[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17952-17962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4310, NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 840 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 840

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered

[[Page 17953]]

     on the conference report to its adoption without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit if applicable.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 
5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As is customary for this conference report, this 
is a closed rule which provides for the consideration of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 4310, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, and provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority 
member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  I'm actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of 
the rule as well as the underlying legislation, which was H.R. 4310, 
and the conference report that accompanies the Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
  I also have to, at the beginning, thank the chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work and his steady 
leadership on this bill, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Smith of 
Washington, for continuing the time-honored tradition of close 
cooperation and bipartisanship when it comes to defense and producing 
this conference report. I also thank the professional staff, which has 
worked closely together on literally hundreds of very difficult and 
often very technical issues and has done so cooperatively in an 
extremely responsible manner.
  I'm very proud that the Armed Services Committee produced a bill in a 
very bipartisan manner. I'm proud of the floor of the House who voted 
and passed, in a bipartisan way, this bill back in May. The Senate has 
finally decided to pass the bill in December. That the Senate has 
passed a bill is commendable. It is unusual, but it is also 
commendable. The fact that they have done this here gives us an 
opportunity of passing one of the few bills that must be done in every 
session of Congress. The Senate's procrastination on this effort is one 
of the things that is worrisome. I only hope that in the years to come, 
the Senate majority leadership will return to acting expeditiously, 
deliberately, and in a more timely manner in something that is this 
important.
  It is actually a testament to the competency and professionalism of 
the House Armed Services Committee staff, the House leadership staff, 
and the Rules Committee staff that this enormous and complex conference 
agreement could be rescued at the end of what is becoming an otherwise 
contentious lame-duck session.
  Mr. Speaker, in our Rules Committee meeting the other day, we had the 
opportunity of having Mr. Hastings and others refer to the 
Constitution. It is very significant that in the beginning of the 
Constitution, the Preamble, that we talked about creating a more 
perfect Union. A more perfect Union is not a grammatical flaw that was 
introduced by the Founding Fathers. It had a specific historical 
context. It also talked about preserving or promoting domestic 
tranquility, which had, also, a specific historical context which had 
nothing to do with America being sedate or tranquil. It had something 
to do with the specific concept of private property. It also talked 
about promoting general welfare, even though they had a uniquely 
different idea of the word ``general'' than we have today.
  But in providing in the intermediary with all these provisions is 
also the word that we are supposed to provide for the common defense. 
It was not unusual that that word was in there, put in by Gouverneur 
Morris and the rest of them.
  When the Founding Fathers met to write our Constitution, they were 
looking at the historical milieu of the day and the concepts that were 
going on at that time. They responded in a way to try to make sure that 
they solved the problems of the day in a way that would never come up 
again. The concept of providing for the common defense became one of 
the core constitutional responsibilities that was extremely 
significant.
  We had won the Revolutionary War, but we had also--several of the 
States--violated the treaty with Britain. The inability of some States 
to protect Tory property had given the British the reason to continue 
to have armed British soldiers on American soil or British forts on 
American soil. We could not, under the Articles of Confederation, 
control our borders. The British were arming subgroups coming in here 
to do more than just destroy our domestic tranquility, but also to take 
down and harm the lives of Americans. It seems some things never 
change.
  But the Articles of Confederation and Congress could not respond to 
this. They had an Army of only 700 people. There was no Navy to control 
the shipping or protect our shipping rights. The Articles of 
Confederation and Congress realized what we should also realize that if 
we do not have an adequate and strong defense, not only can we not 
militarily defend this country, but we don't have the ability of 
diplomatically trying to reach solutions to problems without resorting 
to military efforts. They realized that this was one of the flaws of 
America when they wrote the Constitution.
  So it is not unusual for them to specifically put in here that one of 
the responsibilities that this House has is to provide for the common 
defense. It is not unusual that in article I, section 8, there are 17 
clauses. Seven of those 17 clauses, as well as the introduction, talk 
about the necessity of military defense and military preparedness for 
this country. They recognized how significant that was, not just for 
defending militarily, but also for the future and the diplomatic 
abilities of the future United States.
  This bill deals with one of the few core constitutional 
responsibilities that we had. Fortunately, over the past 51 years, 
Congress has been able to come together in an amazingly bipartisan way 
to come up with a Defense authorization bill that provides our Defense 
agencies the ability to function, to train, to equip our forces, and to 
provide for our military personnel and their families.
  We are betting if we do not do this, that the large-scale threats to 
our national security will be so far in the future we can just sort of 
tread water. I hope sometimes that they are right, but that treading 
would not be what the Founding Fathers would look at as providing for 
the common defense.
  In a real world, there would be what I would consider to be a more 
significant and effective bill, but we're not dealing with the real 
world. We are dealing, though, with real-world issues. Part of the 
issue is that we are looking at a world that is extremely dangerous for 
us--we do not know what the future enemy will be--and we are also 
dealing with a world in which we are continually trying to diminish our 
military presence.
  Our Navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. Our Army will be 
smaller than it was at the beginning of World War II. Our Air Force is 
the smallest it has ever been in the history of this country, with the 
oldest planes that we've ever had. Those issues are issues that are 
significant, they are important, and they must be addressed. And those 
are going to be ongoing, long-term issues.
  This particular bill does not do as much to address that particular 
problem and give us the security of the future as I wish it could do. 
That's only because we are not dealing in a perfect world where we can 
establish the setting that we wish to do. We have to deal with the 
setting in which we find ourselves.

