
extend that to them, then we are starting to say that this war on
terror, now it's a criminal action.
And I find it very interesting that a sponsor of this amendment is
the Council for American Islamic Relations, which is an unindicted
coconspirator for the largest terrorist financing act here.
So I say we should not support this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I point out that only Members of Congress
are allowed to sponsor amendments. Nobody outside of that has sponsored
this.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, last year I argued in opposition to
sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, that they went far beyond the AUMF
to suggest that the President has the authority to detain U.S. citizens
indefinitely without charge.
This amendment prohibits the detention without charge of any person
arrested or detained in the United States and is the first step toward
restoring due process. It's a good first step, but its scope is limited
to U.S. soil and to the present AUMF. We should do more. That's why
I've introduced the No Detention Without Charge Act, which would not
only prohibit detention without charge of people arrested in the United
States, but would also prohibit the detention of any person anywhere
indefinitely, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution and
the law of war, and it would restore meaningful right of action for
detainees to challenge the legality of their detention.
The notion that the United States should conduct itself according to
the Constitution and the law of war should not be controversial. Smith-
Amash takes the first step--and I have proposed the next--towards
affirming our values and securing our liberty. If we are going to
address indefinite detention, we must do so directly.
I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Amash amendment and to sign
on as cosponsors of my bill.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. We hear repeatedly people say persons are entitled to
their constitutional rights, and, yes, they are.
When I was in the Army for 4 years, I was entitled to constitutional
rights, but I had no right to freedom of speech. I had no right to
freedom of assembly. There were a lot of people in the military that
would rather not assemble at 5 a.m. in the morning, but you don't have
that constitutional right.
The same way with immigrants. Immigrants do not have all of the
rights under the Constitution that others do.
What we're saying is that people who are terrorists and kill
Americans on American soil should not have more rights than an
immigrant who is here peaceably but that is subject to the laws and
subject to detention without going to an article III court. There are
constitutional rights, yes, but not everyone under the Constitution has
the same rights. Ask somebody in the military.
So I implore my colleagues, please do not give foreign terrorists on
our soil more rights than our own military has under the Constitution.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would like to submit for the Record a
statement from retired JAG officers explaining the difference in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Retired JAGs Speak Out Against NDAA Misinformation

(For Immediate Release: May 17,. 2012)

Washington, DC--In response to comments from members of
Congress suggesting that the Smith-Amash Amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act for the 2013 Fiscal Year
would give suspected terrorists more rights than members of
the U.S. armed forces, Rear Admiral john D. Hutson (ret.) and
Donald Guter, former Judge Advocate Generals of the Navy, and
Thomas Romig, former Judge Advocate General of the Army,
issued the following statement:
``It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of our military
justice system to

[[Page H3080]]

suggest that by providing terrorism suspects with Article III
civilian court trials, they would be getting `better rights'
than our own military. Our courts-martial system under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has a special,
constitutionally recognized role in maintaining good order
and discipline in the military. It is not designed anyone
other than members of the U.S. armed forces or those
accompanying them in the field. The Smith-Amash amendment is
a modest, bi-partisan approach to protecting constitutional
values that ought to draw support from all members of
Congress, including those who support our military justice
system.''

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Ladies and gentlemen, the problem is that
folks want to always talk about the terrorists, and absolutely we all
should be concerned about the terrorists. But how about the citizens of
the United States who have to worry about now being arrested when they
don't know what it is they've done wrong?
In the court case that set aside 1021 just yesterday, the court
points out that, they ask: Can you tell me what it means to
substantially support associated forces? The representative of the
government says: I'm not in a position to give specific examples. The
court says: Give me one. And the gentleman, the representative of the
government, says: I'm not in a position to give one specific example.
The problem is that we have citizens who may be caught up
unintentionally by this bill or by 1021. We must protect the citizens
of the United States from an overreaching bill that has been ruled
unconstitutional.
And what else is interesting is the definitions aren't in 1021. The
court points out in that case that in 18 U.S.C. 2339 and 2339(a) there
are definitions. We need definitions. We cannot leave liberty to
inference.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Can I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Ohio). The time of the gentleman
from Washington has expired.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Smith's earlier acknowledgment that
last year's NDAA did not take away rights of Americans. The Gohmert
amendment, which we debated, I think removes all doubt and actually
adds some extra procedural safeguards to make sure that Americans'
rights are absolutely protected.
To his credit, Mr. Smith's amendment, as he admits, does change the
law from what it's been not only the past 11 years, but it changes the
law from what it's been basically since World War II. And my suggestion
is that we all ought to be very careful about changing the law.
With the exception of Fort Hood and the Little Rock shooting, we have
gone 11 years without a successful terrorist attack here in the United
States. There are a lot of reasons for that. But part of the reason is
the legal framework that has given the tools to the military, the
intelligence community, and law enforcement that have all made that
possible.
Mr. Smith's amendment changes that, and the biggest way it changes it
is that it automatically gives foreigners constitutional rights that we
all have thought of as belonging to Americans. So the second that a
foreign terrorist, a member of al Qaeda, sets foot on U.S. soil, he is
told: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an
attorney. If you can't afford one, one will be provided to you.
Now, that is a significant change.
The gentleman from Washington says, well, look, our criminal justice
system works all the time. And it is true; we can prosecute people. But
the key here, as Mr. Landry said, is not just prosecuting people after
they have committed their acts or after their bomb has failed to blow
up, if we're lucky. The point is to prevent those attacks. That means
have you to get the information from them. And that means, if you say,
You have the right to remain silent, it is going to be harder to get
that information from them. And we're talking about foreigners here.
American citizens absolutely have the right to contest their
detention. No American citizen will ever be tried in a military
commission. Any American citizen has the right to contest his
detention. To keep us safe, this amendment must be rejected.

May 9, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. McKeon,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: As former government officials with
significant national security experience, we write to you in
support of provisions that were included in the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012
relating to the detention of enemy combatants. As the House
will soon begin consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2013, we also write to address misconceptions about the FY12
provisions and efforts by others to exploit those
misconceptions.
Importantly, the FY12 NDAA included an affirmation of the
detention authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for
Use of Military Force (AUMF). Given the President's plan to
withdraw U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan and the
continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in
reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat
terror.
Some have argued that the FY 12 NDAA's affirmation of
detention authority altered the status quo, and is an
``expansion'' of the power of the federal government. This is
false.
The FY12 NDAA explicitly states that ``nothing in this
section shall be construed to affect existing law or
authorities relating to the detention of United States
citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any
persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites States.''
As the Heritage Foundation recently wrote, ``The NDAA has
not impacted the conditions under which a U.S. citizen may
(or may not) be detained . . . The law regarding how U.S.
citizens are handled, including the right to habeas corpus,
is the same today as it was the day before it [the NDAA] was
passed.'' The detainee provisions of the NDAA merely codified
existing case law related to detainees, period.
On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the AUMF, which
authorizes the President to ``use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons . . .''
As you are well aware, the law of armed conflict, also
called the law of war, allows for a country engaged in armed
conflict to detain the enemy for the duration of hostilities.
That age old principle existed well before September 11, 2011
and is a right that all countries must retain during a time
of war. Furthermore, the law of armed conflict does not
discriminate between enemy combatants who are citizens of the
United States and those that are not. Any citizen who joins
al Qaeda or its affiliates is properly classified as an
unlawful enemy combatant and may be treated as such. We find
the notion propagated by some, that a citizen who has nothing
to do with al Qaeda could be picked up off an American street
and detained by the military, to be ridiculous.
In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld that the United States had the legal authority to
detain a U.S. citizen captured fighting alongside the Taliban
in Afghanistan who was later detained in the United States
pursuant to the AUMF. However, the Supreme Court made it
clear that such detainees must have the right to challenge
the legality of their detention before a federal judge. The
Court noted that ``[a]bsent suspension, the writ of habeas
corpus remains available to every individual detained within
the United States.''
As you know, several members of Congress have introduced
legislation relating to the detainee provisions in the FY12
NDAA. Representative Scott Rigell recently introduced H.R.
4388, the ``Right to Habeas Corpus Act,'' which would affirm
the right of any person detained in the United States
pursuant to the AUMF to challenge the legality of their
detention in an Article III court. Representative Rigell's
bill is entirely consistent both with the FY12 NDAA and
existing case law.
Unfortunately, other members of Congress have introduced
proposed legislation that would instead erode the authorities
provided by the AUMF and limit the military's ability to
pursue terrorists. For instance, Representative Adam Smith
and Senator Mark Udall have introduced legislation that would
prevent the President from ever detaining anyone, including
foreign terrorists, in the United States pursuant to the
AUMF. Representative John Garamendi and Senator Dianne
Feinstein have introduced similar legislation that would
leave it up to Congress to decide when the President has the
authority to detain U.S. citizens who have joined the enemy.
It is highly questionable whether either of these proposed
pieces of legislation would be constitutional as they would
deprive any president of lawful options that he may need in
order to fulfill his constitutional duties as commander in
chief to defend the United States and protect American
citizens. Rewarding terrorists with greater rights for making
it to the United States would actually incentivize them to
come to our shores, or to recruit from within the United
States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American
people. Such a result is perverse.
Although we believe the FY12 NDAA detainee provisions, read
along with the AUMF

[[Page H3081]]

and pertinent case law is clear, we understand the urge to
affirm the availability of habeas corpus rights of any
terrorist captured in the United States. Should that
affirmation be necessary to erase doubts, we would
respectfully encourage you to consider incorporating the
language from Representative Rigell's ``Right to Habeas
Corpus Act'' in the FY13 NDAA to address misconceptions and
to defend against these other attempts to undermine the
critical wartime authorities provided by the AUMF.
As the House begins consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts to exploit
misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming
U.S. national security.
Sincerely,
Edwin Meese III, Former U.S. Attorney General; Michael B.
Mukasey, Former U.S. Attorney General and Former U.S.
District Judge; Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary of
Homeland Security; Steven G. Bradbury, Former Acting
Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy AAG,
Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice;
Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Former Principal Deputy General
Counsel, Department of Defense; David Rivkin, Former
Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development, U.S.
Department of Justice; Charles D. Stimson, Former
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense For Detainee
Affairs and Former Assistant US Attorney, District of
Columbia; Paul Butler, Former Principle Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense, SOLIC and Former
Assistant US Attorney, SDNY; Steven A. Engel, Former
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal
Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Paul Rosenzweig,
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Acting
Assistant Secretary for International Affairs,
Department of Homeland Security.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title XII of division A of the
bill, add the following:

SEC. 12XX. LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR INSTITUTIONS OR
ORGANIZATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED NATIONS
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
may be made available for any institution or organization
established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, including the International Seabed Authority, the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. First, let me say that there is
centuries-old precedence of international law governing the
navigational rights in territorial waters and navigation through the
straits around the globe. The U.N.'s Convention on the Law of the Sea
was submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent in
adherence to the United States Constitution 30 years ago in the 1980s,
but the United States Senate has consistently refused to support it.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea threatens the United
States' national security interests and subordinates United States
sovereignty to the global bureaucracy known as the United Nations.

{time} 0020

It threatens U.S. sovereignty under part XV by subjecting U.S.
companies to mandatory dispute settlements and costly lawsuits by
creating an unaccountable International Seabed Authority, ISA, to make
rules that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea members must
follow. In addition, these rules may be changed by the ISA over the
objection of any signatory nation.
It threatens U.S. military priorities because the U.S. Navy could
find itself subject to international dispute resolution for its
military activities in a nation-state's exclusive economic zones
because article 288 does not define ``military activity.'' An example
here might be the restriction, not the enhancement, of the free
movement of United States Navy vessels in areas such as the South China
Sea where we see China attempting to extend its territorial waters into
areas such as the Spratly Islands.
You talk about redistribution of the wealth, it threatens U.S.
foreign policy objectives because article 82 requires the revenue given
to the ISA be distributed to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
members. No transparency exists--as it doesn't in most U.N. policies--
but no transparency exists on how countries use the funds, and nothing
prevents the ISA from redistributing U.S. revenue to state sponsors of
terrorism or undemocratic regimes with human rights abuses.
It threatens the U.S. economic interests. The U.N. Convention on the
Law of the Sea provides for international revenue sharing from the
exploitation of resources taken from the deep seabed--nickel, copper,
cobalt are just some of the few, as well as oil and gas taken from the
extended continental shelf. Now, this brings into question offshore and
deep sea energy production and the question of whether we really want
to turn over regulatory authority of these potential assets to the
United Nations.
In addition, the Law of the Sea treaty could also potentially subject
United States rivers and lakes to international jurisdiction where U.S.
waterways meet international waters.
The Law of the Sea treaty would, in essence, turn the United States
Navy into a policing arm of the United Nations, since we have the
largest and most capable Navy in the world.
My amendment would protect the United States Navy, the United States
military chain of command, authority of the Secretary of the Navy,
Secretary of Defense, Commander in Chief, the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, and the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Congress. My
amendment limits American tax dollars to any institution or
organization established by the U.N.'s Convention on the Law of the
Sea, and I encourage the Members' support, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I'll be very brief.
For the last 20 years, every single chief of Naval operations,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and other military officers have
supported this treaty because they recognize that it gives us greater
protections in an increasingly complicated world.
So I would urge opposition to this amendment that would undermine
that Law of the Sea. It does not turn over the power to the United
Nations. It creates a treaty that gives us a framework for dealing with
what is an increasingly difficult set of issues.
China, absent this treaty, could, in fact, make greater claims in the
South China Sea and elsewhere, and we would not have the same amount of
power to oppose them. So please oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in House Report 112 485.

