[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7742-7758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269 and rule

[[Page 7743]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1540.

                              {time}  1849


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 
2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which overwhelmingly passed the 
Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 60-1. In keeping with the 
committee's tradition of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I 
worked collaboratively to produce the bill and solicited input from 
each of our Members.
  The legislation will advance our national security aims, provide the 
proper care and logistical support for our fighting forces and help us 
meet the defense challenges of the 21st century. The bill authorizes 
$553 billion for the Department of Defense base budget, consistent with 
the President's budget request and the allocation provided by the House 
Budget Committee. It also authorizes $18 billion for the development of 
the Department of Energy's defense programs and $118.9 billion for 
overseas contingency operations.
  The legislation we will consider today also makes good on my promise, 
when I was selected to lead the Armed Services Committee, that this 
committee would scrutinize the Department of Defense's budget and 
identify inefficiencies to invest those savings into higher national 
security priorities. We examined every aspect of the defense 
enterprise, not as a target for arbitrary funding reductions, as the 
current administration has proposed, but to find ways that we can 
accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more 
effectively.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 achieves 
these goals by working to:
  Ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world 
have the equipment, resources, authorities, training and time they need 
to successfully complete their missions and return home safely;
  Provide our warfighters and their families with the resources and 
support they need, deserve and have earned;
  Invest in the capabilities and force structure needed to protect the 
United States from current and future threats, mandate physical 
responsibility, transparency and accountability within the Department 
of Defense; and
  Incentivize competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with 
funding Department of Defense requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there have been many questions raised by the 
ACLU and others relating to a provision in our bill dealing with the 
2001 authorization for use of military force. I would like to address 
some of those concerns now.
  Section 1034 of the NDAA affirms that the President is authorized to 
use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, 
and persons who are part of or are substantially supporting al Qaeda, 
the Taliban and associated forces.
  It also explicitly affirms the President's authority to detain 
certain belligerents who qualify under this standard I just described, 
which Congress has never explicitly stated. It's important to note that 
the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the President's authority to detain 
belligerents as within the powers granted by the AUMF.
  Moreover, the language in section 1034 is very similar to the Obama 
administration's interpretation of the authorities provided pursuant to 
AUMF, in particular, a March 13, 2009, filing in the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia. While U.S. courts have accepted the 
administration's interpretation of the AUMF, it is under constant 
attack in litigation relating to the petitions filed by Guantanamo 
detainees.
  Because of these ongoing challenges, the administration's 
interpretation may receive less favorable treatment over time if 
Congress refuses to affirm it. Section 1034 is not intended to alter 
the President's existing authority pursuant to the AUMF in any way. 
It's intended only to reinforce it. I believe that our men and women in 
uniform deserve to be on solid legal footing as they risk their lives 
in defense of the United States.
  Finally, some have suggested section 1034 was included in the dark of 
night. I note that this language was originally included in the 
Detainee Security Act of 2011 introduced on March 9 and was discussed 
during a committee hearing on March 17. We have sought input from the 
administration, as well as Ranking Member Smith, his staff and numerous 
outside experts. Moreover, the process used to craft this legislation 
is historic in its transparency. In fact, a copy of my mark was 
distributed to committee members' offices 5 days before our markup. The 
legislation, including funding tables, was posted online nearly 48 
hours in advance of our markup.
  It's also noteworthy that there are no earmarks in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Every Member request to 
fund a defense capability was voted on and includes language requiring 
merit-based or competitive selection procedures. To those who are 
concerned that members may unduly influence the Department of Defense 
to direct funds to a particular entity, I can only recall the words of 
my good friend, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Ike Skelton, who would say, Read the amendment. What does it say? If 
DOD chooses to violate the law and the text of a provision in the NDAA 
requiring merit-based selection, the Armed Services Committee will take 
them to task.
  Finally, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee for working with us to bring this measure to the floor. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support passage of this bill. In 
partnership with you, we look forward to passing the 50th consecutive 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I too rise in support of this bill, the 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking the chairman and our 
staffs for the outstanding work that they have done putting together 
this bill.
  I think Mr. McKeon has more than risen to the level of the bipartisan 
tradition of our committee. He has upheld the tradition held by our 
predecessors that this committee should work together, Republicans and 
Democrats, that it should be an open and transparent process.
  I can say that I and my staff feel very, very good about the open 
process that we have had, although we have not agreed on everything--we 
do not agree on everything--that is in the bill; but where there were 
disagreements, we had an open and honest dialogue. We had votes in the 
committee, and now we will have votes on the floor.
  And overall I think the chairman and the members of both parties and 
staffs have put together a very strong bill that will protect our 
national defense and meet the primary duty of this Congress, and that 
is provide for the national defense and the national security of our 
country. So I thank the chairman and his staff for that work, and I 
look forward to continuing to work with him throughout this process.
  I also want to note one of our members, who was not able to be there 
during the course of our markup as she

[[Page 7744]]

usually is, but nonetheless contributed greatly to the process. We all 
miss Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords' presence on the committee, but we 
work very closely with her staff on issues and priorities that have 
been important to her during her time on the committee, and she and her 
staff are still doing an outstanding job with the committee in 
contributing to this process. So I thank them, and we all look forward 
to Gabby coming back to this body and continuing her work.
  In putting together this bill, there are five main areas of 
priorities that I think we should focus on. First and foremost, 
whenever we have troops out in the battlefield, as they are in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and also spread out in a whole lot of other 
countries, priority number one has to be to make sure that we give them 
the support, the equipment and the means necessary to carry out the 
mission that we have given them.
  I believe that this bill prioritizes that, both within the base bill 
and within the overseas contingency operations funding to make sure 
that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, elsewhere, have the equipment 
they need to carry out the mission that we have given them.
  Second, I believe the counterterrorism in the fight against al Qaeda 
must continue to be a top priority of this committee, and I believe 
that we strongly support that once again. We all learned as a Nation 
and the world, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, how effective our 
Special Operations Command and other elements of our counterterrorism 
policy can be, but we also need to be mindful that the job is not done, 
and we continue to fund those priorities.
  I do want to specifically commend the folks at the Special Operations 
Command. I had the great privilege of chairing the subcommittee that 
has had jurisdiction over the Special Operations Command for 3 years. 
They do a fantastic job for our Nation. Certainly, everybody saw that 
in the case of getting bin Laden; but they do it every day in many, 
many ways that many people do not know and do not recognize, so I thank 
them for their outstanding work.
  We also have a huge challenge with the budget. As the chairman 
mentioned, finding efficiencies in the Defense budget is going to be 
critical. As we have heard on this floor over and over in many 
contexts, we have a massive deficit. We have a deficit that is over 33 
percent of what we spend. The Defense budget is 20 percent of the 
overall budget. You cannot take 20 percent of the overall budget off 
the table and effectively deal with a deficit of that size.

                              {time}  1900

  We are going to have to look carefully at where we spend our money in 
defense, just like everywhere else, to make sure that we're getting the 
most for our dollar. I believe we have done that effectively in this 
bill, but I also believe that going forward that task is going to get 
harder, not easier. We must find ways to save money and spend it more 
efficiently within the Department of Defense. I also believe that our 
policy in Afghanistan is going to be critical.
  As I mentioned, we certainly fund our troops in the effort that they 
are performing right now in Afghanistan, but going forward, we are 
going to really need to begin to bring those troops home to complete 
that mission. We will have some amendments that address that issue 
during the course of this bill. I look forward to that debate because I 
think that Congress needs to play a strong role in concluding our 
mission successfully in Afghanistan.
  Lastly, the issue that the chairman mentioned that I think is very 
important in this bill is detainee policy and the AUMF. The chairman 
very early on identified this as a clear priority, and I think he is 
absolutely right that Congress' voice should be heard on these very, 
very important issues. We've worked closely on that. We have reached 
some agreement. We have some areas of disagreement. The biggest one 
we're going to have an amendment on this is the idea of whether or not 
article 3 courts should continue to be available for Guantanamo Bay 
detainees and those who would be captured in similar situations in the 
future. I believe that it should. We shouldn't always have them in 
article 3 courts. Military commissions have their place. Indefinite 
detention of enemy combatants has its place. But article 3 courts have 
effectively served this country for over 200 years. We have tried and 
convicted over 400 terrorists in article 3 Federal courts. Right now in 
the United States of America, we have over 300 of them safely locked 
up. We can do it. It's an option we should not take away from the 
President.
  So, again, I want to thank the chairman for a very open process. 
Bipartisanship is the tradition of this committee. He has upheld that 
very well. I look forward to working with him as we go forward in this 
process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT. I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2012. I have the privilege of serving as the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Tactical Air and Land Forces 
Subcommittee. Our jurisdiction includes approximately $78 billion of 
selected programs within the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and 
Office of the Secretary of Defense procurement and research and 
development accounts.
  I first want to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Silvestre 
Reyes from Texas, for his support this year in putting the bill 
together. Ours is a truly bipartisan effort, as it is for the full 
committee under the leadership of Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith. The committee's focus is on supporting the men and women of the 
Armed Forces and their families, providing them the equipment they need 
and the support they deserve.
  Our first priority, of course, is in providing the equipment to 
support our military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
bill adds no additional funding for the Department of Defense programs 
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The bill, however, reallocates 
approximately $1.5 billion from canceled, delayed, or otherwise lower 
priority programs to higher priority requirements.
  First, an additional $425 million is provided for modernization of 
Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. The Army budget request 
would result in a costly production break for these two programs in 
2013, which could last anywhere from 1 to 3 years. These production 
lines cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. The unique 
skills of the workforce cannot be just put on the shelf to be retrieved 
several years down the road. For the Abrams tank production alone, 
there are almost 900 suppliers. Seventy-five percent of these suppliers 
are small businesses. Based on the information we have received to 
date, it is more efficient to keep these lines warm than it would be to 
shut them down and start them up again.
  Second, an additional $325 million is provided for the National Guard 
and Reserve Equipment Account for equipment shortfalls.
  Thirdly, the bill increases funding at Army and Air Force test ranges 
by $209 million. The Pentagon has recently acknowledged its proposed 
large fiscal year 2012 reductions in Test and Evaluation in the Army 
and Air Force could lead to ``unintended consequences'' and 
acknowledged the need to readdress this issue, especially in regards to 
complying with the Acquisition Reform Act.
  Finally, acquisition and sustainment of the engine for the F-35 
aircraft over its lifetime is estimated to cost well over $100 billion. 
The Armed Services Committee has believed and continues to believe that 
the F-35 engine acquisition and sustainment should be done on a 
competitive basis. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, the committee 
has strongly supported the final development phase of the F-35 
competitive engine program since it began nearly 6 years ago. Although 
the committee's bill provides no additional funding for