[[Page 17954]]



                              {time}  1240

  Having said that, there are a lot of things in this particular 
conference report and in the House-passed bill which are very, very 
positive, and they do move us forward. As we continue the discussion of 
this rule as well as the debate of the conference report on the floor, 
we will talk about some of those things that are positive and that do 
move us forward.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continuing discussion 
about talking about what is, indeed, in this particular bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, the National Defense 
Authorization bill.
  I recognize and appreciate all of the hard work that went into 
crafting this conference report--on both sides of the aisle. I commend 
Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and all their staffs for all 
of the work that they have done. I especially appreciate that the final 
version of the bill includes a modified version of the Merkley 
amendment on Afghanistan that was approved by the United States Senate, 
but unfortunately, the final product contains policies that I simply 
cannot support.
  The bill increases funding--beyond the Pentagon's request--for 
several programs, including a new missile defense base on the east 
coast. The bill also denies the Pentagon the opportunity to save money 
with its failure to include a cut to the contractor comp cap, its 
failure to include a round of base closures, and its failure to 
implement end-strength troop reductions even though we are supposedly 
ending our involvement in two wars.
  At a time when Congress is being asked to look for savings, even 
considering cutting vital programs like Social Security, it is 
unconscionable to me that we would continue to mandate wasteful funding 
that the military has said it does not need and does not want. How can 
we look into the eyes of a senior citizen who is living off of Social 
Security and tell him that his cost-of-living adjustment will be 
smaller so that we can buy weapons that the military doesn't even want?
  Also very troubling to me is that this bill continues to prevent the 
President from fulfilling his commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay 
prison camp by imposing unnecessary and ill-advised transfer 
restrictions. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as the cochair of the 
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. We constantly and appropriately 
criticize other countries for their lack of transparency and adherence 
to the rule of law. The continued existence of Guantanamo undermines 
our standing around the world. The President has said repeatedly that 
he wants to close Guantanamo. There is broad bipartisan support among 
national security experts for him to do so. Congress just needs to get 
out of the way.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support a great deal of this bill, especially 
programs and services for our veterans and military retirees, I cannot 
support a bill this large when we are in the middle of negotiations on 
the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' The Pentagon is more willing than this 
Congress to look at the defense budget and make thoughtful but 
significant reductions. This bill continues to show that, when it comes 
to defense spending, Congress is part of the problem, not part of the 
solution.
  I would like to insert into the Record an article that appeared in 
today's Washington Post by Walter Pincus, entitled, ``Military funds to 
spare?,'' in which he quotes Secretary of Defense Panetta in a speech. 
He said that the committees here in the Congress ``had diverted about 
$74 billion of what we asked for in savings in our proposed budget to 
the Congress, and they diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we 
don't need.'' That is from the Secretary of Defense.
  I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the President 
that was sent to Members of Congress as well, urging that he veto the 
National Defense Authorization Act because it extends restrictions on 
transferring detainees out of the Guantanamo prison.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude my opening here by saying that I 
want a defense second to none. I believe that we need to do whatever we 
need to do to protect the citizens of this country, but just throwing 
more money at the Pentagon doesn't mean that you're getting a stronger 
defense. Expanding the bloat and the waste in the Pentagon does nothing 
to enhance our national security. We need a new definition of 
``national security,'' one that includes things like jobs for our 
citizens, one that includes access to a good quality education, one 
that includes a strong infrastructure, one that includes good health 
care for everybody in this country, an end to homelessness, and an end 
to hunger in the United States of America.
  I say this because, after we debate this rule, we're going to take up 
another rule dealing with the so-called ``Plan B'' and ``Plan C,'' and 
maybe there's a Plan D and a Plan E, who knows. What is particularly 
troublesome to me is that, in the tax version of what the Republicans 
are going to bring to the floor later, it includes things like ending 
programs that benefit middle-income families and poor families.
  Under their proposal, 25 million working families with tens of 
millions of children will pay an average of $1,000 more in taxes. 
That's not fair. That undermines the economic security of that family.
  Under their proposal, 11 million families would lose a tax credit 
that helps pay for college. How is that in our security? We're told 
time and time again by all of the experts that, in order for us to 
continue to be an economic global power, we need a well-educated 
workforce. So what are they proposing? That 11 million families lose 
their tax credits to help pay for college.
  Fifty million seniors and other Medicare enrollees' health care would 
be jeopardized as doctors face a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments 
under this proposal. That's just the tax version of what they're 
proposing. We haven't even gotten to what they're proposing in terms of 
spending cuts.
  So here we are, talking about a Defense Authorization Act that is 
more money than our Pentagon wants, that is more money than our Joint 
Chiefs of Staff want, that is more money than the Secretary of Defense 
wants. As we're doing this, we're telling the American people that we 
have to lower your cost-of-living adjustment on Social Security, that 
we have to lower your quality of health care, that we have to cut some 
money from housing programs, that we have to cut SNAP and food stamps 
so that you won't have enough to eat.
  This is crazy. This is crazy. So, yes, we're all for a military and a 
defense second to none, but I will tell you that some of our biggest 
threats are not halfway around the world--they're halfway down the 
block. We have to start paying attention to what's happening in this 
country, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2012]