[[Page H3082]]

Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title XII, add the following new section:

SEC. 12__. REMOVAL OF BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS FROM EUROPE.

(a) Finding.--Congress finds that, because defense spending
among European NATO countries fell 12% since 2008, from $314
billion to $275 billion, so that currently only 4 out of the
28 NATO allies of the United States are spending the widely
agreed-to standard of 2% of their GDP on defense, the United
States must look to more wisely allocate scarce resources to
provide for the national defense.
(b) Removal Authorized.--The President is authorized and
requested to end the permanent basing of units of the United
States Armed Forces in European member nations of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and return the four Brigade
Combat Teams currently stationed in Europe to the United
States.
(c) Use of Rotational Forces to Satisfy Security Needs.--It
is the policy of the United States that the deployment of
units of the United States Armed Forces on a rotational basis
at military installations in European member nations of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization pursuant to the Army Force
Generation (ARFORGEN) process is a force-structure
arrangement sufficient to permit the United States--
(1) to satisfy the commitments undertaken by United States
pursuant to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at
Washington, District of Columbia, on April 4, 1949, and
entered into force on August 24, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS
1964);
(2) to address the current security environment in Europe;
and
(3) to contribute to peace and stability in Europe.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Coffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, maintaining four brigade combat teams in
Europe is an example of the kind of wasteful spending that should be
cut from the Federal Government.
This is the fourth time I've offered an amendment to reduce U.S.
troop levels in Europe, and it has received more support on the floor
of the House each time. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr.
Coffman) for his leadership efforts in offering this amendment with me
this year. I'm hopeful this amendment's clear logic, obvious nature,
and bipartisan support will lead the House to adopt it.
This amendment, very simply, will bring troops home from Europe.
Basing these forces in the U.S. rather than Europe will cost 10 to 20
percent less and maintain the flexibility and infrastructure for global
operations necessary in today's world. The amendment would also
authorize the Pentagon to close bases across Europe that are no longer
necessary.
In the wake of World War II and the Cold War, stationing troops in
Europe made sense. We were holding the line against the Soviet Union
and Warsaw Pact and meeting our obligations to NATO. But the Soviet
Union ceased to exist 20 years ago. If we didn't have these bases in
Europe, we'd have to ask ourselves: Would we be setting bases up in
Europe today to combat the global war on terrorism?
Our troop commitment in Europe needs to be reexamined. Our European
allies are some of the richest countries in the world, so why are we
subsidizing their defense? The average American spends over $2,500 on
defense; the average European, about $500.
With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across
the world to meet our NATO commitments and other operational
necessities. We can rely on our capacity for rapid deployment to send
troops and assets to all regions when needed.
Our amendment would call for rotational forces to be deployed in
Europe so they can fulfill our NATO obligations. There's cheaper and
less controversial ways of proving to our allies the strength of our
commitment to defense than permanently stationing and maintaining over
80,000 troops in their countries.
Donald Rumsfeld even thinks it's time for a change to our policy. In
his recent book he wrote:

Of the quarter-million troops deployed abroad in 2001, more
than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed in
Germany to fend off an invasion by a Soviet Union that no
longer exists.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15
seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership.
At a time when we must seriously consider cuts to our budget and
balancing our budget, we should not continue to subsidize the defense
of wealthy European nations against a Soviet threat that ceased to
exist two decades ago.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The Pentagon has proposed removing two brigade combat teams already
from permanent bases in Europe. The U.S. Army would still have about
37,000 soldiers in Europe even after it withdraws two of its four
combat brigades, which is about 7,000 soldiers. The United States has
about 80,000 military personnel still in Europe. There are 28 U.S.
military bases--16 Army, eight Air Force, and four Navy.
The Coffman-Polis amendment would authorize the removal of all four
brigade combat teams. The only permanent forces stationed in Europe
would be those that are required to maintain our expeditionary
capabilities and conduct engagement with the leadership of our NATO
allies. We will continue to meet our security commitment to our NATO
allies by utilizing rotational forces. This could be accomplished by
expanding existing programs like the National Guard State Partnership
Program.
Since 2008, the Defense Department, among European NATO countries,
fell 12 percent, from $314 billion to $275 billion. Only four out of
our 28 NATO allies are spending even 2 percent on their GDP on defense.
The United States spends 4.7 percent on defense.
Our European allies are facing a fiscal crisis of their own; however,
instead of being forced to find the same balance that the United States
is trying to achieve, they are able to drastically reduce their
national defense spending because they can take for granted that the
United States will continue to be the guarantor of their security. This
is an unfair burden to U.S. taxpayers.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I have enormous respect for the
gentlemen from Colorado. I have enormous respect for the gentleman from
Colorado's service in the military. But I also have enormous respect
for the United States Army and for the leadership of the United States
Army.

{time} 0030

The only reason that we would do this move is--there are two reasons.
One would be because it makes strategic sense to do so, and the United
States Army says it does not make strategic sense to do so. The second
one is because of cost. And the United States Army would point out that
the cost savings we have would be minimal because the rotational units
are very expensive and much less effective than forward-base forces.
Mr. Chairman, it's been said here that we don't want to be defending
our allies, and indeed we don't, not necessarily. But what we're doing
with this is not just defending our allies but joining with our allies
to make sure we're defending the United States and U.S. interests.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Army has moved already very
strongly by removing two of these combat brigades from Europe. They've
reduced by 50 percent the number of personnel we have in Europe since
2003. I think we should listen to the Army and make

[[Page H3083]]

sure that we're allowing them to do what they think at this particular
point in time is strategically and from a cost-effective basis in the
best interest of the United States.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
I'm anxious to hear about the secret deal to remove troops from
Europe.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Well, I must say that we certainly have to be
concerned about troop reductions in light of the possible secret deal
between the Russians and the President.
I stand in opposition to this amendment because, first off, here you
have Congress looking to withdraw troops that of course strategically
our Department of Defense says that we need, and that intuitively we
understand why they are there. We don't have troops there standing
guard and defending Europe. We have troops there that are part of the
alliance that are working in concert for the defense of the United
States and our allies in issues of the war on terror, issues of
training, issues of jointness, issues of logistics. I mean, Europe is
not just a place where our troops are standing to oppose invasions of
Europe; they're not there for that anymore. They're there for logistics
of things such as the pirates that we have off of Africa, that people
are abusing our resources to try to make certain that commerce can
continue; the issues in Afghanistan, to make certain that we have the
logistics for our troops and what they need; ensuring that our allies
have jointness in training, working together and being present so that
we can ensure that NATO works together in concert.
This provision would also lead to an incredibly negative perception
among our NATO allies and partners that the U.S. is not committed to
its NATO Article V responsibilities. You will recall, the NATO Article
V, the only time it's been invoked was in favor of the United States
after we were attacked and went into Afghanistan after 9/11.
These troops are present as part of the overall security of the
United States. They're not there as a stake in the ground to protect
Europe. To not look to our military for their strategy, for their
determination as to where we need troops, for their use of deployment
is for us to say that this Congress constitutes itself as the experts
in military deployment, and we're not. This is not where the debate
should occur.
We should oppose this amendment.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, unlike my two colleagues, and
God bless them for their experience, but they've not served in our
military, and they've not served in the United States Army in Europe as
I have. So I can challenge the assumptions of the United States Army
here.
The Cold War has been over with since 1989. We're spending 4.7
percent of our GDP on defense and our European allies, most of them,
are spending less than 2 percent. There's an overreliance on the United
States, and that's different from being allies. These are not
expeditionary forces. These are really, truly relics of the Cold War
with no border to defend. So it is time that we take them back.
Where is the savings? Well, the savings is in part because there is
already an agreement that we are going to draw down the end-strength of
our active duty forces. So that certainly fits within that criteria
that's already been agreed to.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49
printed in House Report 112 485.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in title XII of division A of the
bill, add the following:

Subtitle--Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War
Through Diplomacy Act

SEC. _1. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Prevent Iran from
Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War Through Diplomacy
Act''.

SEC. _2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December
10, 2009, President Obama said, ``I know that engagement with
repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of
indignation. But I also know that sanctions without
outreach--and condemnation without discussion--can carry
forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move
down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.''
(2) In his address to the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee on March 4, 2012, President Obama said, ``I have
said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I
mean what I say. That includes all elements of American
power. A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a
diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that
the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort to
impose crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be
prepared for any contingency.''
(3) While the Obama Administration has rejected failed
policies of the past by engaging in negotiations with Iran
without preconditions, only four of such meetings have
occurred.
(4) Official representatives of the United States and
official representatives of Iran have held only two direct,
bilateral meetings in over 30 years, both of which occurred
in October 2009, one on the sidelines of the United Nations
Security Council negotiations in Geneva, and one on the
sidelines of negotiations brokered by the United Nations
International Atomic Energy Agency (referred to in this Act
as the ``IAEA'') in Vienna.
(5) All of the outstanding issues between the United States
and Iran cannot be resolved instantaneously. Resolving such
issues will require a robust, sustained effort.
(6) Under the Department of State's current ``no contact''
policy, officers and employees of the Department of State are
not permitted to make any direct contact with official
representatives of the Government of Iran without express
prior authorization from the Secretary of State.
(7) On September 20, 2011, then-Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, called for establishing
direct communications with Iran, stating, ``I'm talking about
any channel that's open. We've not had a direct link of
communication with Iran since 1979. And I think that has
planted many seeds for miscalculation. When you miscalculate,
you can escalate and misunderstand.''
(8) On November 8, 2011, the IAEA issued a report about
Iran's nuclear program and expressed concerns about Iran's
past and ongoing nuclear activities.
(9) On December 2, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
warned that an attack on Iran would result in ``an escalation
that would take place that would not only involve many lives,
but I think it could consume the Middle East in a
confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.''

SEC. _3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It should be the policy of the United States--
(1) to prevent Iran from pursuing or acquiring a nuclear
weapon and to resolve the concerns of the United States and
of the international community about Iran's nuclear program
and Iran's human rights obligations under international and
Iranian law;
(2) to ensure inspection of cargo to or from Iran, as well
as the seizure and disposal of prohibited items, as
authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929
(June 9, 2010);
(3) to pursue sustained, direct, bilateral negotiations
with the Government of Iran without preconditions in order to
reduce tensions, prevent war, prevent nuclear proliferation,
support human rights, and seek resolutions to issues that
concern the United States and the international community;
(4) to utilize all diplomatic tools, including direct
talks, targeted sanctions, Track II diplomacy, creating a
special envoy described in section 4, and enlisting the
support of all interested parties, for the purpose of
establishing an agreement with Iran to put in place a program
that includes international safeguards, guarantees, and
robust transparency measures that provide for full IAEA
oversight of Iran's nuclear program, including rigorous,
ongoing inspections, in order to verify that Iran's nuclear
program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and that Iran is
not engaged in nuclear weapons work;
(5) to pursue opportunities to build mutual trust and to
foster sustained negotiations in good faith with Iran,
including pursuing a fuel swap deal to remove quantities of
low enriched uranium from Iran and to refuel the Tehran
Research Reactor, similar to the structure of the deal that
the IAEA, the United States, China, Russia, France, the
United Kingdom, and Germany first proposed in October 2009;

[[Page H3084]]

(6) to explore areas of mutual benefit to both Iran and the
United States, such as regional security, the long-term
stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan, the establishment of a
framework for peaceful nuclear energy production, other
peaceful energy modernization programs, and counter-narcotics
efforts; and
(7) that no funds appropriated or otherwise made available
to any executive agency of the Government of the United
States may be used to carry out any military operation or
activity against Iran unless the President determines that a
military operation or activity is warranted and seeks express
prior authorization by Congress, as required under article I,
section 8, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which
grants Congress the sole authority to declare war, except
that this requirement shall not apply to a military operation
or activity--
(A) to directly repel an offensive military action launched
from within the territory of Iran against the United States
or any ally with whom the United States has a mutual defense
assistance agreement;
(B) in hot pursuit of forces that engage in an offensive
military action outside the territory of Iran against United
States forces or an ally with whom the United States has a
mutual defense assistance agreement and then enter into the
territory of Iran; or
(C) to directly thwart an imminent offensive military
action to be launched from within the territory of Iran
against United States forces or an ally with whom the United
States has a mutual defense assistance agreement.