[[Page 7745]]

the F-35 aircraft competitive engine program, the bill takes strong 
bipartisan action that was supported by a recent vote of 55-5 by the 
committee to enable the competitive engine contractor to continue 
development of the competitive engine at no expense to the government 
or the taxpayer.
  I strongly urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill's innovative approach to continue the F-35 
competitive engine development program.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank a truly superlative staff, and again 
want to thank the chairman and ranking member for assistance on a 
really good bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land 
Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding and 
compliment both the chairman and the ranking member for setting the 
tone to once again work in a bipartisan basis, as has been mentioned by 
all three of my colleagues that have spoken here this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, each year the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
is charged with conducting oversight of hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in Department of Defense programs that total more than $135 
billion. All of the members of this subcommittee take this task very 
seriously because the troops in the field depend on Congress to provide 
them with what they need.
  Conducting this oversight is a challenge because the budget, as we 
get it from the Department of Defense, is often far from perfect. It is 
the subcommittee's responsibility, therefore, to identify any wasteful 
spending, very critical at a time when the budget is under stress, find 
unexecutable funding and also find redundant programs. In addition, the 
subcommittee must also consider pressing DOD needs that are not 
addressed in the budget. That's the role of Congress. Doing all of that 
while making sure that equipment continues to flow to the troops in the 
field therefore is sometimes no easy task.
  Despite these challenges, I am pleased to report again this year, 
under the leadership of our chairman, Chairman Bartlett, the 
subcommittee has put together a very well balanced product that cuts 
waste, reallocates funding for more critical priorities, and ensures 
that our troops will continue to have the very best equipment 
available.
  I am also pleased with how the bill supports the Army and Marine 
Corps in particular. These two armed services have borne the heaviest 
burden over the past 10 years of war. And this mark does an excellent 
job, I believe, of helping them to rebuild combat power and prepare for 
the future.
  H.R. 1540 fully supports and funds the Army's number one development 
program, the ground combat vehicle. This bill provides an increase of 
$425 million for additional M1 Abrams tanks and M2 Bradley fighting 
vehicles and keeps the production line open. The budget request assumed 
that a 3-year shutdown of both the Abrams and the Bradley production 
lines that would cost the taxpayer $1 billion, eliminate thousands of 
jobs, and diminish the United States defense industrial base was the 
way to go. We changed that. So rather than spending money to lose 
American jobs, this bill provides funding that will protect those 
American jobs while it also provides the Army with better and more 
modern equipment.
  While this issue will not be fully dealt with in one budget year, I 
do believe that this bill lays down a better and smarter way that will 
maintain the Army's ground combat vehicle critical to the needs of both 
the Army and the Marine Corps. Finally, the bill fully funds the Marine 
Corps' $2.6 billion request for procurement of ground combat vehicle 
and support equipment.
  For those reasons and many more, Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to 
support H.R. 1540. It's the right balance and a great bipartisan 
product.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the chairman for yielding. And, Mr. Chairman, 
I first want to commend the chairman of the committee and Ranking 
Member Smith for their leadership in shepherding a complex and 
important bill to this stage of the process. A 60-1 vote coming out of 
committee is a significant achievement and is a testament to the 
attitude of putting the national security interests of the whole 
country first, which has been the hallmark of this committee, and their 
leadership exemplifies the best of that in my opinion.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. Chairman, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee is 
charged with looking ahead at those national security threats that are 
coming at us, and also helping to develop new capabilities to meet 
those threats. We oversee the Special Operations Command and 
counterterrorism efforts. Now, throughout the country, there is a 
greater appreciation, I think, for the capabilities within the Special 
Operations Command after the successful raid on Osama bin Laden, but I 
think it is important to emphasize that those folks in that command 
conduct that sort of raid just about every night somewhere with the 
same sort of precision and professionalism that the country now 
appreciates from the Osama bin Laden raid that got all of the 
attention. But they do much more.
  They are also responsible for helping train and advise other 
militaries, building up the capacities of those governments to defend 
themselves, and they are doing very impressive work in all parts of the 
world, including Afghanistan where, among other things, they are 
helping to train the military and train local police to help provide 
security for individual villages. Our bill provides a modest funding 
increase for this command, as well as meeting some real unmet needs 
that they have.
  Our part of the bill also deals with research that leads to future 
capabilities. In tight budgets, it is always tempting to cut research 
and development, science and technology programs, but it is a mistake 
to do so. In this budget, the funding for such programs at least holds 
steady with some added emphasis in some key areas that are important.
  The largest dollar amount in this subcommittee's portion of the bill 
is with DOD IT and cyber. This area may actually be the preeminent area 
of emerging threats in warfare. This mark takes some important steps 
forward in dollars and policies. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we should 
all acknowledge that there is a lot more work for this Congress and for 
this country to do in the area of cybersecurity. Not all of it is 
military; most of it is not. But yet the military is affected, as are 
we all.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda is 
a changed organization; and with the death of Osama bin Laden, it will 
change further. But I think it is important to emphasize that this 
Congress must fulfill its responsibilities to affirm and update the 
authorization for the use of military force to deal with al Qaeda. 
There have been some wild exaggerations about the attempt to do so in 
that bill. I think if Members read the exact language and look at 
exactly what we are doing and why, that they will support it and agree 
that it is a fulfillment of our responsibility.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member 
on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I would like to thank my ranking 
member and Chairman McKeon for really a great bipartisan bill. I am 
feeling pretty good about this one.
  Actually, in my subcommittee with Chairman Turner and all our 
subcommittee members, we were really able to come together and make a 
very good contribution. I thank Mr. Turner for his leadership. It is 
pretty exciting to have a subcommittee like this in the new session of 
the Congress.

[[Page 7746]]

  Overall, we agree on so many of the provisions, encouraging fiscal 
responsibility and protecting national security. We have come together 
on a lot of issues on this subcommittee, including: improving satellite 
acquisition; encouraging efficiencies; ensuring efficient development, 
testing, production and sustainment schedules for missile defense and 
for our nuclear enterprise; for conducting oversight of very large-
scale construction sites that we have; building on good progress 
related to improving efficiencies at nuclear sites; and, of course, 
implementation of the New START nuclear reductions.
  I also want to highlight the work that our subcommittee did with 
respect to nonproliferation programs and working on this. This is so 
incredibly important to our security. It is not just about how many 
weapons people have, but really about what old weapons, what weapons 
need to be turned in, where weapons are, and how we safeguard weapons 
around the world. So we really came together on that.
  One of the areas where we disagree, and you will see some amendments 
along the way, is this whole area of our ground-based missile defense. 
Quite frankly, the Pentagon's and the President's budget we feel was 
enough money to continue our work of research and development and 
testing in that arena. Unfortunately, the Republican side of the 
committee wants to put more unnecessary funding into that. And of 
course I oppose the provisions which restrict the President's authority 
over nuclear weapons, including implementing reductions in the number 
of nuclear weapons and restricting U.S. nuclear employment strategy, 
which I personally believe undermine our efforts to reduce the danger 
of nuclear weapons. The statement of administration policy has noted a 
potential veto threat because of those provisions that we could not 
agree upon.
  But again, I would like to reiterate my thank you to Chairman Turner 
and to all of the members of our subcommittee. I look forward to this 
debate.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Seapower and Projection Forces.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1540, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  In review of the portions of the President's budget request relevant 
to Seapower and Projection Forces, the subcommittee this year held 
hearings on the Navy shipbuilding plan and on amphibious warfare, along 
with briefings on the replacement for the Ohio class ballistic missile 
submarine, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the new long-range 
strike bomber.
  Being a maritime nation, we must support our troops with supplies 
delivered by sea and by air, while maintaining the global reach to do 
so. Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of 
credible combat power, forward presence, and humanitarian assistance 
are all capabilities supplied by forces for which the subcommittee has 
oversight and where it must focus.
  This bill provides for a multiyear procurement of Arleigh Burke class 
destroyers. It funds 10 ships which were in the President's budget 
request. It also has provisions which would inject some discipline in 
programs just starting, such as the amphibious vehicle which will 
replace the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the Navy's 
unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee, particularly my 
ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the 
Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I first want to begin by thanking Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith, as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Chairman Mac Thornberry, for putting 
forward a bill that truly supports our men and women in combat, 
enhances our national security, and is in keeping with the true 
bipartisan history of the House Armed Services Committee.
  While I don't agree with every provision in the bill, I am proud that 
both parties worked together to reach compromises on many measures that 
support our national defense. As the ranking member of the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I am especially pleased to 
support our Armed Forces. You need global reach around the world and in 
cyberspace.
  I have also been a long-time supporter of our Special Operations 
Forces, and the incredible raid on the Osama bin Laden compound several 
weeks ago is a true testament to their patriotism, their training, 
their strength and dedication, and I commend them for their incredible 
work. These brave men and women are a critically unique asset to our 
national security, and this bill affirms our commitment to supporting 
their efforts.