                        Military Funds to Spare?

                           (By Walter Pincus)

       Congress and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta showed this 
     week that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of 
     loose dollars in the Pentagon's budget that can be shifted 
     around without apparent harm to national security.
       In a speech Wednesday at the National Press Club, Panetta 
     voiced his frustration at changes the House and Senate armed 
     services committees had made in the fiscal 2013 defense 
     authorization bill. At one point he said that the committees 
     ``had diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in 
     savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they 
     diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need.''
       He spoke about ``pressure on the department to retain 
     excess force structure and infrastructure instead of 
     investing in the training and equipment that makes our force 
     agile and flexible and ready.'' Without specifying programs, 
     Panetta mentioned having to keep ``aircraft, ships, tanks, 
     bases, even those that have outlived their usefulness, [but] 
     have a natural political constituency.''
       As if on cue, just two hours after Panetta's speech, the 
     chairmen of the Senate and House armed services committees--
     Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Howard P. ``Buck''

[[Page 17955]]

      McKeon (R-Calif.)--released summaries of the House-Senate 
     conference report on the fiscal 2013 defense bill that 
     contained funding changes illustrating some of what Panetta 
     had been complaining about.
       For example, the conferees approved more than $500 million 
     to continue the Global Hawk Block 30, high-altitude, long-
     endurance unmanned aircraft that have integrated imagery, 
     radar and intelligence sensors. The Pentagon had decided to 
     risk terminating this version of Global Hawk (there are 
     others in use and being built) and noted that it would save 
     $800 million in fiscal 2013 and $2.5 billion over the next 
     five years.
       Two other congressional add-ons illustrate members' desire 
     to keep plant production lines open--and jobs filled. They 
     were $136 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank and $140 
     million to modify the M2 Bradley armored vehicle. And $45 
     million was added to funds to purchase F-18s to hold open 
     ``the option of buying more'' in fiscal 2014. In the nuclear 
     area, Congress added $70 million toward construction of a 
     $3.7 billion building for research on plutonium at the Los 
     Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico that the 
     administration wanted to delay for two more years.
       Two other congressional favorites got boosts beyond what 
     the Pentagon approved. One was an added $152 million for 
     missile defense; the other, for $143 million, went to Special 
     Operations Command for an imagery intelligence program its 
     commander wanted but higher-level officials vetoed. The 
     conferees' message: What Special Ops wants, it gets.
       One compromise reached over the past month involved the 
     administration's controversial plan to reorganize military 
     air transport assets that affected Air National Guard bases 
     around the country, a step that mobilized opposition not just 
     from Congress but from governors of the states involved. The 
     solution was to halt the retirement of 26 C-5A aircraft, 
     ``holding the strategic airlift total at 301 aircraft, until 
     the Defense Department completes a comprehensive study of air 
     mobility requirements,'' according to the House committee. In 
     addition, the Air Force will maintain an additional 32 C-130 
     or C-27J tactical airlift aircraft, some of which were going 
     to be retired.
       As he has in the past, Panetta said that health-care costs 
     for the military were growing fast and had hit $50 billion 
     this year. The need was for some cost controls, but the 
     conferees blocked any increase in fees for the Defense 
     Department's heath-care program, known as TRICARE, or any 
     effort to establish new ones.
       Meanwhile, the conferees took steps to cap the rate under 
     which the Army and Marine Corps reduce force numbers over the 
     next five years. And somehow they found excess funds to 
     provide provisions to ease the blow to the roughly 100,000 
     service personnel that are let go. Those individuals will be 
     permitted to reside in military housing with their families 
     for six months after their date of separation and use 
     commissary and exchange stores for two years after 
     separation.
       There was one $188 million reduction that neither Panetta 
     nor the conferees touched--the one for military bands.
       The Army maintains 99 bands, many of them National Guard-
     based, and intends to spend $221.1 million on them during 
     fiscal 2013. That's up $3.3 million from fiscal 2012. The 
     Navy has 14 bands that will cost an estimated $55.6 million 
     next year, while the Marine Corps has 12 bands that will cost 
     $53.6 million in 2013. The Air Fe has 12 active-duty and 11 
     Air National Guard bands. Together they cost an estimated $58 
     million.
                                  ____