SEC. _4. APPOINTMENT OF HIGH-LEVEL U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OR
SPECIAL ENVOY.

(a) Appointment.--At the earliest possible date, the
President, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall
appoint a high-level United States representative or special
envoy for Iran.
(b) Criteria for Appointment.--The President shall appoint
an individual under subsection (a) on the basis of the
individual's knowledge and understanding of the issues
regarding Iran's nuclear program, experience in conducting
international negotiations, and ability to conduct
negotiations under subsection (c) with the respect and trust
of the parties involved in the negotiations.
(c) Duties.--The high-level United States representative or
special envoy for Iran shall--
(1) seek to facilitate direct, unconditional, bilateral
negotiations with Iran for the purpose of easing tensions and
normalizing relations between the United States and Iran;
(2) lead the diplomatic efforts of the Government of the
United States with regard to Iran;
(3) consult with other countries and international
organizations, including countries in the region, where
appropriate and when necessary to achieve the purpose set
forth in paragraph (1);
(4) act as liaison with United States and international
intelligence agencies where appropriate and when necessary to
achieve the purpose set for in paragraph (1); and
(5) ensure that the bilateral negotiations under paragraph
(1) complement the ongoing international negotiations with
Iran.

SEC. _5. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(a) Elimination of ``No Contact'' Policy.--Not later than
30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of State shall rescind the ``no contact'' policy
that prevents officers and employees of the Department of
State from making any direct contact with official
representatives of the Government of Iran without express
prior authorization from the Secretary of State.
(b) Office of High-Level U.S. Representative or Special
Envoy.--Not later than 30 days after the appointment of a
high-level United States representative or special envoy
under section _4(a), the Secretary of State shall establish
an office in the Department of State for the purpose of
supporting the work of the representative or special envoy.

SEC. _6. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

(a) Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the high-level
United States representative or special envoy for Iran is
appointed under section _4, and every 180 days thereafter,
the United States representative or special envoy shall
report to the committees set forth in subsection (b) on the
steps that have been taken to facilitate direct, bilateral
diplomacy with the government of Iran under section _4(c).
Each such report may, when necessary or appropriate, be
submitted in classified and unclassified form.
(b) Committees.--The committees referred to in subsection
(a) are--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

SEC. _7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subtitle such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2013.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward.
It would appoint a Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all diplomatic
avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon. It is cosponsored by my colleagues,
Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman Conyers.
I must say that all of the cosponsors of this resolution agree that
we must prevent an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, which would be
totally unacceptable. As President Obama said, all options, including
diplomatic options, need to be on the table with Iran.
We all recognize that the military option has been and will continue
to be on the table, but we must not let the military option override
any diplomatic initiative which would keep Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon.
Let me just say and cite section 1221 of the bill in its Declaration
of Policy on Iran. This is in the bill as it is currently written:
It is the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures,
including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from
threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a
nuclear weapon.
The bill also sets forth what it takes to require the military to
prepare for war. So we all recognize that the military option in this
bill is on the table. It's stated very clearly.
My amendment would just take two simple steps to support the
diplomatic option. First, it would require President Obama to appoint a
high-level Special Envoy to Iran to engage in sustained bilateral--
that's country to country--comprehensive negotiations with the aim of
ensuring Iran gives up any efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
Secondly, my amendment would lift the ``no contact policy'' that
prohibits high-level American diplomats from communicating directly
with their Iranian counterparts.
In addition, it's just common sense that in order for the current
multilateral negotiations to be effective, we need to get rid of this
current policy that treats diplomatic talks as a prize rather than a
tool for statecraft. My amendment in no way undermines current
multilateral negotiations. In fact, we need both; we need bilateral and
multilateral negotiations if in fact we're going to prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon.
We can all agree that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons really is
unacceptable. Experts agree that at best an armed strike against Iran
would set its nuclear program back 3 years while locking in Iran's
determination to obtain nuclear weapons. So we're trying to do
everything we can do. As one who has always supported nonproliferation,
I understand what is taking place as it relates to the multilateral
negotiations, but I think it is very important that we strengthen those
with bilateral negotiations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically appoints a Special
Envoy to Iran to try and talk the Islamic leaders out of nuclear
weapons and out of their nuclear weapons program.

{time} 0040

If talk and negotiations could de-nuclearize Iran, we wouldn't have
to worry about them anymore. But the reality is you can't take the
crazy out of radical Islamic fundamentalists, which are the people that
run Iran.
And this amendment does, contrary to what the gentlelady from
California says, this amendment does, in fact, take the military option
off the table because it would prevent the President from taking
action, even if the U.S. were directly threatened and immediately
threatened unless Congress authorized it first. The President would
have to call this body back into session, from wherever we were at, and
then ask us for permission, on C SPAN, to go ahead and act against an
immediate Iranian threat.

[[Page H3085]]

This amendment does not acknowledge the six U.N. Security Council
resolutions to address Iran's nuclear program. It does not acknowledge
that France, Germany, and the U.K. offered Iran several proposals to
resolve nuclear issues during negotiations in 2004 and 2005. It does
not acknowledge that the diplomatic initiatives to resolve the Iranian
nuclear issue have produced absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.
What this amendment does is appease and appease and appease and stall
and while we talk, while we stand here in this body, right now,
discussing this, Iran's getting closer and closer to a nuclear weapon.
And Iran's not North Korea. North Korea is sane compared to Iran. As
soon as they get enriched uranium that can be used as a weapon, it will
end up on our shores. And it probably won't be by the Iranians. It
probably won't be launched from Iran. It'll cross our border or come
into an American port, and it will kill Americans.
So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. I'd like to yield now 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, after 8 long and deadly years, we finally
ended the war in Iraq. Hopefully, the war in Afghanistan is drawing to
a close, but not nearly as quickly as I'd like.
The last thing we can afford is to enter another military conflict
that kills Americans, drains our Treasury, and undermines our national
reputation and our national security. That's why I support this
amendment.
By sending a special envoy to Iran, we can take definitive steps to
avoid war, giving diplomacy the best chance to succeed, and giving
ourselves the best chance to keep Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon.
This is consistent with my SMART Security Platform, which demands
that we explore every possible alternative to war, that we use peaceful
conflict resolution whenever and wherever possible, that we make a
renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.
So let's do the smart thing. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Prevent
war.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I actually oppose this amendment
for reasons completely opposite of what the previous opposition speaker
opposed them for. I believe that part of the solution to stopping Iran
from developing a nuclear weapon is to negotiate with them. The
President is currently doing that as part of the Six Party Talks.
Now, none of that's going to work without very, very aggressive
economic sanctions. I'm very pleased in last year's bill we were able
to put in aggressive economic sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. We
need those sanctions. Those sanctions are what has driven these talks.
Unfortunately, I support just about everything in this amendment
except for the part that requires bilateral negotiations. It would
basically require us at this point to set up a separate set of
negotiations apart from the Six Party Talks and would actually
undermine the very negotiations that are going on right now.
I think it's very well intentioned. I agree that negotiations have to
be part of that. It's just, given the negotiations that are going on,
requiring bilateral negotiations at this point would undermine that
very effort. And, therefore, for very different reasons I oppose the
amendment.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say I respectfully disagree that
this would undermine the current Six Party Talks. I think it would
strengthen the Six Party Talks. We need bilateral and multilateral
negotiations if we're going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon.
This bill is very clear in terms of the military option, in response
to my colleague on the other side. The underlying bill says it shall be
the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures,
including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from
threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a
nuclear weapon.
In no way does this amendment appease the Iranians. What it does is
bring some semblance of balance and another strategy, another layer to
strengthen the negotiations that are currently taking place so that we
can keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and prevent an all-out
war.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Hearing the word ``undermined'' brings to mind the fact
that they are way underground building this nuclear facility. It kind
of stretches the credibility thinking that they're doing that just to
build a power plant.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, we've debated some important issues here
tonight. Some of them we've had some fun with. Some of them we have
debated very, very strenuously.
But make no mistake about it, the greatest threat to world peace
today is Iran and the possibility that Iran will get a nuclear weapon.
There is no other country in the world that has specifically stated its
purpose to use that weapon will be to destroy one of our allies, which
would be Israel.
And one of the most important things we can have is to make sure that
we have no lack of clarity when we come to dealing with Iran.
Our good friend, Ike Skelton, used to always admonish us, read the
bill. In this bill we are looking to take power away from the Secretary
of State. We say we want to have diplomacy, and yet we are pulling away
the Secretary of State's options to do that.
We're looking at taking away powers of the President, because, if
nothing else, we're mucking up the War Powers Act and making it unclear
what the President can do and what he can't do. And when it comes to
Iran, that's the least important thing we can do.
The most important thing we can do is to make sure that we continue
to give the President the options that he needs to keep everything on
the table in dealing with Iran. And when we tell him he can't use
military force until he's done all diplomatic avenues, nobody in here
understands what that means exactly.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will not go down this path, because
I can assure you the destination may be one that we wish we had never
arrived at. And I hope we'll defeat this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title XIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 1303. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR
COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACTIVITIES WITH
RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

(a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2013 for Cooperative Threat Reduction may be
obligated or expended for cooperative threat reduction
activities with the Russian Federation until the date that is
30 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense
certifies, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
the appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) Russia is no longer--
(A) providing direct or indirect support to the government
of Syria's suppression of the Syrian people; and
(B) transferring to Iran, North Korea, or Syria equipment
and technology that have the potential to make a material
contribution to the development of weapons of mass
destruction or cruise or ballistic missile systems controlled
under multilateral control lists; or

[[Page H3086]]

(2) funds planned to be obligated or expended for
cooperative threat reduction activities with the Russian
Federation are strictly for project closeout activities and
will not be used for new activities or activities that will
extend beyond fiscal year 2013.
(b) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
limitation in subsection (a) if--
(1) the Secretary determines that such waiver is in the
national security interests of the United States;
(2) the Secretary briefs, in an unclassified form, the
appropriate congressional committees on the justifications of
such waiver; and
(3) a period of 90 days has elapsed following the date on
which such briefing is held.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment bans cooperative threat reduction funds going to Russia
unless the Secretary of Defense, with the Secretary of State, first,
can certify that the Russians are no longer supporting the Syrian
regime, and, secondly, are not providing Syria, North Korea, or Iran
equipment or technology to develop weapons of mass destruction.
This amendment sends a clear message condemning Russian support to
Syria and the Assad regime. Since the anti-regime protests in Syria
began in March of last year, Syrian security forces have killed well
over 10,000 people. Some people say 12,000 people. They have wrongfully
imprisoned tens of thousands more.
Russia, unfortunately, has proven repeatedly that they are willing to
send technology and weapons to all buyers, including to regimes like
Syria that are brutalizing their citizens.

{time} 0050

We need to send a clear and consistent message to the Russians and to
the rest of the world that the United States will not tolerate or
support the oppression that the Syrian Government is inflicting on its
people.
How can we continue to send military aid to Russia while they
knowingly and deliberately turn around and support the brutal and
corrupt Syrian regime?
The U.S. will not tolerate either direct or indirect military
assistance to the Assad regime in Syria. We will not support the
Russian transfer of weapons of mass destruction or ballistic missile
equipment and technology to countries like Syria, Iran, or North Korea.
This amendment begins to put some teeth behind the words of the
President and others in Congress on both sides of the aisle who have
called for action. This amendment begins to support the seriousness
behind our words. We must do everything we can to end the Assad
regime's escalating use of indiscriminate violence against its people.
Join me in supporting this important amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. This is a classic ``cutting off your nose to
spite your face'' amendment.
We are all very upset by the fact that Russia continues to be
supportive of the Assad regime, but cutting off funds from the Defense
Threat Reduction Program is not going to hurt Russia; it's going to
hurt us.
The purpose of the Defense Threat Reduction Program, as the name
would imply, is to reduce the threat. This was part of the broad
nonproliferation effort, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to set
up a cooperative working agreement to try to control the weapons of
mass destruction--nuclear, biological, chemical--that Russia has. This
is a critically important program to stop proliferation and to make
sure that these weapons of mass destruction don't wind up in the hands
of terrorists and that they are actually controlled.
So, as much as I want to see Russia change its policy towards Syria,
cutting off this program to try to force it is not a good idea, and I
urge opposition to the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. The term that's used for this program is the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program. Russia has to cooperate. When they're turning
around and supporting regimes like Syria with, we think, $1 billion
worth of weapons transfers last year alone, what kind of cooperation is
that?
Yes. Originally, 20 years ago, this program had a laudable purpose,
but now Russia is doing something that is a bigger threat to our
security, I believe. We have to find some way of sending a message to a
country that is supporting these brutal regimes. I believe that this is
the best way to do it, and I would urge the support of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is precisely the wrong place to do it. It really isn't, again,
punishing Russia. We are the ones who are most concerned about these
weapons getting out and getting into the wrong hands. Yes, it requires
Russia's cooperation. It is cooperation that we strived hard to get, so
to cut it off at this point--to lose that cooperation--places us in
greater jeopardy by making weapons of mass destruction more difficult
to control. So, again, I would urge opposition.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Carnahan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A of the bill, add the following:

TITLE XVII--CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS OVERSIGHT AND INTERAGENCY
ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2012

SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Contingency Operations
Oversight and Interagency Enhancement Act of 2012''.