                              {time}  1920

  This mark also prioritizes the department's cybersecurity efforts, 
which have long been a chief focus of mine, by strengthening provisions 
to protect our Nation from insider threats, analyzing threats to 
military readiness, highlighting vulnerabilities in critical 
infrastructure, and increasing cooperation with international allies 
and domestic partners.
  Regrettably, there are also several provisions included that deeply 
concern me--from attempts to derail the successful repeal of DOD's 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to measures tying the President's hands 
over decisions about our nuclear arsenal and the closure of Guantanamo 
Bay. It is my hope that these issues will be further considered and 
improved upon by the conference committee.
  However, overall, this bill reflects the recognition of the Congress 
of the incredible sacrifices that our brave men and women in uniform 
make for our country every day. I am certainly honored to be a part of 
this process, and I certainly look forward to supporting this bill as 
it moves through the legislative process and moves into law.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for 
their leadership, as well as the chairman of my subcommittee, Mac 
Thornberry. We work, truly, in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. I would like to first thank the gentleman for yielding 
and for his leadership in bringing this very bipartisan bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last several months, the Armed Services 
Readiness Subcommittee has attempted to answer one question: Are we 
ready? I believe this bill makes several significant improvements to 
the readiness posture of our Armed Forces and remedies many of the 
shortfalls that we found.
  The bill takes several steps to ensure that U.S. troops are properly 
trained and their equipment is properly maintained so they can succeed 
in their missions and have the facilities and services they deserve 
when they return home.
  It also makes needed adjustments to civilian personnel policies and 
service contracting, and promotes energy security, and ensures that 
projects offer the best return on investment to the taxpayer.
  The bill fully supports the President's request for expanded training 
as dwell times increase, the continued reset of combat-damaged Army and 
Marine Corps equipment, and military construction and family housing.
  The legislation also makes notable investments in Navy ship and 
aircraft depot maintenance, facility sustainment and modernization, 
Army base operations, Guard and Reserve flight training, and Air Force 
weapon systems sustainment.

[[Page 7747]]

  To increase the readiness of our depots, the bill includes several of 
the recommendations included in the study on the future capability of 
the Department of Defense maintenance depots, directed by the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no greater responsibility than to ensure our 
men and women in uniform are fully trained, equipped and ready for the 
challenges they face every day. I believe this bill fulfills that 
commitment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
work.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), ranking member of the 
Seapower Subcommittee.
  Mr. McINTYRE. I thank my friend, Ranking Member Smith, as well as 
full committee Chairman McKeon, and also thanks to the subcommittee 
chairman and my good friend, Todd Akin, for all of their hard work in 
helping us not only on this full armed services bill but also, in 
particular, on the Seapower and Projection Forces portion of this bill, 
which passed with strong bipartisan support in our subcommittee and in 
the full subcommittee.
  The work of the subcommittee continues the long tradition of 
providing strong support for our men and women in uniform. The projects 
authorized in this bill are critical to our country's ability to 
project power anywhere in the world at any time.
  This bill includes $14.9 billion for shipbuilding that would 
authorize a total of 10 new ships, including two Virginia class 
submarines, one Arleigh Burke class destroyer, four Littoral Combat 
Ships, one San Antonio class amphibious ship, one Mobile Landing 
Platform Ship, and one Joint High Speed Vessel. This mark also 
authorizes $1.1 billion for the National Defense Sealift Fund.
  There are a number of legislative provisions included in this bill 
which are aimed at providing a more efficient way to procure ships and 
weapons systems. In addition, this bill includes several provisions 
that require increased oversight over critical programs that will 
ensure they stay on schedule and on cost. In particular, this bill 
requires the Comptroller General to conduct an annual review and report 
on the progress of the KC-46 tanker program.
  All of these provisions, plus others, represent the subcommittee's 
commitment to ensuring that all major programs receive the proper 
oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and 
effectively. This bill is a balanced authorization of programs under 
the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, and it meets the needs of our men 
and women in uniform.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Akin for his hard work, and I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Congratulations, Mr. Chairman, on your leadership--achieving a 60-1 
favorable vote on the bill that we are considering this evening.
  As we begin, we are grateful for the professionalism of our military 
forces in killing the mass murderer Osama bin Laden. It was a proud day 
for all Americans, especially for our military, their families and 
veterans, that justice was achieved.
  The military personnel provisions of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2012 are the product of an open, bipartisan 
process. Some of the more important personnel provisions are the 
following:
  A 1.6 percent increase in military basic pay;
  A revised policy for measuring and reporting unit operations tempo 
and personnel tempo, reflecting the committee's continuing concern 
about stresses on the force, especially at a time when we must continue 
our resolve for victory in the current mission requirements.
  Another important initiative is the reform of the military recruiting 
system to include graduates of home schooling, charter schools and 
virtual schools. I see military service as opportunity and fulfilling, 
and these are extraordinary patriots.
  The bill also clarifies the legal authority for the administration 
and oversight of Arlington National Cemetery. I believe the bill is 
strong in the multiple provisions dealing with sexual assault, child 
custody, mental health, traumatic brain injury, and posttraumatic 
stress disorder.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Ranking Member Susan Davis and her 
staff for their contributions and support of this process. We have 
benefited from an active and informed and dedicated set of subcommittee 
members. Their recommendations and priorities are clearly reflected in 
the bill.
  Additionally, I appreciate the dedicated Military Personnel 
Subcommittee staff: John Chapla, Jeanette James, Mike Higgins, Craig 
Greene, Debra Wada, and Jim Weiss. I also want to thank congressional 
Military Legislative Assistant Brian Eisele and Military Fellow Marine 
Captain Sam Cunningham.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the 
Readiness Subcommittee.
  Ms. BORDALLO. I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  This bill works to ensure our men and women in uniform are well 
trained and equipped. I am proud that the House Armed Services 
Committee, through this bill, continues to close the readiness gaps 
that have been created in our Armed Forces by a decade of continuous 
deployments.
  This bill authorizes $23 billion for the training of all active duty 
and reserve forces to increase readiness as troops experience longer 
periods at home following the Iraq drawdown, including $1 billion to 
support the Army's planned return to full-spectrum training, also 
funding for the Navy ship and aircraft depot-level maintenance, and for 
the upkeep of the Department of Defense facilities. We fully fund the 
President's budget request for the reset of Army and Marine Corps 
equipment and for the sustainment of Air Force weapons systems. We 
provide additional funding to meet the full requirement for the upkeep 
of our military facilities, increased funding to operate Army bases, 
and authorize $14.7 billion in military construction.
  I am pleased that this bill includes a number of initiatives that 
focus on reducing operational and installation energy consumption while 
improving military capabilities.

                              {time}  1930

  It also reflects the priorities in the area of energy conservation of 
our colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, who has been a champion of these 
issues through the Readiness Subcommittee.
  The bill supports environmental leadership while putting defense 
capabilities and missions first. I also note we have included a 
provision that extends the SIKES Act coverage to state-owned National 
Guard facilities and enables development and implementation of 
integrated natural resources management plans for state-owned National 
Guard installations.
  The bill continues our committee's tradition of providing stringent 
and comprehensive oversight of the military buildup on Guam. The 
committee remains committed to understanding the importance of the 
realignment of military forces in the Pacific demonstrated through a 
full authorization of military construction funding. And further, this 
bill continues to demonstrate its keen understanding of the strategic 
importance of Guam in responding to the growth of traditional threats 
in the Pacific region and the freedom of movement Guam provides our 
military forces in responding to regional nontraditional threats.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our 
chairman, Mr. McKeon, and our ranking member, Mr. Smith, of the Armed 
Services Committee, and also to the chairman of my subcommittee, Mr. 
Randy Forbes, for conducting the meetings in a very bipartisan manner.