  Re: VETO the National Defense Authorization Act Because It Extends 
  Restrictions on Transferring Detainees Out of the Guantanamo Prison

       Dear President Obama: The undersigned human rights, 
     religious, and civil liberties groups strongly urge you to 
     veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013 (NDAA) because it would impede your ability to close 
     Guantanamo. Specifically, the NDAA conference bill restricts 
     the Executive Branch's authority to transfer detainees for 
     repatriation or resettlement in foreign countries or for 
     prosecution in federal criminal court for the full fiscal 
     year.
       Your commitment to close the Guantanamo prison was a 
     hallmark of your 2008 campaign and a signal to everyone, both 
     across America and around the globe, of a renewed commitment 
     to the rule of law. Your executive order, on your second full 
     day as president, directing the government to close the 
     prison should have heralded the end of the prison, but 
     instead triggered a long series of failures and obstacles to 
     its closure. There are still 166 detainees left at 
     Guantanamo, and the promise of closing the prison remains 
     unfulfilled.
       We appreciate that you publicly renewed your commitment to 
     closing Guantanamo in public comments this fall, and we 
     strongly believe that you can accomplish this objective 
     during your second term. You can still make the successful 
     closing of the Guantanamo prison an important part of your 
     historic legacy.
       However, if the NDAA is signed with any transfer 
     restrictions in it, the prospects for Guantanamo being closed 
     during your presidency will be severely diminished, if not 
     gone altogether. The current statutory restrictions on 
     transfer expire on March 27, 2013. Those restrictions--which 
     have been in place for nearly two years with zero detainees 
     being certified for transfer overseas and zero detainees 
     transferred to the United States for prosecution--are 
     functionally similar to the restrictions in the NDAA bill 
     pending in Congress. If extended for the entire fiscal year, 
     then nearly a year of your second term could be lost, and the 
     political capital required to start closing it later in your 
     next term will be even greater.
       Now is the time to end the statutory restrictions on 
     closing Guantanamo, by vetoing the NDAA because it extends 
     them. When signing earlier versions of these restrictions 
     into law, you stated, ``my Administration will work with the 
     Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to 
     mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend 
     or expand them in the future.'' The restrictions have proven 
     unworkable, and should not be extended for yet another year.
       There is broad support among national security and foreign 
     policy leaders for closing Guantanamo. Your own national 
     security and foreign policy leadership team shares your 
     commitment to closing Guantanamo. The list of leaders who 
     support closing the Guantanamo prison is long, and crosses 
     party lines, including: former President George W. Bush, 
     former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary 
     of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense Robert 
     Gates, former National Security Advisor James Jones, General 
     Charles C. Krulak (ret.) former Commandant of the Marine 
     Corps, General Joseph P. Hoar (ret.), former CETCOM 
     commander, and Brigadier General Michael Lehnert (ret.), who 
     set up the Guantanamo prison, and 25 retired admirals and 
     generals. Closing Guantanamo is good human rights policy and 
     good national security policy.
       We realize that there is a long tradition of the NDAA being 
     enacted annually. However, an annual NDAA is not required for 
     the Department of Defense to carry out its functions. The 
     NDAA does not fund the Department of Defense, and all of its 
     provisions can be either implemented by agency action or 
     enacted as part of other legislation. Four of your five 
     immediate predecessors--Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, 
     and George W. Bush--each vetoed an NDAA. Restrictions 
     impeding the closing of the Guantanamo prison clearly warrant 
     a veto by you.
       We believe that you will be far more likely to succeed in 
     fulfilling your commitment to closing the Guantanamo prison 
     if the transfer restrictions are allowed to expire on March 
     27, We strongly urge you to veto the NDAA, because it 
     includes an extension of the restrictions on transferring 
     detainees out of Guantanamo for either repatriation or 
     resettlement overseas or prosecution in the United States. 
     Thank you for your attention to this request.
           Sincerely,
     American Civil Liberties Union, American Friends Service 
         Committee, Amnesty International USA, Appeal for Justice, 
         Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Brennan Center for 
         Justice, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for 
         International Policy, Center for Victims of Torture, 
         Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Council on 
         American-Islamic Relations, Defending Dissent Foundation, 
         Disciples Justice Action Network, Friends Committee on 
         National Legislation, Human Rights Watch, International 
         Justice Network, Japanese American Citizens League, 
         Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, National 
         Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National 
         Religious Campaign Against Torture, Peace Action, 
         Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, 
         Physicians for Human Rights, Psychologists for Social 
         Responsibility, Rabbis for Human Rights--North America, 
         United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, 
         United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and 
         Society, Unitarian Universalist Association, Win Without 
         War.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank the ranking member 
and chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Today, I rise to discuss just one portion of the National Defense 
Authorization Act. It is a section of the conference report that 
supports our Nation's first responders, and I signed the conference 
report for that section only.
  In July of last year, I introduced legislation to reauthorize two 
programs--the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, the AFG 
Program, and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 
Program, the SAFER Program. These programs were created