SEC. 1702. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services,
Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services,
Foreign Relations, and Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the United States Office for Contingency Operations.
(3) Functions.--The term ``functions'' includes
authorities, powers, rights, privileges, immunities,
programs, projects, activities, duties, and responsibilities.
(4) Imminent stabilization and reconstruction operation.--
The term ``imminent stabilization and reconstruction
operation'' is a condition in a foreign country which the
Director believes may require in the immediate future a
response from the United States and with respect to which
preparation for a stabilization and reconstruction operation
is necessary.
(5) Intelligence community.--The term ``intelligence
community'' has the meaning given that term in section 3(4)
of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
(6) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the United States
Office for Contingency Operations.
(7) Personnel.--The term ``personnel'' means officers and
employees of an Executive agency, except that the term does
not include members of the Armed Forces.
(8) Potential stabilization and reconstruction operation.--
The term ``potential stabilization and reconstruction
operation'' is a possible condition in a foreign country
which in the determination of the Director may require in the
immediate future a response from the United States and with
respect to which preparation for a stabilization and
reconstruction operation is advisable.
(9) Stabilization and reconstruction emergency.--The term
``stabilization and reconstruction emergency'' is a
stabilization and reconstruction operation which is the
subject of a Presidential declaration pursuant to section
1713.
(10) Stabilization and reconstruction operation.--The term
``stabilization and reconstruction operation''--

[[Page H3087]]

(A) means a circumstance in which a combination of
security, reconstruction, relief, and development services,
including assistance for the development of military and
security forces and the provision of infrastructure and
essential services (including services that might be provided
under the authority of chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.; relating to
the Economic Support Fund)), should, in the national interest
of the United States, be provided on the territory of an
unstable foreign country;
(B) does not include a circumstance in which such services
should be provided primarily due to a natural disaster (other
than a natural disaster of cataclysmic proportions); and
(C) does not include intelligence activities.
(11) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used
in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United
States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United
States.

SEC. 1703. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Responsibilities for overseas stability and
reconstruction operations are divided among several agencies.
As a result, lines of responsibility and accountability are
not well-defined.
(2) Despite the establishment of the Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the
Department of State, the reaffirmation of the Coordinator's
mandate by the National Security Presidential Directive 44,
its codification with title XVI of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, and the
issuance of the Department of Defense Directive 3000.05,
serious imbalances and insufficient interagency coordination
remain.
(3) The United States Government has not effectively or
efficiently managed stabilization and reconstruction
operations during recent decades.
(4) Based on trends, the United States will likely continue
to find its involvement necessary in stabilization and
reconstruction operations in foreign countries in the wake of
violence or cataclysmic disaster.
(5) The United States has not adequately learned the
lessons of its recent experiences in stabilization and
reconstruction operations, and despite efforts to improve its
performance is not yet organized institutionally to respond
appropriately to the need to perform stabilization and
reconstruction operations in foreign countries.
(6) The failure to learn the lessons of past stabilization
and reconstruction operations will lead to further
inefficiencies, resulting in greater human and financial
costs.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
(1) advance the national interest of the United States by
providing an effective means to plan for and execute
stabilization and reconstruction operations in foreign
countries;
(2) provide for unity of command, and thus achieve unity of
effort, in the planning and execution of stabilization and
reconstruction operations;
(3) provide accountability for resources dedicated to
stabilization and reconstruction operations;
(4) maximize the efficient use of resources, which may lead
to budget savings, eliminated redundancy in functions, and
improvement in the management of stabilization and
reconstruction operations; and
(5) establish an entity to plan for stabilization and
reconstruction operations and, when directed by the
President, coordinate and execute such operations, eventually
returning responsibility for such operations to other
agencies of the United States Government as the situation
becomes normalized.

SEC. 1704. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

Any provision of this title held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum
effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such
provision shall be deemed severable from this title and shall
not affect the remainder thereof, or the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to
other, dissimilar circumstances.

SEC. 1705. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date that is 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Subtitle A--United States Office for Contingency Operations:
Establishment, Functions, and Personnel

SEC. 1711. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

There is established as an independent entity the United
States Office for Contingency Operations, which shall report
to the Department of State and the Department of Defense.

SEC. 1712. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITIES, FUNCTIONS, PERSONNEL, AND
ASSETS TO THE OFFICE.

(a) Functions Transferred.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, there shall be
transferred to the Office the functions, personnel, assets,
and liabilities of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization
Operations, including the Office of the Coordinator for
Reconstruction and Stabilization of the Department of State.
(b) Functions Transferred, in Whole or in Part.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in addition to the functions,
personnel, assets, and liabilities transferred under
subsection (a), there shall be transferred, in whole or in
part, to the Office, under such conditions as the Director,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management jointly
prescribe, the functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities
of the following:
(A) Civilian organizational entities within the Department
of Defense identified by the Secretary of Defense as--
(i) established to implement Department of Defense
Instruction 3000.05, relating to stability operations; and
(ii) not essential for combat operations.
(B) The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State.
(C) The Office of Transition Initiatives of the United
States Agency for International Development.
(D) The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance of the United
States Agency for International Development.
(E) The Office of Conflict Mitigation and Management of the
United States Agency for International Development.
(F) The International Criminal Investigative Training
Assistance Program of the Department of Justice.
(G) The Department of the Treasury's program to provide
technical assistance to foreign governments and foreign
central banks of developing or transitional countries
authorized under section 129 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and the Office of Technical Assistance of the Department
of the Treasury that manages such program.
(H) The Contingency Acquisition Corps of the General
Services Administration established pursuant to section 2312
of title 41, United States Code.
(2) Reports.--
(A) Before the transfer.--The Director, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, or the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, as appropriate, shall, not
later than 60 days before carrying out a transfer in
accordance with paragraph (1), submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the transfer.
(B) After the transfer.--The Director shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the military
and non-military resources, capabilities, and functions
related to contingency operations of the entities and
agencies transferred pursuant to paragraph (1). If any
capabilities or functions of such entities and agencies were
not so transferred, the Director shall include in such report
an explanation relating to such non-transfer.
(c) Future Transfers and Restructuring.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the functions, personnel,
assets, and liabilities transferred to the Office under
subsections (a) and (b), the Director, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, and the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management may--
(A) transfer to the Office the functions, personnel,
assets, or liabilities, in whole or in part, of any office,
agency, bureau, program, or other entity that such Directors
determine appropriate;
(B) transfer to the Office up to 150 skilled Federal
personnel with expertise in contingency operations; and
(C) restructure the Office as such Directors determine
appropriate to better carry out its functions and
responsibilities.
(2) Reports.--If the Director, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, and the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management undertake a transfer or a restructuring
in accordance with subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively,
of paragraph (1), the Director, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, or the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, as appropriate, shall, not later than
60 days before carrying out any such transfer or
restructuring, submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on such transfer or restructuring.

SEC. 1713. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND OTHER OFFICES.

(a) Director.--
(1) In general.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
who shall be--
(A) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate; and
(B) compensated at the rate of basic pay for level II of
the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Supervision.--
(A) In general.--The Director shall report directly to, and
be under the general supervision of, the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Defense. Such supervision may not be
delegated.
(B) Information sharing.--The Director shall keep the
National Security Advisor fully and continually informed of
the activities of the Office.
(3) Functions.--The functions of the Director shall include
the following:
(A) Monitoring, in coordination with relevant offices and
bureaus of the Department of Defense, the Department of
State, and the

[[Page H3088]]

United States Agency for International Development, political
and economic instability worldwide in order to anticipate the
need for mobilizing United States and international
assistance for the stabilization and reconstruction of a
country or region that is at risk of, in, or in transition
from, conflict or civil strife.
(B) Assessing the various types of stabilization and
reconstruction crises that could occur and cataloging and
monitoring the military and non-military resources,
capabilities, and functions of agencies that are available to
address such crises.
(C) Planning to address requirements, such as
demobilization, disarmament, capacity building, rebuilding of
civil society, policing and security sector reform, and
monitoring and strengthening respect for human rights that
commonly arise in stabilization and reconstruction crises.
(D) Developing, in coordination with all relevant agencies,
contingency plans and procedures to mobilize and deploy
civilian and military personnel to conduct stabilization and
reconstruction operations.
(E) Coordinating with counterparts in foreign governments
and international and nongovernmental organizations on
stabilization and reconstruction operations to improve
effectiveness and avoid duplication.
(F) Building the operational readiness of the Civilian
Response Corps and strengthening personnel requirements to
enhance its essential interagency quality.
(G) Aiding the President, as the President may request, in
preparing such rules and regulations as the President
prescribes, for the planning, coordination, and execution of
stabilization and reconstruction operations.
(H) Advising the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense, as the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
Defense may request, on any matters pertaining to the
planning, coordination, and execution of stabilization and
reconstruction operations.
(I) Planning and conducting, in cooperation with the
Secretary of State, the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, the Secretary of
Defense, and commanders of unified combatant commands or
specified combatant commands, a series of exercises to test
and evaluate doctrine relating to stabilization and
reconstruction operations and procedures to be used in such
operations.
(J) Executing, administering, and enforcing laws, rules,
and regulations relating to the preparation, coordination,
and execution of stabilization and reconstruction operations.
(K) Administering such funds as may be appropriated or
otherwise made available for the preparation, coordination
and execution of stabilization and reconstruction operations.
(L) Planning for the use of contractors who will be
involved in stabilization and reconstruction operations,
including coordinating with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense to ensure coordination of the work of
such contractors with the work of contractors supporting--
(i) the Secretary of State; and
(ii) military operations and members of the Armed Forces.
(M) Prescribing standards and policies for project and
financial reporting for all agencies involved in
stabilization and reconstruction operations under the
direction of the Office to ensure that all activities
undertaken by such agencies are appropriately tracked and
accounted for.
(N) Establishing an interagency training, preparation, and
evaluation framework for all personnel deployed, or who may
be deployed, in support of stabilization and reconstruction
operations. Such training and preparation shall be developed
and administered in partnership with such universities,
colleges, or other institutions (whether public, private, or
governmental) as the Director may determine and which agree
to participate.
(4) Responsibilities of director for monitoring and
evaluation requirements.--
(A) Evaluations.--The Director shall plan and conduct
evaluations of the impact of stabilization and reconstruction
operations carried out by the Office.
(B) Reports.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the end of
each fiscal-year quarter, the Director shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report summarizing all
stabilization and reconstruction operations that are taking
place under the supervision of the Director during the period
of each such quarter and, to the extent possible, the period
from the end of each such quarter to the time of the
submission of each such report. Each such report shall
include, for the period covered by each such report, a
detailed statement of all obligations, expenditures, and
revenues associated with such stabilization and
reconstruction operations, including the following:

(I) Obligations and expenditures of appropriated funds.
(II) A project-by-project and program-by-program accounting
of the costs incurred to date for the stabilization and
reconstruction operation that are taking place, together with
the estimate of any department or agency that is undertaking
a project in or for the stabilization and reconstruction of
such country, as applicable, of the costs to complete each
project and each program.
(III) Revenues attributable to or consisting of funds
provided by foreign countries or international organizations,
and any obligations or expenditures of such revenues.
(IV) Revenues attributable to or consisting of foreign
assets seized or frozen, and any obligations or expenditures
of such revenues.
(V) An analysis on the impact of stabilization and
reconstruction operations overseen by the Office, including
an analysis of civil-military coordination with respect to
the Office.