[[Page 7748]]

  I ask my colleagues to support this very important measure.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from California, our chairman, Mr. 
McKeon, for his leadership on this bill as it's moving through the 
House, and Ranking Member Smith. I would also like to thank all of my 
colleagues on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, and in particular my 
ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, and the staff for their work on this 
year's Strategic Forces mark. And particularly I would like to thank 
our director, Kari Bingen.
  This bill builds off a strong bipartisan and bicameral consensus and 
fully funds the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and 
supports continued modernization of our nuclear forces and 
infrastructure. It also supports robust oversight of the 
administration's implementation of the New START Treaty and establishes 
prudent measures to slow down the rush towards nuclear disarmament.
  The bill responds to the effects of prior cuts by this administration 
to missile defense, providing an increase of $110 million above the 
President's request. It adds these funds to fix the system that 
protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic missile 
threats. It also provides an increase in funds to support the 
implementation of the administration's Phased Adaptive Approach and 
important cooperative efforts with Japan and Israel, while recommending 
reductions in future capabilities that are less viable.
  Equally important, this bill advocates on behalf of servicemembers 
and their families. I want to thank Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member 
Davis for incorporating bipartisan language from the Tsongas-Turner 
Defense STRONG Act that seeks to enhance sexual assault protections as 
well as improved training requirements to better protect 
servicemembers.
  I also want to thank Chairman Wilson for his support for this bill, 
which includes a provision that would protect the fundamental child 
custody rights of military parents and ensures that servicemembers do 
not lose custody of their children as a consequence of their service to 
the Nation. This provision corrects an unconscionable injustice and has 
the full endorsement of Secretary Gates and the Department of Defense. 
And I would like to thank Lieutenant Eva Slusher from Kentucky, who has 
been working diligently in this fight.
  Lastly, I would like to note that earlier today the President issued 
a veto threat on several provisions contained in the NDAA related to 
nuclear modernization and objections to provisions relating to missile 
defense. This is curious because these provisions are consistent with 
the administration's own stated policies and that of our NATO allies. 
By this threat, is the President saying he does not intend to implement 
the nuclear modernization guarantees that were part of the New START 
Treaty? Does the President intend to unilaterally withdraw nuclear 
forces from Europe? Does the President want to share sensitive data of 
missile defense technology with Russia? And does the President intend 
to strike deals with Russia to limit our missile defense capabilities? 
If the answer to these questions is no, then the administration should 
have no objections to these provisions. If, on the other hand, the 
answer to these questions is yes, then it is all the more reason to 
make these provisions law.
  I urge the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
2012.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), ranking member on the 
Personnel Subcommittee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues on the 
House Armed Services Committee in support of H.R. 1540, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  As the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I want 
to recognize Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their 
leadership, as well as subcommittee Chairman Wilson for his bipartisan 
work to enhance the quality of life for our servicemembers, retirees, 
survivors and their families.
  As Americans, it is our responsibility and our privilege to support 
our men and women in uniform and their families given the enormous 
sacrifices they make to ensure the security of our Nation. These men 
and women have volunteered to give their lives to protect and defend 
what we hold dear, liberty and freedom. Nothing can substitute for 
their commitment and sacrifice.
  I am proud to support a 1.6 percent pay raise in our bill. Our 
servicemembers have earned this pay raise and deserve no less. I am 
also pleased that this bill includes authority for the Secretary of 
Defense to establish apprenticeship programs to help servicemembers 
transition out of the military. Far too many of our brave men and women 
are returning home and finding it a challenge to become or remain 
employed. The number of homeless veterans in our younger generations 
continues to grow, and apprenticeship programs could provide these 
individuals the skills they need to succeed.
  While this bill allows for a modest increase in TRICARE fees, it does 
protect military retirees and their dependents from future significant 
hikes by limiting increases to military retiree cost of living 
allowances.
  And lastly, this bill continues the efforts by this subcommittee over 
the last several years to reduce sexual assaults and harassment within 
the services. This is an important issue that has a direct impact on 
military readiness, and I want to thank Congresswomen Slaughter, 
Sanchez, and Tsongas for their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, while there are many good provisions in this bill, I 
must raise my extreme disappointment with several sections that were 
included by the majority that seek to delay and prevent gays and 
lesbians from serving in uniform. One of the liberties that we as 
Americans hold dear is that we are all created equal. These individuals 
should be entitled to serve their Nation in uniform and should not be 
denied the opportunity.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. A Nation that values democracy cannot 
discriminate against an individual because of their sexual orientation.
  But I must say, Mr. Chairman, that ultimately I do support this bill, 
and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I want to thank the many 
staff members who have worked very hard on this legislation, and we 
look forward to this being signed into law.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for 
his leadership on the National Defense Authorization Act, and also 
recognize Ranking Member Smith for his efforts on what I believe is an 
extraordinarily good bill.
  I am pleased today to support H.R. 1540. It recognizes the need for 
fiscal constraint while at the same time ensuring our Nation's security 
and fulfills our sacred obligations to our brave men and women in 
uniform. The bill also strengthens protections against ill-considered 
efforts to release detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention 
facility.
  In December, the Director of National Intelligence reported that 25 
percent of those formerly held at Gitmo were confirmed or suspected of 
returning to the fight against us and our allies. This rate is alarming 
and unacceptable. I am concerned that the government did not conduct 
significant due diligence when identifying detainees for release and 
that this failure has potentially grave ramifications for our troops 
serving on the battlefield.
  H.R. 1540 strengthens our protections in several important ways. 
First, it prohibits transfers to foreign countries where there are 
known cases of re-engagement; it requires careful consideration of 
established criteria before

[[Page 7749]]

other transfers are accomplished; and it mandates that government 
agencies provide Congress the information we need to properly assess 
the threats our Nation and our troops face from detainees who have 
rejoined the fight and continue to commit terrorist acts.
  H.R. 1540 also ensures continued oversight of Arlington National 
Cemetery. It directs the timely establishment of the Oversight Council 
and creates a date certain for record digitization.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1540. I would like 
to end with thanking the staff, including Michelle Pearce, for their 
great work on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. ANDREWS. Twenty-three nights ago, a focused and brave group of 
young Americans climbed into helicopters and focused on their mission. 
Over 3 weeks ago, a group of American leaders met in the Situation Room 
of the White House focused on their mission. And over a 10-year period, 
a group of intelligence analysts and signal intelligence specialists 
and brave Americans all over the world focused on their mission to 
eliminate the menace of Osama bin Laden from this Earth. They succeeded 
in eliminating that menace, they succeeded in capturing valuable 
intelligence that will help us track down his coconspirators and stop 
them, and they sent a powerful message to any other evil rich person 
that wants to target the United States of America that such targeting 
is an act of suicide.
  We should salute those with that focus here tonight and reflect on 
the fact that our focus as Republicans and Democrats in passing this 
bill is to give other focused Americans in the military, our 
intelligence community, and those who support them the tools they need 
to do their job.
  I'm proud of the work that Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and 
all of the subcommittee chairs and ranking members did on this bill. 
There are controversial aspects of this bill, but this is a work that 
is focused on the defense of our country in the same tradition of those 
who so nobly served us 23 days ago.
  We should all join in a ``yes'' vote for this bill because it 
continues that tradition of our national security in a bipartisan 
sense. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee in a colloquy to discuss an 
issue that I believe is imperative to financial accountability in the 
defense intelligence community.
  I have been working with my colleagues in various congressional 
committees on language that would improve the ability of the defense 
intelligence elements to be appropriately audited. While we are not 
quite to the finish line on final language, I want my colleagues to be 
aware of this issue as we work on the NDAA this week.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this 
important issue.
  As the gentleman is well aware, oversight of DOD financial 
accountability issues is of high importance for our committee. We 
continue to work with the department to ensure they continue aggressive 
measures to get the department to a point where we have confidence in 
their financial statements.
  Mr. Conaway is a CPA and brings great expertise to the Congress.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words.
  While I'm disappointed that we were not able to work out an agreement 
that would include this language in the NDAA, I do understand that 
there have been issues raised with the amendment, as currently written, 
that may not provide the focused solution that we need to track 
disbursements and provide better accounting in the intelligence 
community.
  I look forward to continuing our work on this and other provisions to 
provide sufficient, yet directed authority that will improve the 
financial accountability in the Department of Defense.
  It is our responsibility, Mr. Chairman, to the American taxpayer to 
ensure that the intelligence community has the proper management tools 
to manage our precious resources that we provide to them.
  Mr. McKEON. I applaud the gentleman from Texas on his continued 
efforts to shine light on financial responsibility at the Pentagon. The 
language he's working on is certainly needed by the intelligence 
community to meet the financial accounting standards we require of the 
rest of the Federal Government. If all committees can agree upon 
language, I would welcome the opportunity to support such an amendment.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I want to thank the chairman for the colloquy and urge 
adoption of the underlying NDAA.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, while I support the underlying bill, I rise in 
opposition to language in the National Defense Authorization Act that 
exempts the Department of Defense from section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act, a critical energy security provision 
which also supports the development of domestic alternative fuels.
  This exemption, Mr. Chairman, will derail the DOD's efforts to 
strengthen national security through reducing dangerous greenhouse 
gases. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike 
Mullen, recently warned that climate change will have a significant 
effect on increasing competition for water and food, potentially 
causing humanitarian crises that could lead to failed states.
  Further, this concern is not new to DOD. In 2008, the Defense Science 
Board recommended to avoid investing in processes that exceed the 
carbon footprint of petroleum. This provision proposes to do exactly 
that.
  I would hope that we would remove this language and allow the 
department to experiment and use alternatives that would not exceed the 
current limit on the current carbon footprint on greenhouse gases.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
  Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, for 
your leadership on this important legislation for our men and women in 
uniform. It is an honor to serve with the both of you.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result of the 2005 BRAC, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst in my home district was combined into one installation from 
three separate military installations, which caused a problem. One 
issue this bill addresses is pay parity.
  Currently at Joint Base MDL, which used to be the separate Fort Dix 
and McGuire bases, wage grade system employees are paid at the 
Philadelphia locality pay rate, while at the Lakehurst side, the people 
doing the same jobs are paid at the New York locality rate.
  While OPM has indicated they want to resolve this situation, no 
change has yet been made.
  The language in the bill will work towards fixing this inequity by 
requiring OPM to work with the DOD to implement OPM's recommendation 
with respect to the Department of Defense Federal Wage System employees 
working at all joint military installations.
  Additionally, I want to recognize my colleagues on the House Armed 
Services Committee, Congressman Rob Andrews and Congressman Frank 
LoBiondo, for their work on this issue, as well as Congressman Chris 
Smith of New Jersey, who also has been active in assisting the 
employees at the joint base.
  Again, I thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, for 
your support on this, and I want to express my strong support for H.R. 
1540 and our Nation's war fighters.