[[Page 17956]]

to help local fire departments across the country maintain and increase 
their capacity to do all that we ask them to do each day, including 
fighting fires, responding to medical emergencies, and providing safety 
and aid in the face of disasters, either natural or manmade.
  Maintaining the equipment, training, and personnel to safely and 
swiftly respond to calls for assistance is increasingly difficult. Fire 
departments around the country have been forced to lay off firefighters 
and to do without needed equipment and training. The fire grant 
programs have played an important role in helping local fire 
departments overcome some of these challenges, providing over $6 
billion in assistance since the year 2000. These grants have been 
essential to maintaining public safety in many communities, and they're 
even more important in the face of our shrinking local budgets.
  Fire is a serious problem in the United States, killing over 3,000 
people a year, which is a rate higher than in all other industrialized 
countries. Additionally, each year, nearly 20,000 people are injured, 
over 100 firefighters are killed in the line of duty, and $10 billion 
in property is lost due to fire.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much.
  In my State of Texas, 2011 was an especially destructive year, with 4 
million acres burned, over 5,500 homes and structures destroyed, and 
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss just one portion of the National 
Defense Authorization Act--a section of the conference report that 
supports our nation's first responders. In July of last year, I 
introduced legislation to reauthorize two programs--the Assistance for 
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and 
Emergency Response (SAFER) program. These programs were created to help 
local fire departments across the country maintain and increase their 
capacity to do all that we ask of them each day, including fighting 
fires, responding to medical emergencies, and providing safety and aid 
in the face of disasters either natural or man-made.
  Maintaining the equipment, training, and personnel to safely and 
swiftly respond to calls for assistance is increasingly difficult. Fire 
departments around the country have been forced to lay off firefighters 
and to do without needed equipment and training. The fire grant 
programs have played an important role in helping local fire 
departments overcome some of these challenges, providing over $6 
billion in assistance since 2000. These grants have been essential to 
maintaining public safety in many communities and they are even more 
important in the face of shrinking local budgets.
  Fire is a serious problem in the United States, killing over 3,000 
people a year--a rate higher than all other industrialized countries. 
Additionally, each year nearly 20,000 people are injured, over 100 
firefighters are killed in the line of duty, and $10 billion in 
property is lost due to fire. In my State of Texas, 2011 was an 
especially destructive year with 4 million acres burned, over 5,500 
homes and structures destroyed, and hundreds of millions of dollars in 
damages.
  Statistics show that minorities and low-income Americans are 
disproportionately the victims of fires. In addition to providing the 
resources necessary to ensure our fire departments have the equipment 
and personnel they need, the United States Fire Administration, which 
is also reauthorized in the conference report, supports fire prevention 
and safety activities, promotes the professional development of the 
fire and emergency response community, and conducts research, testing, 
and evaluation to help reduce fire deaths, injuries, and loss.
  We need to ensure that our firefighters and emergency medical 
personnel have the tools that they need to protect us. Reauthorization 
of the fire grant programs and the United States Fire Administration 
will do just that.
  The good news is that, even in these times of increasing 
partisanship, these common sense provisions have once again garnered 
widespread support. I am pleased that the bipartisan co-chairs of the 
Congressional Fire Services Caucus have joined me in supporting the 
reauthorization of these critical programs. As the Ranking Member of 
the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over these programs, I hope the rest of my colleagues will 
join us in supporting these provisions.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. KUCINICH. In this discussion over the NDAA, we arrive at a moment 
where we meet the moral consequences of our Nation's choices over the 
past decade. We chose war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, 
Somalia, and perhaps later on Iran. Inexplicably, we've created 
openings for al Qaeda and radical fundamentalists as a result of our 
interventions. At home, we choose a false notion of security over 
personal freedom, even if it means we look the other way when the very 
language of this bill opens the door for indefinite detentions of 
Americans. And we choose poverty over plenty by giving over a half 
trillion dollars to the Pentagon and nearly $90 billion for wars, 
including Afghanistan, while facing reductions in domestic spending.
  We put war on the Nation's credit card, including a $5 trillion 
charge for the war in Iraq, which was based on lies. We gather at a 
fiscal cliff of our own making and refuse to see the implications of 
our unrestrained spending for war. But when it comes to providing for 
the long-term security of our seniors, a cynical ploy using the 
Consumer Price Index is being used to cut seniors' Social Security 
benefits.
  When did America become more concerned about the control of and the 
security of foreign lands than the retirement security of our own 
people? Unending war abroad means austerity here at home. It's caviar 
for the Pentagon and cat food for seniors. Our choices are being made, 
but when will we choose for America jobs for all, education for all, 
health care for all, housing opportunities for all, retirement security 
for all? When will we choose freedom over fear? When will we break the 
hold which fear has over this Nation and our budget choices?
  I'm voting ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In the cacophonous list of things that this bill does not do, one can 
even look at some other areas. I mean, there are other areas in which 
we have problems in the defense of this country and future challenges 
that are before us, even in the modernization of our weapons system.
  Even as Russia has fielded new and modernized nuclear ICBMs, the U.S. 
land-based nuclear deterrence is in need of future modernization; and 
yet this administration has cut resources to begin planning for the 
upgrading and modernization of our ICBMs and related nuclear-based 
systems that have largely been ignored. This trend simply cannot 
continue.
  But having recognized those problems that are there, it is also time 
to realize what this bill actually does that moves us, as a Nation, 
forward:
  It will provide $552 billion, which is $2 billion more than the 
President requested, and that is a plus;
  It increases the pay for our all-voluntary forces by 1.7 percent and 
provides critical bonuses for those who are now working in harm's way;
  It keeps the faith with the military retirees and our veterans in 
regard to TRICARE, and rejects the administration's proposal to 
increase fees and copayments on them;
  It deals with the issue of troop reduction in a responsible way by 
putting caps on the number of troop reductions that can be placed in a 
single year;
  It has a conscience clause for servicemen and for chaplains;
  It implements the Hyde amendment;
  It addresses sexual assault with bipartisan, specific new regulations 
and procedures for combating and prosecuting sexual assaults within the 
military;
  It has a total new program to provide and help with suicide 
prevention for dealing with those people who have volunteered to 
represent this country in the military;
  It opens up new bipartisan reforms for competition and innovation in 
the way the Department deals with small businesses and spurs on 
innovation;