(ii) Form.--Each report under this subsection may include a
classified annex if the Director determines such is
appropriate.
(iii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to authorize the public disclosure of
information that is specifically prohibited from disclosure
by any other provision of law, specifically required by
Executive order to be protected from disclosure in the
interest of national defense or national security or in the
conduct of foreign affairs, or a part of an ongoing criminal
investigation.
(b) Deputy Director.--
(1) In general.--There shall be within the Office a Deputy
Director, who shall be--
(A) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate; and
(B) compensated at the rate of basic pay for level III of
the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Functions.-- The Deputy Director shall perform such
functions as the Director may from time to time prescribe,
and shall act as Director during the absence or disability of
the Director or in the event of a vacancy in the Office of
the Director.
(c) Associate Directors.--
(1) In general.--There shall be within the Office not more
than two Associate Directors, who shall be--
(A) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate; and
(B) compensated at the rate of basic pay for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Functions.--The Associate Directors shall perform such
functions as the Director may from time to time prescribe.
(3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that of
the two Associate Directors referred to in this subsection--
(A) one should be highly experienced in defense matters;
and
(B) one should be highly experienced in diplomacy and
development matters.
(d) Functions of the President.--
(1) Declaration.--The President may, if the President finds
that the circumstances and national security interests of the
United States so require, declare that a stabilization and
reconstruction emergency exists and shall determine the
geographic extent and the date of the commencement of such
emergency. The President may amend the declaration as
circumstances warrant.
(2) Termination.--If the President determines that a
stabilization and reconstruction emergency declared under
paragraph (1) is or will be no longer be in existence, the
President may terminate, immediately or prospectively, a
prior declaration that such an emergency exists.
(3) Publication in federal register.--Declarations under
this subsection shall be published in the Federal Register.
(e) Authorities of Office Following Presidential
Declaration.--If the President declares a stabilization and
reconstruction emergency pursuant to subsection (d), the
President may delegate to the Director the authority to
coordinate all Federal efforts with respect to such
stabilization and reconstruction emergency, including the
authority to direct any Federal agency to support such
efforts, with or without reimbursement.

SEC. 1714. PERSONNEL SYSTEM.

(a) Personnel.--
(1) In general.--The Director may select, appoint, and
employ such personnel as may be necessary for carrying out
the duties of the Office, subject to the provisions of title
5, United States Code, governing appointments in the excepted
service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III
of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates, and may exercise the authorities
of subsections (b) through (i) of section 3161 of title 5,
United States Code (to the same extent and in the same manner
as those authorities may be exercised by an organization
described in subsection (a) of such section). In exercising
the employment authorities under subsection (b) of such
section 3161, paragraph (2) of such subsection (relating to
periods of appointments) shall not apply.
(2) Subdivisions of office; delegation of functions.--The
Director may establish bureaus, offices, divisions, and other
units within the Office. The Director may from time to time
make provision for the performance of any function of the
Director by any officer or employee, or office, division, or
other unit of the Office.
(3) Reemployment authorities.--The provisions of section
9902(g) of title 5, United States Code, shall apply with
respect to the Office. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, such provisions shall be applied--
(A) by substituting ``the United States Office for
Contingency Operations'' for ``the Department of Defense''
each place it appears;
(B) by substituting ``the Stabilization and Reconstruction
Operations Interagency Enhancement Act of 2012'' for ``the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Public Law 108 136)'' in paragraph (2)(A) thereof; and

[[Page H3089]]

(C) by substituting ``the Director of the United States
Office for Contingency Operations'' for ``the Secretary'' in
paragraph (4) thereof.
(b) Interim Officers.--
(1) In general.--The President may authorize any persons
who, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act,
held positions in the Executive Branch of the Government, to
act as Director, Deputy Director, Associate Director, and
Inspector General of the Office until such positions are for
the first time filled in accordance with the provisions of
this Act or by recess appointment, as the case may be.
(2) Compensation.--The President may authorize any such
person described in paragraph (1) to receive the compensation
attached to the Office in respect of which such person so
serves, in lieu of other compensation from the United States.
(c) Contracting Services.--
(1) In general.--The Director may obtain services of
experts and consultants as authorized by section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code.
(2) Assistance.--To the extent and in such amounts as may
be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, the Inspector
General may enter into contracts and other arrangements for
audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public
agencies and with private persons, and make such payments as
may be necessary to carry out the duties of the Inspector
General.
(d) Incentivizing Expertise in Personnel Tasked for
Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations.--
(1) Study.--The Director shall commission a study to
measure the effectiveness of personnel in stabilization and
reconstruction operations. The study shall seek to identify
the most appropriate qualifications for personnel and
incentive strategies for agencies to effectively recruit and
deploy employees to support stabilization and reconstruction
operations.
(2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
in the selection and appointment of any individual for a
position both within the Office and other agencies in support
of stabilization and reconstruction operations, due
consideration should be given to such individual's expertise
in such operations and interagency experience and
qualifications.

Subtitle B--Preparing and Executing Stability and Reconstruction
Operations

SEC. 1721. SOLE CONTROL.

The Director shall have sole control over the coordination
of stabilization and reconstruction operations.

SEC. 1722. RELATION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND UNITED STATES
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

(a) Coordination.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall to the greatest degree
practicable coordinate with the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development
regarding the Office's plans for stabilization and
reconstruction operations. The Director shall give the
greatest possible weight to the views of the Secretary and
the Administrator on matters within their jurisdiction.
During a declaration under section 1713 of a stabilization
and reconstruction emergency, the Director shall work closely
with the Secretary and the Administrator in planning,
executing, and transitioning operations relevant to their
respective jurisdictions.
(2) In-country.--During a stabilization and reconstruction
emergency, the Director shall work closely with the Chief of
Mission, or with the most senior Department of State or
Agency for International Development officials responsible
for the country in which such emergency exists, to ensure
that the actions of the Office do not conflict with the
foreign or development policies of the United States.
(b) Detailing.--The heads of the various departments and
agencies of the United States Government (other than the
Secretary of Defense) shall provide for the detail on a
reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis of such civilian
personnel as may be agreed between such heads and the
Director for the purposes of carrying out this Act. The heads
of such departments and agencies shall provide for
appropriate recognition and career progress for individuals
who are so detailed upon their return from such details.

SEC. 1723. RELATION TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMBATANT
COMMANDS PERFORMING MILITARY MISSIONS.

(a) Coordination With Secretary of Defense and Combatant
Commands.--To the greatest degree practicable, the Director
shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense and commanders
of unified and specified combatant commands established under
section 161 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the
plans of the Office for stabilization and reconstruction
operations.
(b) Staff Coordination.--The Director shall detail
personnel of the Office to serve on the staff of a combatant
command to assist in planning when a military operation will
involve likely Armed Forces interaction with non-combatant
populations, so that plans for a stabilization and
reconstruction operation related to a military operation--
(1) complement the work of military planners; and
(2) as provided in subsection (c), ease interaction between
civilian direct-hire employees and contractors in support of
the stabilization and reconstruction operation and the Armed
Forces.
(c) Limitations.--
(1) Director.--The authority of the Director shall not
extend to small-scale programs (other than economic
development programs of more than a de minimis amount)
designated by the Secretary of Defense as necessary to
promote a safe operating environment for the Armed Forces or
other friendly forces.
(2) Military order.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as permitting the Director or any of the personnel of the
Office (other than a member of the Armed Forces assigned to
the Office under subsection (e)) to issue a military order.
(d) Support.--
(1) Assistance required.--The commanders of combatant
commands shall provide assistance, to the greatest degree
practicable, to the Director and the personnel of the Office
as they carry out their responsibilities.
(2) Personnel.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide for
the detail or assignment, on a reimbursable or
nonreimbursable basis, to the staff of the Office of such
Department of Defense personnel and members of the Armed
Forces as may be agreed between the Secretary and the
Director as necessary to carry out the duties of the Office.

SEC. 1724. CONTINGENCY FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.

(a) Requirement To Prescribe Contingency Federal
Acquisition Regulation.--The Director, in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall
prescribe a Contingency Federal Acquisition Regulation. The
Regulation shall apply, under such circumstances as the
Director prescribes, in lieu of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation with respect to contracts intended for use in or
with respect to stabilization and reconstruction emergencies
or in imminent or potential stabilization and reconstruction
operations.
(b) Preference to Certain Contracts.--It is the sense of
Congress that the Contingency Federal Acquisition Regulation
required by subsection (a) should include provisions
requiring an agency to give a preference to contracts that
appropriately, efficiently, and sustainably implement
programs and projects undertaken in support of a
stabilization and reconstruction operation.
(c) Deadline.--The Director shall prescribe the Contingency
Federal Acquisition Regulation required by subsection (a) by
the date occurring one year after the date of the enactment
of this Act. If the Director does not prescribe the
Regulation by that date, the Director shall submit to
Congress a statement explaining why the deadline was not met.

SEC. 1725. STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION FUND.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), there is
established in the Treasury of the United States a fund, to
be known as the ``Stabilization and Reconstruction Emergency
Reserve Fund'', to be administered by the Director at the
direction of the President and with the consent of the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense for the
following purposes with respect to a stabilization and
reconstruction operation:
(1) Development of water and sanitation infrastructure.
(2) Providing food distribution and development of
sustained production.
(3) Supporting relief efforts related to refugees,
internally displaced persons, and vulnerable individuals,
including assistance for families of innocent civilians who
suffer losses as a result of military operations.
(4) Providing electricity.
(5) Providing healthcare relief and developing sustained
healthcare.
(6) Development of telecommunications.
(7) Development of economic and financial policy.
(8) Development of education.
(9) Development of transportation infrastructure.
(10) Establishment and enforcement of rule of law.
(11) Humanitarian demining.
(12) Development of agriculture.
(13) Peace enforcement, peacekeeping, and post-conflict
peacebuilding.
(14) Development of justice and public safety
infrastructure.
(15) Development of security and law enforcement.
(16) Observation and enforcement of human rights.
(17) Development of governance, democratization, and
building the capacity of government.
(18) Development of natural resource infrastructure.
(19) Establishment of environmental protection.
(20) Protection of vulnerable populations including women,
children, the aged, and minorities.
(21) The operations of the Office.
(22) Any other purpose which the Director considers
essential to address the emergency.
(b) Congressional Notification.--
(1) Presidential direction.--At the time the President
directs the Director to carry out or support an activity
described in subsection (a), the President shall transmit to
appropriate congressional committees a written notification
of such direction.
(2) Activities in a country.--Not less than 15 days before
carrying out or supporting an activity described in
subsection (a), the Director shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees information related to the budget,
implementation timeline (including milestones), and
transition strategy

[[Page H3090]]

with respect to such activity and the stabilization or
reconstruction operation at issue.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--No funds are
authorized to be appropriated to the fund established in
subsection (a) other than pursuant to a law enacted after the
date of the enactment of this Act. Any such sums authorized
to be appropriated--
(1) shall be available until expended;
(2) shall not be made available for obligation or
expenditure until the President declares a stabilization and
reconstruction emergency pursuant to section 1713; and
(3) shall be in addition to any other funds made available
for such purposes.

Subtitle C--Responsibilities of the Inspector General

SEC. 1731. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

(a) In General.--There shall be within the Office an Office
of the Inspector General, the head of which shall be the
Inspector General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations (in this title referred to as the ``Inspector
General''), who shall be appointed as provided in section
3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
(b) Technical Amendments and Additional Authorities.--The
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App) is amended--
(1) in section 12--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the United States
Office for Contingency Operations;'' after ``the President of
the Export-Import Bank;''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the United States
Office for Contingency Operations,'' after ``the Federal
Housing Finance Agency,'';
(2) in section 8J, by striking ``8E or 8F'' and inserting
``8E, 8F, or 8M''; and
(3) by inserting after section 8L the following new
section:

``SEC. 8M. SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

``(a) Special Audit and Investigative Authority.--
``(1) In general.--When directed by the President, or
otherwise provided by law, and in addition to the other
duties and responsibilities specified in this Act, the
Inspector General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations--
``(A) shall, with regard to the activities of the United
States Office for Contingency Operations, have special audit
and investigative authority over all accounts, spending,
programs, projects, and operations; and
``(B) shall have special audit and investigative authority
over the activities described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Activities described.--The activities described in
this paragraph are activities funded or undertaken by the
United States Government that are not undertaken by or under
the direction or supervision of the Director of the United
States Office for Contingency Operations--
``(A) in response to emergencies, destabilization, armed
conflict, or events that otherwise require stabilization or
reconstruction operations;
``(B) where a rapid response by the United States is
required or anticipated to be required; and
``(C) where the Inspector General is more well-suited than
the implementing department or agency to engage rapidly in
audit and investigative activities.
``(3) Administrative operations.--In any case in which the
Inspector General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations is exercising or preparing to exercise special
audit and investigative authority under this subsection, the
head of any department or agency undertaking or preparing to
undertake the activities described in paragraph (2) shall
provide such Inspector General with appropriate and adequate
office space within the offices of such department or agency
or at appropriate locations of that department or agency
overseas, together with such equipment, office supplies, and
communications facilities and services as may be necessary
for the operation of such offices, and shall provide
necessary maintenance services for such offices and the
equipment and facilities located therein.
``(b) Additional Duties.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be the duty of the Inspector
General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations to conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and
investigations of the treatment, handling, and expenditure of
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for
activities to be carried out by or under the direction or
supervision of the Director of the United States Office for
Contingency Operations, or for activities subject to the
special audit and investigative authority of such Inspector
General under subsection (a), and of the programs,
operations, and contracts carried out utilizing such funds,
including--
``(A) the oversight and accounting of the obligation and
expenditure of such funds;
``(B) the monitoring and review of activities funded by
such funds;
``(C) the monitoring and review of contracts funded by such
funds;
``(D) the monitoring and review of the transfer of such
funds and associated information between and among
departments, agencies, and entities of the United States, and
private and nongovernmental entities; and
``(E) the maintenance of records on the use of such funds
to facilitate future audits and investigations of the use of
such funds.
``(2) Systems, procedures, and controls.--The Inspector
General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations shall establish, maintain, and oversee such
systems, procedures, and controls as such Inspector General
considers appropriate to discharge the duty under paragraph
(1).
``(c) Personnel Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the United
States Office for Contingency Operations may select, appoint,
and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary
for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the
Office, subject to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the excepted service, and the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
such title, relating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates.
``(2) Employment authority.--The Inspector General of the
United States Office for Contingency Operations may exercise
the authorities of subsections (b) through (i) of section
3161 of title 5, United States Code (without regard to
subsection (a) of that section). In exercising the employment
authorities under subsection (b) of section 3161 of title 5,
United States Code, as provided under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, paragraph (2) of such subsection (b) (relating to
periods of appointments) shall not apply.
``(3) Exemption.--Section 6(a)(7) shall not apply with
respect to the Inspector General of the United States Office
for Contingency Operations.
``(d) Reports.--
``(1) Quarterly reports.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
each fiscal-year quarter, the Inspector General of the United
States Office for Contingency Operations shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report in accordance
with subparagraph (B) that summarizes for the period of that
quarter and, to the extent possible, the period from the end
of such quarter to the time of the submission of the report,
the activities of such Inspector General and the activities
under programs and operations funded with amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for activities
carried out by or under the direction or supervision of the
Director of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations.
``(B) Contents of quarterly report.--Each report submitted
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall include, for the period
covered by such report, a detailed statement of all
obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with
reconstruction and rehabilitation activities by or under the
direction or supervision of the Director of the United States
Office for Contingency Operations, or under the special audit
and investigative authority under subsection (a) of the
Inspector General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations, and segregated by area (as may be prescribed by
such Inspector General), including the following:
``(i) Obligations and expenditures of appropriated funds.
``(ii) A project-by-project and program-by-program
accounting of the costs incurred to date by such Office or
under the direction or supervision of such Office, or under
the special audit and investigative authority of such
Inspector General, for each stabilization and reconstruction
operation, together with the estimate of the department or
agency of the United States, as applicable, of the costs to
complete each project and each program.
``(iii) Revenues attributable to or consisting of funds
provided by foreign countries or international organizations,
and any obligations or expenditures of such revenues.
``(iv) Revenues attributable to or consisting of foreign
assets seized or frozen, and any obligations or expenditures
of such revenues.
``(v) Operating expenses of departments, agencies, or other
entities receiving amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available to or obligated or expended under the direction or
supervision of such Director.
``(vi) In the case of a covered contract--

``(I) the amount of such contract;
``(II) a brief discussion of the scope of such contract;
``(III) a discussion of how the relevant department,
agency, or other entity identified, and solicited offers
from, potential contractors to perform the contract, together
with a list of the potential contractors that were issued
solicitations for the offers; and
``(IV) the extent to which competitive procedures were used
for such contract.

``(C) Report coordination.--Each report under this
paragraph shall be furnished to the head of the establishment
involved not later than 30 days after the submission of the
report under subparagraph (A) and shall be transmitted by
such head to the appropriate committees of the Congress not
later than 30 days after receipt of the report, together with
a report by the head of the establishment containing any
comments such head determines appropriate, including a
classified annex if such head considers it necessary.
``(2) Semiannual reports.--The Inspector General of the
United States Office for Contingency Operations shall submit
to the appropriate committees a semiannual report that
includes a summary of the activities of the Office, including
activities described in paragraphs (1) through (13) of
section 5(a) of this Act. The first such report for a year,
covering the first six months of the year, shall be submitted
not later than August 30

[[Page H3091]]

of that year, and the second such report, covering the second
six months of the year, shall be submitted not later than
February 28 of the following year.
``(3) Waiver.--
``(A) In general.--The President may waive any of the
requirements to be included in the reports under paragraph
(1) or (2) if the President determines that the waiver is
justified for national security reasons.
``(B) Notice of waiver.--The President shall publish a
notice of each waiver made under this paragraph in the
Federal Register not later than the date on which the report
for which a waiver was made is required to be submitted to
Congress under paragraph (1) or (2).
``(C) Description of waiver in report.--The reports
required under paragraph (1) or (2) shall specify whether
waivers under this paragraph were made and with respect to
which requirements.
``(4) Reports under section 5 of this act.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to reports otherwise
required to be submitted under this subsection, the Inspector
General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations--
``(i) may issue periodic reports of a similar nature to the
quarterly reports submitted under paragraph (1) with respect
to activities subject to the special audit and investigative
authority of such Inspector General under subsection (a); and
``(ii) if such Inspector General did not engage, during any
six month period, in audit or investigation activities with
respect to activities carried out under the direction or
supervision of the Director, shall issue a report, not later
than six months after the previous report was issued under
this subsection that includes a summary of the activities of
the Office, including activities described in paragraphs (1)
through (13) of section 5(a) of this Act.
``(B) Exemption.--The Inspector General of the United
States Office for Contingency Operations is not required to
provide reports under section 5 of this Act.
``(5) Language of reports.--The Inspector General of the
United States Office for Contingency Operations shall publish
each report under this subsection in both English and to the
degree that the Inspector General shall prescribe, in
languages relevant to the host country.
``(6) Form of submission.--Each report under this
subsection may include a classified annex if the Inspector
General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations considers it necessary.
``(7) Disclosure of certain information.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to authorize the public
disclosure of information that is--
``(A) specifically prohibited from disclosure by any other
provision of law;
``(B) specifically required by Executive order to be
protected from disclosure in the interest of national defense
or national security or in the conduct of foreign affairs; or
``(C) a part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Appropriate committees.--The term `appropriate
committees' means--
``(A) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services,
Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives; and
``(B) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services,
Foreign Relations, and Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
``(2) Covered contract.--The term `covered contract' means
a contract entered into by any department or agency, with any
public or private sector entity, in any geographic area with
regard to a stabilization or reconstruction operation or
where the Inspector General of the United States Office for
Contingency Operations is exercising its special audit or
investigative authority for the performance of any of the
following:
``(A) To build or rebuild physical infrastructure of such
area.
``(B) To establish or reestablish a political or
governmental institution of such area.
``(C) To provide products or services to the local
population of the area.
``(3) Department or agency.--The term `department or
agency' means any agency as defined under section 551 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(4) Stabilization and reconstruction operation.--The term
`stabilization and reconstruction operation' has the meaning
given the term in section 1702 of the Stabilization and
Reconstruction Operations Interagency Enhancement Act of
2012.''.
(c) Transfer and Termination of the Office of the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the
Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction.--
(1) Transfer.--The following shall be transferred to the
Office of the Inspector General of the United States Office
for Contingency Operations:
(A)(i) All functions vested by law on the day before the
effective date of this Act in the Office of the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction or the Inspector
General of such office.
(ii) All functions vested by law on the day before the
effective date of this Act in the Office of the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction or the
Inspector General of such office.
(B) All personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Office of
the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, and
all personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Office of the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
(2) Exercise of functions.--The Inspector General shall
exercise all functions transferred by paragraph (1)(A) on and
after the effective date of this Act.
(3) Personnel classification and compensation.--The
transfer of personnel pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) shall not
alter the terms and conditions of employment, including
compensation and classification, of any employee so
transferred.
(4) Termination.--
(A) Iraq reconstruction functions.--
(i) In general.--The authority of the Inspector General to
exercise the functions transferred by paragraph (1)(A)(i)
shall terminate 180 days after the date on which amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the
reconstruction of Iraq that are unexpended are less than
$250,000,000.
(ii) Definition.--In clause (i), the term ``amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the
reconstruction of Iraq'' has the meaning given the term in
section 3001(m) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and
Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108 106; 117 Stat. 1238; 5
U.S.C. App., note to section 8G), as such section was in
effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.
(B) Afghanistan reconstruction functions.--
(i) In general.--The authority of the Inspector General to
exercise the functions transferred by paragraph (1)(A)(ii)
shall terminate 180 days after the date on which amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the
reconstruction of Afghanistan that are unexpended are less
than $250,000,000.
(ii) Definition.--In clause (i), the term ``amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the
reconstruction of Afghanistan'' has the meaning given the
term in section 1229(m) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110 181; 122 Stat. 384),
as such section was in effect on the day before the effective
date of this Act.
(5) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
(A) Section 3001 of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108 106; 117 Stat.
1234; 5 U.S.C. App., note to section 8G).
(B) Section 1229 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110 181; 122 Stat. 378).
(d) Savings Provisions.--
(1) Completed administrative actions.--(A) Completed
administrative actions of the Office of the Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the Office of the
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction shall not
be affected by the enactment of this Act or the transfer of
such offices to the Office of the Inspector General of the
United States Office for Contingency Operations, but shall
continue in effect according to their terms until amended,
modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked in
accordance with law by an officer of the United States or a
court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``completed
administrative action'' includes orders, determinations,
rules, regulations, personnel actions, permits, agreements,
grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations, and
privileges.
(2) Pending civil actions.--Pending civil actions shall
continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act or the
transfer of the Office of the Special Inspector General for
Afghanistan Reconstruction and the Office of the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to the Office of
the Inspector General of the United States Office for
Contingency Operations, and in such civil actions,
proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and judgments
rendered and enforced in the same manner and with the same
effect as if such enactment or transfer had not occurred.
(3) References.--References relating to the Office of the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and
the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction that is transferred to the Office of the
Inspector General of the United States Office for Contingency
Operations in statutes, Executive orders, rules, regulations,
directives, or delegations of authority that precede such
transfer or the effective date of this Act shall be deemed to
refer, as appropriate, to the Office of the Inspector General
of the United States Office for Contingency Operations, to
its officers, employees, or agents, or to its corresponding
organizational units or functions.

Subtitle D--Responsibilities of Other Agencies

SEC. 1741. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER AGENCIES FOR MONITORING
AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.

The head of any agency under the authority of the Director
in support of a stabilization and reconstruction operation
pursuant to section 1713 shall submit to the Director--
(1) on-going evaluations of the impact of such
stabilization and reconstruction operation on such agency,
including an assessment of interagency coordination in
support of such operation;
(2) any information the Director requests, including
reports, evaluations, analyses, or

[[Page H3092]]

assessments, to permit the Director to satisfy the quarterly
reporting requirement under section 1713(a)(4); and
(3) an identification, within each such agency, of all
current and former employees skilled in crisis response,
including employees employed by contract, and information
regarding each such agency's authority mechanisms to reassign
or reemploy such skilled personnel and mobilize rapidly
associated resources in response to such operation.

SEC. 1742. TRANSITION OF STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS.

(a) Termination.--Upon Presidential termination of a
stabilization and reconstruction emergency pursuant to
section 1713(d)(2), any effort of a Federal agency under the
authority of the Director pursuant to section 1713 in support
of a related stabilization and reconstruction operation shall
return to the authority of such agency.
(b) Scale-down Operations.--The President, in consultation
with the Director, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary
of Defense, shall delegate to appropriate Federal agencies
post-stabilization and reconstruction emergency operations.

SEC. 1743. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that, to the extent possible,
the Director and staff should partner with the country in
which a stabilization and reconstruction operation is taking
place, other foreign government partners, international
organizations, and local nongovernmental organizations
throughout the planning, implementation, and particularly
during the transition stages of such operations to facilitate
long term capacity building and sustainability of
initiatives.