[[Page 7750]]


  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with my colleague 
from New Jersey, Congressman Andrews.
  During the full committee markup of the defense authorization bill, 
you offered, and the committee supported, an amendment which would 
``ensure that the Secretary, at no cost to the Federal Government, 
provide support and allows for the use of such property by the 
contractor under such contract to conduct research, development, 
testing, and evaluation of the F136 engine, if such activities are 
self-funded by the contractor.''
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
  I simply would like to reiterate that it is your intention and 
understanding that there is no government funding provided to the F136 
contractors by your amendment in any section of this bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will further yield, it is my 
understanding and intent that there be no FY12 government funding for 
the F136 contractor.
  Mr. COURTNEY. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a 
distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as a former U.S. Marine, I 
understand the importance of a strong national defense, especially 
during this time of war.
  That's why I'm glad to rise in support of this National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2012. It provides our troops with the resources 
they need and enables them to carry out the missions we've asked of 
them.
  Now, I'd like to especially thank our chairman, Chairman McKeon, for 
his leadership in this process. In particular I can say as a freshman, 
he's taken great time and attention to the issue of reforming how we do 
our quadrennial defense review. He said that we need to take a further 
look at this in the future.

                              {time}  1950

  This, I believe, is the key to ensuring that we efficiently spend our 
defense dollars as we look to next year's bill. But this bill addresses 
the military issues we face today. It does so in a responsible manner. 
And it's being offered with an eye to improving the process in the 
future. So that's why I am supporting this National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. There is much in this bill to recommend, particularly 
the way in which it deals with the men and women that are in arms, the 
support that they need, the benefits that they require, and the care 
that they require following their missions.
  However, there is in this bill a missed opportunity, and I must 
therefore oppose the bill, the opportunity to change the direction of 
the war in Afghanistan, a war that seems without end, and a war that 
seems to be perpetual. A successful raid and the successful taking of 
bin Laden is an opportunity to pivot, and we are missing that 
opportunity in this bill, and continuing to spend over $100 billion on 
that war in Afghanistan.
  Also in this bill is section 1034, the continued authorization for 
the use of force. That too must be eliminated. For those reasons, I 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for allowing me to speak 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the B-1 bomber. My district, 
the 19th Congressional District of Texas, is home to 5,000 military and 
1,000 civilian personnel at Dyess Air Force Base, located in Abilene, 
Texas. The Dyess houses, among other missions, the 7th Bomb Wing, 
representing 36 of the 66 remaining B-1 Lancer bombers.
  As I testified before the Armed Services Committee last month, I am 
concerned about the proposed cuts to the B-1 fleet. Let me tell you 
why. Since 2001, the B-1 has flown over 70 percent of the bomber combat 
missions, while representing only 40 percent of the bomber fleet. 
Before combat in Libya, the B-1 bomber was the only bomber to be used 
in combat since May of 2006, and was used heavily at that. In fact, the 
B-1 is in the air, supporting troops deployed to the Middle East, 
almost every day.
  The B-1 has flown over 8,000 sorties for the past several years, and 
it has logged over 93,000 hours of operation over Iraq and Afghanistan 
in the last decade. Last year alone, it flew 1,253 missions and dropped 
741 bombs. By any measure, the B-1 is the backbone of the bomber fleet.
  I am very pleased that the committee has decided to change the 
recommendation of the administration. And I look forward to working 
with the chairman to make sure that America's bomber fleet is at the 
cutting edge in the future. We don't have a replacement for the B-1; 
and it's important until such time we get a replacement bomber that we 
make sure that we maintain the fleet that we have today, because 
particularly the B-1 is one of our most used weapons systems currently 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and the committee as we 
make sure that America's security is never compromised.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Again, I just want to thank the chairman and 
the staff for putting together an outstanding bill. This is no small 
enterprise. It is $691 billion. It is critical policy to provide for 
the national security for our country, critical policy to make sure 
that our troops and their families are properly taken care of, they 
have the equipment and support that they need to do the job that we ask 
them to do. And I think Mr. McKeon, the members of the committee, and 
the staff have done an outstanding job.
  I do want to also recognize our past chairman, Mr. Skelton. As I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, there is a strong bipartisan tradition 
on this committee. Mr. Skelton upheld that very well, and Mr. McKeon 
has done so as well. It was an honor to work with Mr. Skelton. I 
appreciate his leadership and guidance for all of us on the committee.
  I do just want to mention one issue that I neglected to mention in my 
opening remarks, and that is to associate myself with the remarks of 
Mr. Langevin with regard to the energy amendment that was contained in 
this bill. I think it's critical that we give the Department of Defense 
the ability to pursue alternative sources of energy that actually do 
improve our position in terms of greenhouse gases, and improve our 
position in terms of reducing our dependency--well, sorry, increasing 
our ability to use clean-burning sources of fuel.
  The amendment that was attached to this would allow to be considered 
alternative the use of fuels that really aren't. They are not clean 
burning or renewable. So I think that it is imperative that we strike 
that provision from this bill. But overall I am very supportive of the 
bill. I appreciate the chairman's leadership. I look forward to working 
with him over the course of the next couple of days as we deal with the 
amendments that are coming our way, and as we go into conference with 
the Senate to hopefully get this bill done, to the President for 
signature. It is critical to our national security interests that we do 
that.
  I thank the chairman again for his leadership.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 7751]]


  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I have remaining.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the great things on serving on this committee, 
the experience that I have had, is getting to know Mr. Smith during 
these last few months much better than previously and the members of 
the staff who have worked so hard and so diligently to get us to this 
point. Last week, or week before, when we marked this up in full 
committee, we went from 10 in the morning until 2:30 the next morning. 
And everybody was at work again the next day ready to go.
  We get to meet with the troops, we get to see the young people, and 
some that are not so young, serving us around the world to preserve our 
freedoms and freedoms of other peoples. And our job is to do all we can 
to help make their job easier, to help make their job--to help, as I 
said earlier, give them the equipment, the training, the leadership, 
the time, all the resources that they need to return home safely to 
their families.
  I think this bill does that. I feel very good about all of the 
members of the committee, the hard work that they have done to get us 
to this point. I look forward to the next few days working on the 
amendments and turning out a final finished product; and, hopefully, 
then we can encourage the other body to get their work done, and we can 
get this bill as our 50th bill to the President for his signature.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, I am offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill 
which would defund the war in Libya.
  The war is unconstitutional. The President did not come to this 
Congress, he went to the U.N. Security Council, he went to a number of 
international bodies, but he didn't come to the United States Congress. 
Last week, the President did not observe the tolling of the War Powers 
Act, so he's in violation of the statute.
  The action over in Libya has already exceeded the U.N. mandate; it's 
in violation of the U.N. mandate and there have been violations of 
international law.
  What are we doing there? Why does anyone think we can afford it? Why 
aren't we trying to find a path to peace so we aren't called upon to 
spend more money there? These are questions we have to be asking; 
that's why Congress needs to say we're not going to spend more money 
there.
  People are saying it's not the United States, it's NATO. The Guardian 
in the U.K. did a study which showed that 90 percent of the cruise 
missiles are paid for by the U.S. Sixty-six percent of the personnel 
working against Libya are from the U.S., 50 percent of aircraft, 50 
percent of all ships--and our government is saying this is a NATO 
operation? We have to recognize what's going on here, which is an 
expansion of the war power by the Executive and it's time we challenge 
that.
  One thing we certainly shouldn't do is to support the amendment 
offered by my friend, Mr. McKeon, which will hand over to the President 
Congress' constitutional authority to declare and authorize war, 
substantially altering the delicate balance of power the Founding 
Fathers envisioned.
  The annual re-authorization contains unprecedented and dangerous 
language which gives the President virtually unchecked power to take 
this country to war and to keep us there. The bill substantially 
undermines the Constitution, the institution that the Constitution set 
up that is Congress and sets the United States on a path to permanent 
war. Congress has to protect the American people from the overreach of 
any Chief Executive--Democrat, Republican--any Chief Executive who's 
enamored with unilateralism, preemption, first strike and the power to 
prosecute war without constitutional authority or statutory 
prescriptions.
  Permanent global war isn't the answer. It's not going to increase our 
national security. Far from ridding the world of terrorism, it will 
become a terrorist recruitment program. The war in Iraq is based on 
lies; the war in Afghanistan is based on a misreading of history.
  Yet in Iraq we'll spend over $3 trillion. In Afghanistan we've spent 
over half a trillion dollars.
  We have people out of work here. We have people losing their homes, 
losing their health care, losing their retirement security. All we hear 
from the White House is ``we want more war or more authorization for 
more war.'' We have to stop that and while stopping that we have to 
stop this national security state and stop the extension of the Patriot 
Act which is also in this bill.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1540, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012.
  More specifically, I rise in fierce opposition to provisions of this 
bill which seek to deter and derail the repeal of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell.
  A repeal, which has been implemented only after the Department of 
Defense completed a comprehensive review of the issues associated with 
the repeal.
  A repeal, which has been implemented only after DOD solicited the 
views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component 
Servicemembers.
  A repeal, which has been implemented only after DOD conducted one of 
the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military.
  Still, we stand here today to consider a measure that demonstrates 
that this body doesn't believe that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are right to support the repeal.
  I believe in our military's ability to evaluate and make 
recommendations, and I fully support their plan to implement repeal.
  I urge my colleagues to do the same and oppose this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today I will vote against the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). While nothing is 
more important than providing the resources needed to keep America and 
our men and women in uniform safe, this authorization spends too much 
while falling short in important areas.
  The bill authorizes $690.1 billion for defense programs in FY12. This 
level of defense spending is almost as much as the rest of the world 
combined--most of which is done by friendly allies such as NATO 
(approximately $350 billion). It also includes an additional $118.9 
billion in specific funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without 
a plan for a full redeployment from the region. I am disappointed that 
amendments to require a rapid and thoughtful withdrawal from 
Afghanistan were not approved. For me, this is reason enough not to 
support this legislation.
  The bill continues the misguided affront on civil liberties by 
further stalling the implementation of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' and 
requires that ``marriage'' for any regulation or benefit program at DoD 
means only a legal union between one man and one woman. This is a step 
backwards and unacceptable.
  It reverses the House victory from earlier this year that finally 
eliminated the unnecessary alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter. Similarly, the bill continues to fund the Marine Corps' 
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) which has also been cited as 
uneconomical and unwanted by the Secretary of Defense.
  Embarrassingly, this authorization contains two key provisions that 
continue to tie the President's hands by restricting his ability to 
transfer detainees to the United States for trial in Federal court and 
to release detainees to countries willing to take them. It is absurd to 
think that the United States, which currently has thousands of 
dangerous criminals locked safely behind bars, is incapable of doing 
the same for terrorists. These provisions continue the Guantanamo 
quagmire which is ill-advised and a sign of failure at home and to 
those observing abroad.
  There are many positive elements in the bill, such as new rights and 
protections for victims of sexual assault in the military and increased 
access to mental health providers for our Reserves. I am pleased three 
of my amendments were included in the legislation. One amendment lifts 
the veil on classified immunity for defense contractors, a practice 
that exposed 36 of our Oregon National Guardsmen to toxic chemicals in 
Iraq. The other two will help protect our troops on the battlefield and 
save billions of dollars through energy efficiency initiatives. Their 
inclusion, however, does not offset the overall authorization which 
fails to reflect America's priorities or our national security 
realities.
  At a time when Americans are calling for reform, this bill--despite 
some positives--continues our operations in Afghanistan with no plan 
for withdrawal, ramps up spending and discriminates against our service 
members. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate can remove some 
of the provisions that do little to make America secure while we 
continue to spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world 
combined.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1540, the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  It does not make sense to waste billions of tax dollars on an already 
bloated defense department, particularly in our current economic state. 
This bill is loaded with unnecessary and redundant funding. For 
example, it calls for the reckless continuation of the V-22 Osprey 
program, which has killed over 30 Americans in training alone, and 
whose termination could save us $10-12 billion over the next 10 years.