[[Page 17957]]

  It deals with strategic forces like the NNSA reforms, our nuclear 
oversight, our missile defense system, the Iron Dome;
  Its provisions dealing with Guantanamo Bay, which prohibit the 
transfer of detainees to the United States, are the exact right thing 
that should be done;
  It also looks at retaining our vital systems like our naval cruisers, 
our airlift capacities, Global Hawk, the anti-armor, and investing in 
new future capabilities that we need like airborne electronic warfare. 
The aircraft that we need, the submarines, the destroyers that happen 
to be there; and, indeed, it has a section in there dealing with the 
sanctions on Iran.
  All of those are specific and important to us.
  We have a responsibility to make sure that this core constitutional 
responsibility of ours is done efficiently. I want it to be known that 
those who are in the military uniform must respond to the higher-ups 
which they are dealing with. The Secretary of Defense must deal with 
walking a line of talking about what they have to do and what they wish 
they could do. In no way does anyone in uniform say that things that 
are put in this budget is something that they do not need or do not 
want.
  We have cut the military in this country when we were cutting nothing 
else. While we were running up stimulus bills, we were still cutting 
the military. We cut them in the last 2 years of the Bush 
administration. Under Secretary Gates, it was a $400 billion cut. All 
told, the cuts that this Congress has put on the fence when it has not 
cut other areas is between $800 billion and $1 trillion, and that 
doesn't even count what could happen within sequestration.
  We seem to forget, as we're looking, and we take some of the things 
we have here for granted. The United States has had air superiority 
since the Korean War, which means our men on the ground, when they hear 
something overhead, don't have to worry about whose insignia will be on 
that plane; they know it is ours. But if, indeed, we do not upgrade and 
innovate and improve our air capacity, we don't have that in the 
future.
  And what we do now is not just simply what we can do today; what we 
are authorizing in this bill is what we can do 20 years from now. If we 
don't start the research and development today, we will not have that 
capacity.
  I reject those who say, Look, the F-35 is too expensive; let's just 
build more F-16s--even though Third World countries have planes that 
have the same capacity technologically as our F-16s and our F-15s. What 
we need is a new generation, so if our men are put into a fight, it 
will not be a fair one.
  And we have the technology, the new generation of technology to make 
sure that we are in the forefront and to make sure that we maintain 
that air dominance into the future. It is something that we have had 
for so long and we have had so many people work so hard to maintain 
that we here, today, seem to sometimes take it for granted. And we 
ought not. This is our future. This bill is about our future, and we 
cannot--we cannot--simply go back because we wish to change the milieu 
of what is happening here. This is a good bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, we have air superiority over every country in the 
world. We have the strongest military in the world, and I'm proud of 
the men and women who serve in our military.
  But, you know, we have to make choices here. I mean, do we really 
need all these troops deployed in Europe that have been there basically 
since World War II? I mean, I don't think Germany is going to invade 
France any time soon or Russia is going to invade Poland, but yet we 
have a huge amount of deployed American forces in Europe. Maybe we need 
to have a discussion about whether or not we need that, whether or not 
we can afford that expense, whether or not it does anything to enhance 
our security.
  Again, I want a military that is the best in the world. I want them 
to continue to be that way. I want them to be second to none. I want to 
make sure that we have all that we need, but I don't want to be 
investing in things we don't need. And when the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
and when the Secretary of Defense and all of the experts tell us that 
they don't need something, and we here appropriate money to keep 
something going that is unnecessary, that is unwanted, at the same time 
while you're trying to cut the benefits of some poor old lady on Social 
Security, there's something wrong with this equation. We have to start 
thinking about the security of people here in this country as well.
  What we're going to do right after this is take up a rule that is 
going to gut a whole bunch of programs that, quite frankly, keep people 
from falling through the cracks--everything from food stamps to child 
nutrition programs to education programs. Anything that helps anybody 
who's in need is going to get walloped after the next rule is passed, 
with a tax plan that is so blatantly unfair that I can't even believe 
that my friends are bringing it to the floor of the House for a debate.
  So, you know, let's talk about what we need to do to maintain the 
security of our people in this country. We need a strong military. We 
need to meet the challenges abroad, but we also need to meet the 
challenges here in the United States of America. We need to focus on 
things like jobs and affordable housing, making sure that people have 
the ladders of opportunity so they can succeed. So that's where I 
object.