Subtitle E--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 1751. OFFSET OF COSTS IN ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Director--
(1) shall reduce obligations for overseas response
activities of the Office by not less than $7,000,000 from the
amount obligated during fiscal year 2012 for overseas
response activities by the Bureau of Conflict and
Stabilization Operations and the Office of the Coordinator
for Civilian Reconstruction and Stabilization; and
(2) may adjust, consolidate, or eliminate initiatives,
positions, and programs to be incorporated within the Office
(other than within the Office of Inspector General)--
(A) in order to achieve economies in operation; and
(B) in order to align the operations of the initiatives,
positions, and programs more closely with the purposes of
this title as stated in section 1703(b).
(b) Reduction in Costs.--In addition to the authority
granted in subsection (a), the Director shall take such steps
as the Director determines necessary to ensure, in each
fiscal year, that costs incurred to carry out the provisions
of this title do not exceed the sum of--
(1) 80 percent of amounts obligated in fiscal year 2012 for
initiatives, positions, and programs transferred to the
Office pursuant to this title other than those relating to
the Inspector General of the Office; and
(2) 100 percent of the amounts obligated in fiscal year
2012 for initiatives, positions, and programs transferred to
the Office pursuant to this Act relating to the Inspector
General of the Office.
(c) Report.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Director shall submit to Congress not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act a report on the
actions taken to ensure compliance with subsections (a) and
(b), including the specific initiatives, positions, and
programs that have been adjusted or eliminated to ensure that
the costs of carrying out this title will be offset.

SEC. 1752. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017 an amount
that does not exceed the amount determined pursuant to
section 1751(b) of this title.

SEC. 1753. SUNSET.

This title (other than this section) shall cease to be
effective on September 30, 2017.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CARNAHAN. At this time, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. McKEON. I am happy to oblige.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment integrates duplicative functions related to overseas
contingency operation planning, management, and oversight into the U.S.
Office for Contingency Operations--responding to a litany of concerns
that have been raised in recent years pointing to the mismanagement of
U.S. tax dollars in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact, last August, the Commission on Wartime Contracting estimated
that as much as $30 billion to $60 billion may have been lost due to
waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Poor accountability and
oversight has also undermined the effectiveness of U.S. operations.
As the commission's report notes, there will be a next contingency,
whether it takes the form of overseas hostilities or responding to
emergencies like terror attacks, natural disasters, or other
humanitarian crises. We must take action to ensure we are fully
prepared for these scenarios.
Systemic problems within the U.S. Government have contributed to
serious flaws in the preparation, management, and execution of
contingency operations. Currently, responsibilities for these
initiatives are spread over several U.S. departments and agencies,
resulting in diffused accountability. While there have been positive
steps to address issues of coordination, a great deal more needs to be
done.
In fact, many of our key allies in NATO already have agencies or
offices with cross-cutting functions, similar to that proposed in my
amendment, that reflect the nature of the 21st century security
challenges we face. It will certainly require an act of this body to
streamline our system. More importantly, it is our duty as Members of
Congress to exercise the strict oversight of conflict and stabilization
initiatives. As then-Senator Harry Truman found when fighting the waste
and mismanagement of funding during World War II, effective
congressional oversight cannot only save lives and money, it makes our
efforts stronger.
For these reasons, I have worked over the past couple of years to
develop this legislation, with many others' input, that integrates
duplicative functions into one streamlined office. It further ensures
the proper acquisition, planning, contract management, and enhanced
inspector general oversight to protect our resources from waste, fraud,
and abuse. Beyond safeguarding spending, it promotes the readiness and
safety of our deployed personnel and of our overall ability to
effectively execute operations.
Chairman McKeon, I understand you have raised some questions with
regard to this amendment. I respect your points that you have made, and
will be withdrawing this amendment. However, I would like to work with
you and the committee in responding to these issues so we then have an
opportunity to move this concept forward. Specifically, I hope the
Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on this legislation and
work toward incorporating its goals during the conference committee of
this authorization bill.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for his efforts in addressing such
a complex and serious issue.
I agree that much needs to be done to improve our contingency
contracting outcomes and to preserve and integrate the lessons learned
over the last 10 years. The committee report accompanying the bill
takes action on many of these same concerns. The committee will pursue
this issue going forward to explore additional recommendations for
systemic improvements to operational combat support and stabilization
and reconstruction programs, including the proposal represented by the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I thank the chairman for that commitment.
I now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment from further
consideration, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Petri

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, insert the
following:

SEC. 2824. DEFINITION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ENERGY SECURITY.

Section 2924(7)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and direct solar renewable energy''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.

[[Page H3093]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. PETRI. I join with my colleague, Representative Hank Johnson, in
offering this amendment today.
The budget year 2007 Defense Authorization Act created a statutory
goal that 25 percent of the energy utilized by the Department of
Defense facilities come from renewable energy sources by 2025.

{time} 0100

The budget year 2010 Defense authorization act modified that goal to
explicitly include renewable energy technologies like geothermal heat
pumps that do not first convert energy to electricity, but instead use
the energy directly to accomplish a task such as heating or cooling a
building.
One technology--direct solar--is becoming increasingly prevalent
throughout our economy, but that was left out of the changes made in
the budget year 2010 act. Direct-use solar energy technology channels
solar energy in the form of sunlight into a building using light pipes
to provide interior lighting that is similar to traditional
electrically powered lighting. Direct solar allows much of a building's
internal lighting to come from sunlight, relying on electrical lighting
only in the off-peak evening hours or when sunlight is diminished.
The amendment before us would simply clarify that direct-use solar
energy, like geothermal heat pumps and other direct-use technologies
that are now included, is considered a renewable energy source for the
purposes of this requirement. This change was included in the House
NDAA bill last year; however, it was unfortunately not included in the
final conference report.
These changes will provide the Department of Defense with the
flexibility to meet its energy requirements more quickly and in a more
cost-effective way.
I respectfully request that my colleagues support this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Guam is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I appreciate the gentleman's support for direct-solar energy,
this provision helps a specific technology to gain greater business
opportunities. Unfortunately, their technology--direct solar--does not
generate electricity or energy. It simply dispenses sunlight from
skylights. If this amendment were to pass, the Department of Defense
could meet all of their renewable-energy goals simply by accounting for
light through windows, and this is not wise.
By adopting this amendment, we head down a slippery slope whereby we
begin to highlight specific technologies in statute. And given the
evolving nature of these technologies, that is not wise. The Department
of Energy is the lead Department for defining energy standards and
definitions, and this amendment undermines that expertise. Again, this
seemingly innocuous amendment has some significant unintended
consequences.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. This is not a window or a skylight. This is a technology
that gathers the light through a lens, moves it through a light pipe,
which then a fiber optical cable moves electrical light around the
building. So it goes from the first floor, sometimes to the third or
fourth floor down in the building. It is used by Coca-Cola and many
other companies in the private sector. It's modern technology. It saves
energy. It will save money so that we can meet our important defense
needs without wasting money on unnecessary technology that moves it
from solar to electricity and back to light, wasting a lot of energy in
the process.
I yield to my colleague from Maryland.
Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much for yielding.
In the late seventies and early eighties, I was a land developer and
homebuilder, among other things I was involved in. And I built 41
houses in one subdivision that used direct solar.
Direct solar simply means that you're using the sunlight directly
without having it differentially warm the air so that you get wind
blowing or turning a wind machine or it's shining on some solar panels
that produce electricity.
You can use direct solar for a couple of different things. One is
space warming. You simply have a lot of gas on the south side of the
house and design it open so the air flows through it, or you can use it
for lighting. There is no better light. Any building that's on the top
floor, you don't need any windows on the side; you need windows on the
top to let light in. It's an enormous energy saver. It's a very
efficient use of light. I have no idea why every building shouldn't
incorporate direct solar as much.
Thank you, sir, for your amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. PETRI. I urge that this House not prefer one particular
technology, which is currently the case, but allow a variety of
technologies to meet the goal of a more energy-efficient society.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Washington 30
seconds.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, that all sounds good; but the
one thing that direct solar apparently can't do is actually generate
energy and generate electricity. That's the problem with including it
in the program for alternative energy. It may well be a very good
thing, and it may be something we ought to do; but to say that it's
going to count as an alternative energy source when it's not actually
an energy source is what we object, to pure and simply; and it does not
fit in this category.
That's why I join the gentlelady from Guam in opposing the amendment.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, by allowing direct solar to be used to
meet the DOD goal of producing or procuring 25 percent of its energy
from renewable sources by 2025 would also permit sunlight from windows
to be counted toward meeting that goal.
Unlike a heat pump that converts the renewable geothermal source into
electricity, direct solar does not convert the renewable solar source
into electricity. It disperses light into a room similar to a skylight.
The underlying law that this amendment seeks to modify states that
``renewable energy source'' means energy generated from renewable
sources. Direct solar does not generate energy, and the sponsor's Dear
Colleague actually states that.
Direct solar is important to our efforts to reduce our dependence of
fossil fuel as an energy-efficient technology, and we address this in
our House report accompanying this bill. However, if deemed renewable,
it would undermine congressional intent for how DOD will meet its goals
for renewable sources that generate energy.
The Department of Defense opposes this amendment, and I strongly urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Bartlett

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle F of title XXVIII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 28__. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS PENDING REPORT
REGARDING ACQUISITION OF LAND AND DEVELOPMENT
OF A TRAINING RANGE FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE
MARINE CORPS GROUND AIR COMBAT CENTER TWENTY
NINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Marine Corps has studied the feasibility of
acquiring land and developing a training range facility to
conduct Marine Expeditionary Brigade level live-fire training
on or near the West Coast.
(2) The Bureau of Land management estimates on national
economic impact show $261.5 million in commerce at risk.
(3) Economic impact on the local community is estimated to
be $71.1 Million.
(b) Limitation of Funds Pending Report.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Navy may not obligate
or expend funds for the transfer of land or development of a
new

[[Page H3094]]

training range on land adjacent to the Marine Corps Ground
Air Combat Center Twenty Nine Palms, California until the
Secretary of the Navy has provided the Congressional defense
committees a report on the Marine Corps' efforts with respect
to the proposed training range.
(2) Elements of report.--The report required under
paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act and shall include the
following:
(A) A description of the actual training requirements for
the proposed range and where those training requirements are
currently being met to support combat deployments.
(B) Identify the impact on off-road vehicle recreational
users of the land, the economic impact on the local economy,
the recreation industry, and any other stakeholders.
(C) Identify any concerns discussed with the Bureau of Land
Management regarding their assessments of the impact on other
users.
(D) Identify the impact on the State of California's 1980
Desert Conservation plan regarding allocation of the Off
Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.
(E) The potential to use the same land without transfer,
but under specific permits for use provided by the (such as
agreements at other locations under permit from the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management).
(F) Any potential on other Bureau of Land Management lands
proximate to the Marine Corps Ground Air Combat Center Twenty
Nine Palms or other locations in the geographic region.
(3) Secretary of defense waiver.--In the event of urgent
national need, the Secretary of Defense may notify the
Congressional Committees and waive the requirement for this
report.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BARTLETT. Currently, 189,000 acres of land under control of the
Bureau of Land Management adjacent to the Marine Corps Ground Air
Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, California, is designated by the 1980
California Desert Conservation Plan as an off-highway vehicle
recreation area.
The Marine Corps wants to acquire most of this land, 160,000 acres to
189,000, including the Johnson Valley area, most heavily used for
recreation.
Currently, only 2 percent of the California desert is open for
motorized off-highway vehicle recreation use with half of this 2
percent being in the Johnson Valley area. The recreational community
use of Johnson Valley brings in over $70 million per year to the local
economy. The recreational community includes rock hounds, off-highway
vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles, campers, hikers, birdwatchers,
turtlewatchers, model-airplane groups, and the commercial movie
industry.

{time} 0110

The Marine Corps has been working very closely with the recreational
community in the Bureau of Land Management to find a compromise that's
acceptable to all parties. My amendment simply codifies an ongoing
process, recognizing the intent of the Marine Corps to submit a report
to the Congress recommending the accommodation of the interest of the
stakeholders.
I do not believe there's any opposition to this amendment. Indeed,
the Marine Corps helped to write these talking points. The
Congresspersons who do have districts close enough to be materially
affected by this are not opposed to this amendment.
If there's no overt opposition to the amendment, I am prepared to
yield back the balance of my time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following
new section:

SEC. 3123. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR NUCLEAR
NONPROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES WITH RUSSIAN
FEDERATION.