[[Page 7752]]

  Defense spending currently constitutes almost 60 percent of our 
discretionary spending. As we are forced to consider cutting important 
programs that working families depend on, we cannot continue to spend 
money we do not have--especially on an overly saturated Department of 
Defense. Americans have voiced their priorities: They want jobs, 
affordable health care and better education. This Congress must listen.
  I have not voted in support of a defense authorization bill 
throughout my tenure in Congress and I do not intend to start now.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, Chairman McKeon and Chairman 
Smith, thank you for working together on thoughtful procurement reform 
in the context of this NDAA. As I have said many times before, 
procurement should not be about theology. Decisions to insource or 
outsource should never be made on the a priori assumption that less or 
more government participation will save money. Therefore, I was 
supportive of including language in the NDAA which would restore the A-
76 process. While we must be vigilant to ensure this process accurately 
accounts for costs, there is no question that analysis must precede 
insourcing or outsourcing decisions, and A-76 at least attempts to 
create an analytical process. The fact that such a process was abused 
during the Bush administration should not obscure the need for analysis 
in the future. In a similar vein, I opposed draft proposals which would 
have established across the board prohibitions on conducting work in-
house if the tasks were not inherently governmental. While Federal 
employees certainly should conduct inherently governmental work, it may 
also make sense in some cases for them to do work that the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy has deemed ``closely associated with 
inherently governmental,'' or other functions. For example, when I was 
Chairman of Fairfax County, our vehicle maintenance were county 
employees who did outstanding work. There was nothing inherently 
governmental about oil changes, but Fairfax got the best deal with 
county employees. We should not preclude analogous arrangements from 
the Federal Government any more than we should preclude outsourcing 
vehicle maintenance. In addition to the Committee's thoughtful approach 
to insourcing and outsourcing, I greatly appreciate your support for 
other steps to improve the acquisition environment through improved 
Federal efficiency. These reforms include adoption of the Federal 
Acquisition Institute Amendment that Mr. Platts and I introduced as 
well as Mr. Langevin's amendment to rationalize the responsibilities of 
the Chief Technology Officer and other executive branch officials with 
technology policy portfolios. This National Defense Authorization Act 
represents significant progress for our procurement and technology 
communities, including both Federal employees and Federal contractors. 
Thank you for you and your staffs outstanding work on these important 
issues for our economy and the Federal Government.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, this will be the first time that I have 
voted against a Defense Authorization Act and I do so with great 
reluctance. But I also do so with confidence that it is the right 
decision.
  Section 1034 of this bill gives this President and all future 
Presidents vastly expanded authority to take America to war without 
further congressional action. It gives the Executive a virtual blank 
check by authorizing the President to deploy an unlimited number of 
troops into a war of unlimited duration based on ill-defined standards. 
The language in 1034 represents a total abdication of congressional 
responsibility under the Constitution.
  The President already has broad authority to use military force 
against al Qaeda and Taliban forces pursuant to the Authorization of 
the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was adopted in 2001. That 
provision states:

       That the President is authorized 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, in order to 
     prevent any future acts of international terrorism against 
     the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  This bill replaces the existing AUMF with a new provision that 
provides the President with vast new war-making authority. Under the 
umbrella of the war against terrorism, it expands the existing broad 
authority in at least three ways:


                De-links use of force from 9/11 attacks

  The original language gave the President the authority to use 
military force against any entities he determined to be connected to 
the attacks of September 11, 2001 or any nation, organization or 
persons he determined harbored such entities. The new language expands 
the authority to target entities regardless of their connection to the 
September 11 attacks.


           Permits attacks on undefined ``associated forces''

  The original language authorized all necessary force against the 
entities responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but did not provide the 
authority to wage war against undetermined ``associated forces.'' The 
term ``associated forces'' is totally undefined and would allow any 
President to apply that term with great elasticity to go to war without 
congressional approval in any number of situations.


 Allows use of force against entities that ``support'' the Taliban, al 
                     Qaeda or ``associated forces''

  The original language allowed the use of force against entities that 
``harbored'' the terrorist groups that perpetuated the attacks of
9/11. The new language allows the President to wage war, without 
additional congressional consent, against any entities that 
substantially support the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces.'' 
This is a much weaker standard than the existing requirement.
  Had the Congress included this language in the 2001 AUMF, President 
Bush could have sent American troops into Iraq without seeking a 
separate resolution to use force. This language authorizes the 
Executive to launch military action against an entity that had nothing 
to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 so long as the President 
determines that a country or organization is substantially supporting 
the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces.'' The Bush administration 
claimed that the regime of Saddam Hussein was allowing Iraqi territory 
to be used to train al Qaeda elements.
  While I believe the Congress made a mistake in voting to authorize 
President Bush to go to war in Iraq, at least Congress debated and 
voted on the decision. With this new provision in place, no such vote 
would have been required.
  Under the Constitution, the President of the United States already 
has relatively broad powers to use military force as Commander in 
Chief. In addition, the existing Authorization of the Use of Military 
Force provides the President with additional authority to take military 
action in a wide array of situations without seeking additional 
congressional approval or a declaration of war. It is a reckless 
surrender of congressional responsibility for the Congress to write 
this new open-ended blank check for the use of military force. Not even 
the Executive has been brazen enough to request this new broad grant of 
authority.
  The language in Section 1034 is sloppy, ill-considered and poorly 
conceived. No hearings were held to consider its full ramifications. 
This Congress should be ashamed of itself for its careless and cavalier 
approach to a question of such grave national significance.
  I urge the Senate and the President to reject this provision and hope 
to have an opportunity to vote for a revised Defense Authorization Act 
that doesn't undermine the constitutional responsibilities of the 
Congress.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my concern over a 
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that would 
limit the access of certain military retirees to the TRICARE Uniformed 
Services Family Health Plan (USFHP).
  As you know, USFHP has been an extremely popular program within the 
Military Health System since its introduction in 1981, serving more 
than 115,000 active duty service members, veterans, and their families 
16 states, including more than 11,000 in Washington state. USFHP 
consistently earns a 90 percent satisfaction rating among its 
enrollees--by far the highest among military beneficiary programs. In 
addition to its success and popularity, this program plays an integral 
component in the Department of Defense (DoD) meeting its commitment to 
provide health care to those who have served our country in uniform.
  The provision included in this year's Defense Authorization bill 
would terminate health care services under the plan when beneficiaries 
reach the age of 65 and become eligible to transfer to Medicare. Over 
one third of all USFHP beneficiaries are currently over 65 and are 
taking advantage of the USFHP managed care structure. Removing them 
from the program could undermine the highly effective disease 
management and prevention aspects of the USFHP, not to mention 
potentially ending longstanding patient-doctor relationships due to the 
change in coverage.
  USFHP is a fully capitated program, providing quality and efficient 
care to beneficiaries. Even recently, Congress highlighted the 
effectiveness of USFHP in the 111th DoD authorization bill, while 
directing DoD to examine opportunities to improve the broader TRICARE 
Program. Additionally last year the

[[Page 7753]]