                              {time}  1300

  This bill is more than the people at the Pentagon want. We're just 
throwing more money at this, and I think it's a mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I too believe in military 
preparedness, coming from a State like Texas, where the population of 
men and women who have served or are serving in the United States 
military is renowned and appreciated.
  As I look at the tourists who walk through the Halls, I wonder which 
of those young people will take an oath and join the United States 
military. And so when I see raises for the troops, it pleases, I think, 
all of us.
  I'm concerned about the Afghanistan timeline. I had hoped that it 
could be expedited. I certainly do commend the Iron Dome because we saw 
it work with respect to Israel. I question, however, the drones that 
may have collateral damage.
  But I do think it's important that this bill does, in fact, make a 
commitment to protecting the women and children in Afghanistan, 
responds to the issues dealing with sexual assault against military 
personnel, and particularly women, and is strong on Iran sanctions.
  But I rise today as well because I think when we talk about people, 
and we talk about the men and women of the United States military, we 
talk about their health. And yesterday, in the Rules Committee I raised 
this point and I raise it again.
  I'm going to support this bill because I think it'll make a leap of 
faith and commitment to finding the cause of triple negative breast 
cancer. I mentioned yesterday in the Rules Committee that triple 
negative breast cancer cells are usually of a higher grade and size, 
onset at a younger age, more aggressive and more likely to metastasize.
  In fact, the survival rate for breast cancer, but on triple negative, 
people are diagnosed and they die in months, maybe a year, such as my 
constituent, Yvonne Williams, a wonderful health professional who left 
a husband and two children.
  Or maybe the young lady who stopped me when I was walking in the Race 
for the Cure and said, my mother, a Hispanic woman, got triple negative 
breast cancer. We did everything we could, and she died within months.
  Apart from surgery, the only relief is cytotoxic chemotherapy, its 
only available treatment. Targeted molecular treatments, while being 
investigated, are not accepted treatment for this disease.

[[Page 17958]]

  As I speak today, there are women who may be listening, or others who 
realize that either their loved one or they may be diagnosed with 
triple negative breast cancer, and they understand the impact. Whether 
they are Caucasian or Asian or Hispanic or African American, this 
disease has not been able to be treated like breast cancers in the 
other stages.
  So I offered an amendment that the House accepted. I think it is an 
important amendment because what it spoke to is that we need to 
pinpoint and focus in on what is the cause of this disease. And it 
called for the triple negative breast cancer patients to be identified 
earlier in the progression of their disease and to develop targets on 
molecular and biomolecular issues.
  But through that amendment, I must say, although I wanted the 
specific language, the House was able to hold its position.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The House was able to hold its position. 
And on title VII, section 737, I want to say thank you. There is a long 
amendment that includes my amendment and specifically speaks to having 
a report that will have recommendations for changes to policy, a law 
that could improve the prevention, early detection, awareness and 
treatment of breast cancer among the members of the Armed Forces.
  I would ask the Defense Department that when you look at treatment 
and research, you must include the triple negative breast cancer. That 
is, as well, an attack on your personnel in the United States military. 
If we care about our soldiers, our men and women in all of the branches 
who serve us, we'll care about their health, and we will include that 
research.
  I thank the conferees for moving forward on something that is so near 
and dear to the families of those who live, but certainly of those of 
the families who have died.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support of language from my 
Amendment, Number 91 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization 
Act,'' which would direct the Department of Defense Office of Health to 
work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to 
identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for 
Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC).
  In addition, my amendment was intended to result in information 
useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials 
design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in 
the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted 
therapies for the disease.
  Unfortunately, my language was not included in the Senate Amendment 
but I have read language in the Joint Manager's Statement and the 
Conference Report does provide for a study.
  The language reads, ``Study on incidence of breast cancer among 
members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty,'' and is included 
in Section 737.
  I stand up for all women today who have been victims and really for 
those who might so that we can look into prevention, cure, and 
eradication of breast cancer.
  Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer 
for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer 
Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive 
subtype associated with lower survival rates.''
  I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort, 
DOD and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative 
breast cancer strain.
  Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as 
hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the 
triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted 
treatment.
  Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women 
in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among 
African American women. The American Cancer society estimates that in 
2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with 
breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.
  Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39 percent 
higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups.
  African American women are also 12 percent less likely to survive 
five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this 
disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected 
by triple negative breast cancer.
  More than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African 
American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more 
susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.