(a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2013 for defense nuclear nonproliferation may be
obligated or expended for nuclear nonproliferation activities
with the Russian Federation until the date that is 30 days
after the date on which the Secretary of Energy certifies, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense, to the appropriate congressional committees that--
(1) Russia is no longer--
(A) providing direct or indirect support to the government
of Syria's suppression of the Syrian people; and
(B) transferring to Iran, North Korea, or Syria equipment
and technology that have the potential to make a material
contribution to the development of weapons of mass
destruction or cruise or ballistic missile systems controlled
under multilateral control lists; or
(2) funds planned to be obligated or expended for nuclear
nonproliferation activities with the Russian Federation are
strictly for project closeout activities and will not be used
for new activities or activities that will extend beyond
fiscal year 2013.
(b) Waiver.--The Secretary of Energy may waive the
limitation in subsection (a) if--
(1) the Secretary determines that such waiver is in the
national security interests of the United States;
(2) the Secretary briefs, in an unclassified form, the
appropriate congressional committees on the justifications of
such waiver; and
(3) a period of 90 days has elapsed following the date on
which such briefing is held.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits FY13 NNSA nonproliferation
activities with Russia until the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation
with the Secretaries of State and Defense, can certify two things:
first, that Russia is no longer providing support to the Assad regime's
efforts to suppress the Syrian people; and, second, that Russia is not
providing technology or equipment to Iran, North Korea, or Syria that
contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Chairman, this NNSA program for years has been an effort on our
part to assist Russia to secure potential lost nuclear weapons and to
help them be able to store and deal with some of the nuclear materials
that they may have difficulty doing. But it's come to a point now where
we have reached what I consider almost like a schizophrenic
relationship here where we are funding Russia's own responsibility to
deal with some of their older nuclear technology while allowing them to
free up funds to spend on new nuclear technology which they sell to
some of our enemies.
Mr. Chairman, that's not keeping faith with the American people. It's
not keeping faith with the cause of human peace in the world. And, Mr.
Chairman, we need to send Russia a message that we are committed to
making sure that we don't arm our enemies and we don't support brutal
regimes that suppress innocent people trying to fight for freedom in
the world.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does have two waivers that allow the
NNSA to finish current activities due to be completed in fiscal year
2013 or to allow an activity to continue, if the Secretary of Energy
believes it's in the national security interest of the United States to
do so. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, this is something that we need to
pass, and I would hope that my colleagues would support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. We discussed the nonproliferation programs
earlier. It is still a critical issue. Former Soviet Union, now Russia
and various other countries, have a large number of weapons of mass
destruction. And it has been a very successful program. A bipartisan
group of I think at least three, if not four Presidents who have worked
on this program.
It's important that we continue to cooperate with Russia to try to
reduce

[[Page H3095]]

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It's clearly in our
interests. It is also in their interests. And it is a program that has
worked and worked quite effectively. Whatever else Russia may be doing
that we don't like and agree with, there is near-universal praise of
the cooperation that we received on nonproliferation. I don't think
it's wise to cut and eliminate this program.
When the greatest threat that we face right now, as everyone will
tell you, comes primarily from terrorist non-state actors, and the
greatest threat that could happen there is if they got their hands on
weapons of mass destruction, that's what we all worry most about in
terms of the threat to the United States. A program that is making it
more difficult for anyone, particularly terrorist groups, to get access
to weapons of mass destruction, it's a program we certainly should not
eliminate.
I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that when
we are working with what was once the Soviet Union--now Russia--to try
to prevent nonproliferation, and we supplied the money to help them
prevent proliferation in the world of nuclear weapons while at the same
time they are taking that exact same technology and giving it or
selling it at great profit many times to our enemies, it just is an
example of national cognitive dissonance, and it is something that we
should change as quickly as we can.
Russia is one of Syria's main arms suppliers, having supplied an
estimated $1 billion worth of arms, including surface-to-air missiles
in 2011. It represents a challenge to peace in the region. And, Mr.
Chairman, we simply have no business continuing to subsidize them if
we're suggesting that we are trying to prevent proliferation while
subsidizing their proliferation.
I would just urge the passage of this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time as well.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55
printed in House Report 112 485.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In subtitle E of title XXXI, strike section 3156.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This week we have been inundated with complicated facts and details
about our Nation's uranium enrichment capabilities as well as its
impact on our national security. All of these technical, confusing
arguments revolve around one failed company, the United States
Enrichment Corporation, USEC.
Regardless of the complex arguments, it's very simple: Are we going
to do the job we were sent here to do and protect the taxpayer from
wasteful government spending, or are we going to look the other way and
allow a $150 million earmark to bail out a failed private company? My
amendment ensures that we do what I believe we came here to do, to be
stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars.
I ask you to remember one fact: USEC is a failed company with no
technological innovation to show for the billions it has been given.
Why are we propping up this company with more taxpayer money instead of
asking the Department of Defense and Department of Energy to use a fair
and open and competitive process like it does for every other national
security need?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico's
statement that sometimes it's best to make things as simple as
possible. So looking at this as the most simple as possible, the
gentleman's amendment merely says: ``Strike.'' So we're striking a
provision from the current bill. That provision of the bill merely says
that $150 million is for domestic national security-related enrichment
technology.

{time} 0120

Domestic. And what is this for? This is for our nuclear weapons
programs. This is not for a truck fleet to take things from one side of
the country to the other. This is our nuclear weapons program.
This provision that is asked to be struck says that it is for
domestic national security-related enrichment technology. That means
that if you're not doing domestic, you're going to have the United
States be subject to foreign sources. Again, these are critical
components of our nuclear weapons infrastructure and our nuclear Navy.
We do not want to have foreign dependence upon a critical
infrastructure.
Tom D'Agostino, director of the NNSA, recently came and briefed
members of the Armed Services Committee and those who had an interest
in this amendment. And he said, Conclusion: Domestic uranium enrichment
capability is required to support national security and meet nuclear
nonproliferation objectives.
So we have, one, a critical component of nuclear weapons; two, the
issue of domestic or foreign; three, whether or not it's necessary and
we need it. Those answer are all yes, which is why we should oppose
this amendment.
The next thing is, what does this amendment actually do? This
amendment, in striking this section, strikes a critical provision where
it says that the United States, upon spending these dollars for our
domestic capability, gets a license to the technology. The United
States gets delivered to it, the technology of this domestic
production. If this is struck, the domestic production, which the money
will be spent anyway, no longer has a license.
Now the reason why we spend it anyway is because this amendment from
the gentleman from New Mexico deletes section 3156 but it doesn't
delete the charts on page 992 from the back of section 4701, which has
the line item in it. The money gets spent anyway, but we lose the
license.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), a cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. After Congress privatized the United States Enrichment
Corporation in 1996, we quickly learned that it couldn't survive in the
private sector without continued and repeated bailouts by the taxpayer
to the tune of billions of dollars. This company should actually be
renamed the United States Earmark Corporation. The government has given
it free centrifuge technology. The government has given it free uranium
that it enriches and then it sells below market prices, undercutting
its free market competitors. The government has paid to clean up its
radioactive waste. The government has assumed its liabilities. And what
has happened to the billions of dollars that it has received from the
taxpayers?
Well, the entire company is now worth far less than the $150 million
that is contained in this bill. It may be delisted from the New York
Stock Exchange and become a penny stock. And after Tuesday's
announcement of another gift of free uranium for USEC, Standard &
Poor's downgraded it to junk bond status. J.P. Morgan is now in charge
of all of its remaining dwindling cash. And when I asked the Treasury
Department whether the government's support for the government puts
taxpayers at risk, it said ``yes'' to me.
We've been told that this earmark is only about getting the tridium
we need for our nuclear weapons, but that is

[[Page H3096]]

not true. The treaty that governs uranium enrichment technology does
not prevent other companies from doing the work, and URENCO is in New
Mexico anyway--the competitor. And even if it did, there are other
alternatives. When DOE examined its tridium options, it found that
down-blending surplus highly enriched uranium would cost taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars less than to use this corporation.
This is a waste of money. There are better alternatives already in
the United States. There are better technologies that can be used at
hundreds of millions of dollars less, and we are continuing to pour
this earmark money down a rat hole and wasting it. We should be
spending this money on the defense of our Nation.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. How much time do we have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I need to point out this is not an earmark. It
has already been determined that this is not an earmark. This is a
question of whether or not the United States of America is going to
maintain its superiority as the world leader and protect our ability to
provide for our nuclear security.
The company in New Mexico, URENCO, is not an American-owned company.
My colleague from Colorado has already made the comments very clearly.
From the National Nuclear Security Administration, from the State
Department, write on down the line, we are required to purchase these
types of uranium-enriched products from a domestic, indigenous source.
That's what this bill is about.
I would be the first one to agree that everything that we're doing in
this session of Congress has to do with trying to grow our economy and
create jobs. This is one area where national security is concerned
where I believe it takes preeminence.
With that, I urge us to defeat this amendment.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We continue to hear different arguments. We hear that USEC is
necessary for national security purposes. It is absolutely not. The
U.S. Navy confirms that it has enough highly enriched uranium fuel to
last until 2050. DOE itself declared that at no time in the foreseeable
future would more highly enriched weapons-grade uranium be needed for
defense. In March of 2012, the head of NSA testified to the Senate that
tridium production would not be affected if USEC failed. We're hearing
arguments that don't stand up to the facts.
My colleagues claim that USEC funding will protect U.S. intellectual
property. It will not. USEC has had decades and billions of dollars of
taxpayer money to create this technology--and has failed. They have
created 38 machines. Six of those have failed, one catastrophically.
There is nothing to be gained.
Our friends are complaining that this amendment does nothing. In
fact, in January of 2012, Secretary Chu wrote a letter that DOE does
not have the authority to shift funds around without the consent of
Congress. With this amendment we're striking that authority.
Guess what USEC is? USEC is Solyndra on steroids. It is a taxpayer
bailout of a failed company. USEC is a company that lost $540 million
in 2011, and paid their chief executive officer $45 million while doing
it. It's a company that has been downgraded three times in the last 5
years.
Mr. Chairman, I request that we vote for the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

The Secretary of Energy,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2012.
Hon. Ed Whitfield,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Whitfield: Thank you for your letter
regarding the proposed Research, Development, and
Demonstration (RD&D) plan for the American Centrifuge Project
(ACP) in Piketon, Ohio. I continue to believe ACP offers an
innovative technology approach to uranium enrichment that
offers both national security and economic benefits. The
Department's proposed RD&D work is the best way to help ACP
achieve commercial viability by reducing technical and
financial risks associated with the project.
As you know, in October the Department of Energy and USEC
asked Congress to allow the Department to use $150 million in
fiscal year 2012 from our existing funds and the transfer
authority to re-allocate funds within our existing budget to
support the ACP research partnership that would enable the
project to reduce its technical and financial risks by
finalizing machine designs and demonstrating the technology
and key systems on a larger scale. Unfortunately, Congress
did not give the Department authority to proceed in this
manner.
Because the project has strong commercial potential and
because its success would strengthen and protect America's
national security interests, we want to continue working with
Congress to secure approval for this research effort. To make
a down payment on the research effort while giving Congress
the additional time it needs to act, the Department has
decided to use its administrative authority to provide near
term assistance. Specifically, the Department will assume $44
million in liability for uranium tails while taking
precautions to protect taxpayers. Transfer authority will
still be necessary to complete the full research effort.
With additional time, and strong backing from leaders in
Congress, we hope that Congress will approve transfer
authority to allow DOE to use its own funds to conduct RD&D
on advanced enrichment technology.
In the absence of Congressional action to provide DOE the
necessary transfer authority, the company asserts that the
project and the jobs it supports are in jeopardy;
demobilization of the project could entail significant risk
that the project could not successfully be restarted. I urge
Congress to act as swiftly as possible to provide the needed
transfer authority so that we can use funds from our existing
budget to fund the full RD&D program.
I thank you for your efforts to support a domestic uranium
enrichment capacity in order to advance our energy, economic,
and national security interests. I remain hopeful that by
working together, and with prompt action by Congress, we can
succeed in making the full RD&D program a reality. Please do
not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steven Chu.

Mr. TURNER of Ohio. The letter that the gentleman from New Mexico
just placed in the Record concerned fiscal year 2012. This bill is
about fiscal 2013. And so it's irrelevant. It's fine to have in the
Record so people can confirm that.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we should remember as a Nation
that there was a time when we were the only country on Earth that had
nuclear weapons capability. But that fell into foreign hands and the
arms race was born. We should also remember that there was a time when
we produced almost all of our uranium needs for our nuclear power
plants. Today, we import over 90 percent of that.
Mr. Chairman, both in terms of national security and in terms of not
letting a foreign entity have leverage over our nuclear Navy capability
and our nuclear arms capability, I believe that we should not pass this
amendment and change this language, because it's important that we
maintain both our security and our ability to produce our needed
uranium fuel and highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at home.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. All of the names of the companies that have been
mentioned in this debate are not in this bill. This bill even requires
competition. It's somewhat irrelevant to have the discussion on
specific companies.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of national security. This
amendment would force the United States to be 100 percent reliant on
the Russian and European suppliers of enriched uranium, a compound
critical to America's energy and national security needs. That's just
unacceptable. I don't have anything against the Russians or Europeans,
our friends, but it would be a strategic malfeasance to rely on them.
Do not pass this amendment.

{time} 0130

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
will be postponed.

[[Page H3097]]

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Chabot) having assumed the chair, Mr. Petri, 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.

____________________