Director of TRICARE Management engaged USFHP to assist in educating the 
rest of the DoD system about their highly successful prevention and 
disease management programs. As we look to improve the quality of care 
while addressing high costs, we can learn from effective programs like 
USFHP, which provides managed care and includes a focus on preventative 
care and managing chronic illnesses to improve the lives of our service 
members and potentially creating savings in the long run. Transferring 
beneficiaries to Medicare will only shift costs, rather than improve 
the quality of care for those who have served our country.
  In light of this, and the success this program has had in providing 
for those who have served in uniform, I wish to reiterate my support 
for USFHP. I hope we can avoid major alterations to the US Family 
Health Plan and continue to offer this service to all eligible 
beneficiaries, including those over the age of 65, who I believe have 
earned a right to this high quality program through service to our 
country.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concerns 
with repealing Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act 
through the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 
This provision of the NDAA would undermine Department of Defense 
efforts to reduce oil dependence and could cripple America's nascent 
algal biofuel industry.
  Our Armed Forces are making great progress to reduce their dependence 
on oil in a manner that promotes climate security. For example, the Air 
Force plans to procure 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel from 
alternative sources by 2016. It has already developed the ``Green 
Hornet,'' a fighter jet that runs on algae-based biofuel. The Navy is 
in the process of deploying its ``Great Green Fleet,'' which will run 
entirely on alternative fuels and be operational by 2016.
  These improvements to national security parallel new economic 
opportunities for the biofuel industry. According to the Biotechnology 
Industry Association, ``Section 526 is helping low carbon fuels bridge 
the `valley of death' between development and commercialization,'' and 
is ``already helping the Air Force and Navy meet its alternative fuel 
goals.'' The domestic biofuels industry contributes 400,000 jobs and 
$53 billion to the American economy while supporting deployment of 
domestically-produced biofuels for our Armed Forces.
  We cannot abort this critical effort to help our military achieve 
energy independence. It is imperative that repeal of Section 526 be 
stricken from the National Defense Authorization Act before this 
legislation proceeds to the President for his signature.

 The Importance of Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security 
   Act of 2007 to the Continued Development and Commercialization of 
                           Advanced Biofuels


                                May 2011

     What Section 526 Does
       Prevents federal agencies from purchasing unconventional 
     fuels with higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional 
     fuels.
       Most relevant to the Department of Defense (DOD) because it 
     is the Nation's largest fuel purchaser and is leading federal 
     efforts to support, develop and commercialize domestic 
     alternative sources of fuel for military use.
       For instance, the U.S. Air Force intends to procure 50 
     percent of its domestic aviation fuel from alternative 
     sources by 2016.
       Also, the U.S. Navy plans to deploy a ``Great Green Fleet'' 
     by 2016, which will be entirely operated on alternative 
     fuels.
     Why Section 526 Is Important to the United States and to the 
         Advanced Biofuels Industry
       Section 526 is helping low carbon fuels bridge the ``valley 
     of death'' between development and commercialization by 
     preventing large, carbon intensive fossil fuel facilities 
     from crowding out their opportunities. Section 526 is 
     therefore already helping the Air Force and Navy meet its 
     alternative fuel goals and the country move toward greater 
     energy independence and security and create jobs.
       The domestic biofuels industry is now contributing more 
     than 400,000 jobs and $53 billion in new activity to the 
     Nation's economy. A recent report found that additional job 
     creation from advanced biofuels production could reach 
     807,000 by 2022.
       Since its enactment, Section 526 has provided a clear 
     signal that energy security and climate security will be 
     advanced in parallel to federal alternative fuel procurement. 
     This has helped to focus private investment and early DOD 
     testing on advanced biofuels, which offer substantial 
     greenhouse gas reductions in addition to their energy 
     security benefits.
       The prospects of a stable and long-term customer in the DOD 
     is a major driver of early investment in advanced biofuels 
     for aviation and marine applications. Eliminating Section 526 
     could seriously undermine this investment certainty, leading 
     to less and less investment and capital access for advanced 
     biofuels.
       Congress must maintain Section 526 to assure continued U.S. 
     leadership on biofuels, especially advanced and cellulosic 
     biofuels for aviation and other military applications.
     Advanced Biofuels Companies and Projects That Could Be 
         Negatively Affected if Section 526 Were Eliminated`
       The maps below illustrate existing and planned cellulosic 
     biofuel biorefineries and algae production projects at 
     various stages of development in North America.
       Currently, there are more than 70 pilot and demonstration 
     advanced biofuel biorefineries across North America--
     including cellulosic, algae, and other advanced biofuel 
     technologies--representing hundreds of millions of dollars in 
     investment.
       There have been successes at each stage of research and 
     development and all are in the process of scaling-up.
       Commercial development was slowed by the recession but is 
     regaining momentum as a result of supportive federal 
     programs, such as Section 526, and some thawing of capital 
     markets.
       Many of the facilities and projects shown may be negatively 
     impacted by the elimination of Section 526.

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit the following exchange 
of letters:

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to you regarding H.R. 1540, 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. 
     I am aware that there are certain provisions in the 
     legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Homeland Security.
       In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
     expeditiously with consideration of this important 
     legislation, I am waiving the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's jurisdiction pertaining to a sequential referral. 
     However, I do so with the understanding that the committee's 
     jurisdictional claims over subject matters contained in this 
     and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. 
     I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this 
     committee to any conference committee which is named to 
     consider such provisions.
       Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
     1540 and into the Congressional Record during consideration 
     of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Peter King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Ford Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I am most appreciative of your decision not to request 
     a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the 
     bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                 Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This legislation 
     contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the 
     Foreign Affairs Committee. However, in order to expedite 
     Floor consideration of this important legislation, the 
     Committee will not markup this bill.
       The Committee takes this action with the mutual 
     understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over this, 
     and similar legislation, is in no way diminished or altered. 
     That understanding includes the agreement reached with the 
     Armed Services Committee on the provisions provided under 
     separate cover.
       However, of particular concern to the Committee is Section 
     1034: Affirmation of Armed

[[Page 7754]]

     Conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated Forces.
       The Committee agrees to the language in this provision. The 
     Armed Services Committee has recognized, and reaffirmed in 
     this exchange of letters, that the War Powers Resolution and 
     associated Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, such 
     as those contained in Public Law 107-40 (post-9/11) and 
     Public Law 107-243 (Iraq), are within the primary 
     jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
       Clause 1(i)(9) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives states that the Foreign Affairs Committee is 
     assigned jurisdiction over ``Intervention abroad and 
     declarations of war.'' Authorizations for the use of military 
     force (such as H.J. Res. 64 and H.J. Res. 114 in the 107th 
     Congress) have been referred by the Parliamentarian solely to 
     the Foreign Affairs Committee.
       The Foreign Affairs Committee therefore requests that it be 
     included in any briefing by any Executive Branch agency, 
     including the Department of Defense, relating to the 
     Authorization for the Use of Military Force, including 
     operations or activities conducted pursuant to the 
     Authorization of Use of Military Force.
       The Committee reserves the right to seek appointment to any 
     House-Senate conference on this legislation, and requests 
     your support if such a request is made. I would appreciate 
     your including this letter in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration H.R. 1540 on the House Floor.
           Sincerely,
                                              Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Ways and Means,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing concerning H.R. 1540, 
     the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012.'' There are certain provisions in the legislation which 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means under Rule X of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over part A of Title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), and a provision in 
     H.R. 1540 concerning the transition of future Medicare 
     eligible Uniformed Services Family Health Plan enrollees to 
     TRICARE for life would fall within that jurisdiction. 
     Additionally, a provision requiring the assessment of the 
     national security risk of the United States' debt owned by 
     the People's Republic of China would fall under the 
     Committee's jurisdiction over the issuance and sale of bonded 
     U.S. debt. Lastly, the Committee has jurisdiction over 
     matters related to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and a 
     provision amending grants made in lieu of tax credits under 
     Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 would also fall under the Committee's jurisdiction.
       In order to expedite floor consideration of this important 
     legislation, I am willing to waive this Committee's right to 
     a sequential referral. This is being done with the 
     understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the 
     Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this or similar legislation. The Committee also reserves the 
     right to seek appointment of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference and requests your support if such a request is 
     made.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 1540, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dave Camp,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Longworth Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     bill H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012. There are certain provisions in the 
     legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, 
     I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential 
     referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform does not waive any future jurisdictional 
     claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which 
     fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge 
     the Speaker to name members of this committee to any 
     conference committee which is named to consider such 
     provisions.
       Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
     1540 and into the Congressional Record during consideration 
     of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the 
     cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this 
     matter and others between our respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions 
     in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of 
     your decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

     Chairman.
                                  ____


         House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on 
           Intelligence,
                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Buck McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of 
     expediting the passage of H.R. 1540, the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,'' the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further 
     consideration of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional 
     interests in H.R. 1540, including intelligence and 
     intelligence-related authorizations and provisions contained 
     in the bill.
       The Committee takes this action only with the understanding 
     that this procedural route should not be construed to 
     prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any 
     similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any 
     provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction 
     during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on 
     this legislation.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional 
     Record during the House debate on H.R. 1540. I appreciate the 
     constructive work between our committees on this matter and 
     thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Rogers,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 7755]]

     
                                  ____
                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Mike Rogers,
     Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House 
         of Representatives, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm my understanding 
     regarding H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2012. This legislation contains subject 
     matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. However, in order to expedite floor consideration 
     of this legislation, the Committee waives consideration of 
     those provisions in the jurisdiction of our Committee where 
     we reviewed your language and reached an agreement on the 
     wording. The provisions where we waived our right to a 
     referral include:
       The travel, transportation, pay, and bonus provisions for 
     uniformed service members (Title VI);
       Assessment of High-Performance Computing (Sec. 31); and,
       An amendment allowing utilities to pass through tax 
     benefits to ratepayers in a lump sum.
       For these negotiated provisions, the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce takes this action only with the understanding 
     that the Committee's jurisdictional interests over this and 
     similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. For 
     any other provision that falls within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce and where our mutual 
     Committees have not come to a resolution, I reserve the right 
     to seek a referral of H.R. 1540 to consider those provisions.
       The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1540 on the 
     House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Financial 
     Services in an amendment to be offered by Rep. Walter Jones 
     at your scheduled mark-up of H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, on Wednesday, May 11, 
     2011. Rep. Jones' amendment would allow the military 
     exchanges to have access to credit available through the 
     Federal Financing Bank. As such, the amendment clearly falls 
     within the Committee on Financial Services' jurisdiction over 
     banks, banking, money and credit pursuant to rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1540 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while the Committee on Financial Services has 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter of Rep. Jones' amendment 
     under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I 
     do not intend to request a sequential referral of the 
     legislation if it includes the amendment. By agreeing to 
     waive its right to a sequential referral of the bill, the 
     Committee on Financial Services does not waive its 
     jurisdiction over H.R. 1540 if Rep. Jones' amendment or other 
     similar amendment is adopted. In addition, I make this 
     commitment with the understanding that this will not 
     prejudice the Committee on Financial Services with respect to 
     its prerogatives on this or similar legislation. Further, the 
     Committee on Financial Services reserves its authority to 
     seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within 
     its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may 
     be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to 
     support any request by the Committee on Financial Services 
     for conferees on H.R. 1540 or related legislation.
       Lastly, I request that you include this letter and your 
     response in your committee's report on and in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation 
     on the House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to a certain provision in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial 
     Services is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning the Committee on 
     Natural Resources' jurisdiction interest in H.R. 1540, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
       To allow the Armed Services Committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, 
     the Committee on Natural Resources will waive its right to a 
     sequential referral of H.R. 1540. I do so with the 
     understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the 
     Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future 
     jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in 
     the bill that fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I also 
     request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this 
     Committee to any conference committee named to consider H.R. 
     1540.
       I would appreciate you including this letter in the Armed 
     Service Committee's report on H.R. 1540. Thank you for the 
     cooperative spirit in which you and your able staff have 
     worked regarding this matter and others between our 
     respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Doc Hastings,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Longworth Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Natural 
     Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 7756]]

     
                                  ____
         Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
           Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce in matters being considered in H.R. 1540, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1540 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     and that a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in 
     the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of this bill by the House.
       The Education and the Workforce Committee also asks that 
     you support our request to be conferees on the provisions 
     over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Kline,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. John Kline,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
     Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the 
     committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This legislation 
     contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Budget. However, in order to expedite floor 
     consideration of this important legislation, the committee 
     waives consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on the Budget takes this action only with the 
     understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests 
     over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or 
     altered.
       The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1540 on the 
     House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Paul Ryan,

                                                         Chairman,
     Committee on the Budget.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 
         Longworth Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 1540, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as 
     amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation 
     which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration, I am willing to waive 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's right to 
     sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by 
     waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure does not waive any future 
     jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in 
     the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request 
     you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any 
     conference committee named to consider such provisions.
       Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
     1540 and into the Congressional Record during consideration 
     of the measure on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology in H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year of 2011.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1540 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology.
       Further, I request your support for the appointment of 
     Science, Space, and Technology Committee conferees during any 
     House-Senate conference convened on this legislation. I also 
     ask that a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest be placed in the 
     legislative report on H.R. 1540 and the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of this bill.
       I look forward to working with you on this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ralph M. Hall,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Ralph Hall,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House 
         of Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
     provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
     appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in 
     the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
     that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on

[[Page 7757]]

     Science, Space, and Technology is not waiving its 
     jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be 
     included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Small Business,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     bill H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012. There are certain provisions in the 
     legislation which fall within Rule X (p) of the Committee on 
     Small Business.
       In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed 
     Services to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of 
     this important bill, I am willing to waive the right of the 
     Committee on Small Business to sequential referral as a 
     result of the agreement to address my concerns with respect 
     to section 804 of the bill. I do so with the understanding 
     that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on 
     Small Business does not waive any future jurisdictional claim 
     over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall 
     with its Rule X (p) jurisdiction. I request that you urge the 
     Speaker to name members of this Committee to any conference 
     committee which is named to consider such provisions.
       Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 
     1540 and into the Congressional Record during consideration 
     of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the 
     cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this 
     issue and others between our respective committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Sam Graves,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Sam Graves,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on Small Business is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This legislation 
     contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of House 
     Veterans' Affairs Committee. However, in order to expedite 
     floor consideration of this important legislation, the 
     committee waives consideration of the bill.
       The House Veterans' Affairs Committee takes this action 
     only with the understanding that the committee's 
     jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation 
     are in no way diminished or altered.
       The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1540 on the 
     House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jeff Miller,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Jeff Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Cannon Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has 
     valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this 
     important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your 
     decision not to request a referral in the interest of 
     expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by 
     foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the committee report 
     on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2011.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of Committee on the Judiciary in 
     matters being considered in H.R. 1540, the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.'' As a result of your 
     having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 1540 that fall 
     within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, I do not intend to request a sequential referral 
     in order that this bill may proceed expeditiously to the 
     House floor for consideration.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1540 at 
     this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our 
     Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the 
     bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may 
     address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and 
     requests your support for any such request.
       I appreciate your including this letter and a copy of your 
     response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest on this 
     matter in your committee report and in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1540.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2011.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2012. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters 
     will be included in the committee report on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                        Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1540, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which provides 
$690 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the 
national security programs of the Department of Energy.
  I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their hard work 
in bringing this bipartisan piece of legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I support this bill for three reasons: (1) it restores and 
enhances the readiness of our troops, equipment, and defense 
infrastructure; (2) it takes care of our military personnel and their 
families; and (3) it authorizes the needed investments to keep our 
nation strong, safe, and respected in the world.
  Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions. This 
legislation:


                SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES

  Observes the President's request to provide a 1.6 percent pay raise 
for all service members.
  Provides new rights and protections for victims of sexual assault in 
the military by ensuring that victims have access to a military lawyer 
and makes certain that conversations between victims and DOD Safe 
Helpline counselors are maintained confidential.
  Allows sexual assault victims to transfer out of their base or unit.
  Requires more training of personnel for sexual assault prevention and 
recovery at all levels of our armed forces.
  This bill would also make students who are enrolled in a course of 
study that results in a degree in clinical psychology or social work 
eligible to receive a stipend.
  Protects against disproportionate increases in TRICARE Prime fees by 
stipulating that the percentage fee increase in any future year may not 
exceed the percentage increase in military retired pay for that year.

[[Page 7758]]




          PROTECTING OUR TROOPS AND SUPPORTING TROOP READINESS

  Provides $2.8 billion for measures to counter IED activities in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  Provides $3.2 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) 
vehicles.
  Provides an increase of $425 million for modernization of Abrams 
tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles.
  Authorizes $23 billion for the training of all active-duty and 
reserve forces to increase troop readiness.
  Provides $4.5 billion for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset and 
depot maintenance.
  Authorizes $6.6 billion to fund Navy ship and aircraft depot 
maintenance for both the active and reserve components.


                        RICHARDSON AMENDMENT #1

  I also support this bill because it includes an amendment that I 
offered to increase the effectiveness of the Northern Command 
(``NORTHCOM'') in fulfilling its critical mission of protecting the 
U.S. homeland in the event of war and in providing support to local, 
state, and federal authorities in times of national emergency. 
Specifically, my amendment would ensure that NORTHCOM (1) develops and 
has in place a leadership strategy that will strengthen and foster 
institutional and interpersonal relationships with state and local 
governments and (2) develops an instructional program to train key 
personnel how to lead effectively in the event of a disaster when they 
do not have command authority to dictate actions.
  The purpose for NORTHCOM is to bring the capabilities and the 
resources of the U.S. military to the assistance of the American people 
during a catastrophic disaster. NORTHCOM leaders will be much more 
effective in saving lives, protecting assets, and enhancing resilience 
after the disaster has occurred if they are trained in the techniques 
of effective engagement with civilian leadership. My amendment would 
ensure that such training will be available.


                        RICHARDSON AMENDMENT #2

  However, I am disappointed that a different amendment I offered to 
this bill was not made in order. This amendment would have instructed 
the TRANSPORTATION COMMAND (TRANSCOM) to update and expand the PORT 
LOOK 2008 Strategic Seaports study. This study remains a crucial tool 
to ensure that our ports are ready to respond in the case of an 
emergency. As we strive to improve our infrastructure in and around our 
strategic ports, we must fully understand how the entire port area can 
serve our defense forces and what improvements are necessary.
  Although this amendment was not made in order, I will continue to 
work with my colleagues to ensure that port infrastructure receives the 
support it deserves.


                               CONCLUSION

  Mr. Chair, let me express my thanks to the Rules Committee for making 
the Richardson Amendment in order and to the Armed Services Committee 
for accepting it.
  In conclusion, I support H.R. 1540 because it restores and enhances 
the readiness of our troops, equipment, and defense infrastructure. It 
takes care of our military personnel and their families. And it 
authorizes the needed investments to keep our nation strong, safe, and 
respected in the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for 
the bill on final passage.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, 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. 1540) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to 
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________