                     THE STORY OF YOLANDA WILLIAMS

  Mr. Speaker, last year, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, 
one of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. 
Yolanda died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like 
many other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did 
not respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, 
was only 44 years old.
  This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also 
harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because 
triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often 
metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. 70 percent of 
women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more 
than five years after being diagnosed.
  Research institutions all over the Nation have started to focus on 
this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home City of Houston, 
Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working 
tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative 
breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to 
follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple 
negative strain.
  I had urged my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the 
Nation from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my 
amendment, and enough of them did so that language was sent to the 
Senate addressing triple negative breast cancer; and we live to fight 
another day for more precise language dedicated to a most-pernicious 
form of breast cancer, while being appreciative of language in the 
final conference report addressing breast cancer among those most at 
risk, on active duty fighting, for our country.


                               FAST FACTS

  Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in 
this country.
  The survival rate for breast cancer has increased to 90 percent for 
White women but only 78 percent for African American Women.
  African American women are more likely to be diagnosed with larger 
tumors and more advanced stages of breast cancer.
  Triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC, is a term used to describe 
breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and 
progesterone receptors, and do not have an excess of the HER2 protein 
on their cell membrane of tumor cells.
  Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) cells are usually of a higher 
grade and size; onset at a younger age; more aggressive; more likely to 
metastasize.
  TNBC also referred to as basal-like (BL) due to their resemblance to 
basal layer of epithelial cells.
  There is not a formal detailed classification of system of the 
subtypes of these cells.
  TNBC is in fact a heterogeneous group of cancers with varying 
differences in prognosis and survival rate between various subtypes. 
This has led to a lot of confusion amongst both physicians and 
patients.
  Apart from surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only available 
treatment; targeted molecular treatments while being investigated are 
not accepted treatment.
  Between 10-17 percent of female breast cancer patients have the 
triple negative subtype.
  Triple-negative breast cancer most commonly affect African American 
women, followed by Hispanic women.
  African American women have prevalence TNBC of 26 percent vs 16 
percent in non-African-Americans women.
  TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age.
  African American women have a prevalence of premenopausal breast 
cancer of 26 percent vs 16 percent for non-African-American women.
  Women with TNBC have 3 times the risk of death than women with the 
most common type of breast cancer.
  Women with TNBC are more likely to have distant metastases in the 
brain and lung and more common subtypes of breast cancer.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this defense authorization legislation 
is a missed opportunity. Our Republican friends would have us approve 
this at a time when we're struggling

[[Page 17959]]

with the long-term fiscal stability of the United States. We're set to 
pass a bill that authorizes funding above what we approved in the 
Budget Control Act. This is spending 20 percent above the Cold War 
average, double what we had in 2001.
  Even if somehow we went over that dreaded fiscal cliff and 
sequestration kicked in, it would only reduce spending to what it was 
in 2007, adjusted for inflation, when we were fighting two wars. It's a 
missed opportunity.
  I heard my friend from Utah talk about avoiding any increase in fee 
in terms of health care. Excuse me?
  We're looking at draconian impacts that some are suggesting for some 
of our society's most vulnerable. And, here, we haven't adjusted a fee 
since 1995.
  The Department of Defense is going to spend $50 billion on health 
care. It's gone up 300 percent since 2001. Ten million people are 
involved, and they count it as a point of pride that we're not making 
any adjustment at all? For a retired three or four star general earning 
a pension of over $200,000 a year, 80 percent of whom go to work for 
the defense industry, and they pay a $50 fee?
  I'm sorry, I think it's a missed opportunity.
  I heard my friend from Utah talk about the nuclear arsenal and 
upgrading intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think this is a missed 
opportunity. Look at the nuclear arsenal, we're spending over $55 
billion a year--we don't know how much more because that information 
isn't readily available--for weapons that have not enabled us to fight 
in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Many of these weapons we can't use, will never use, but we're going 
to spend $200 billion upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years. And 
we're looking at three separate delivery systems, including new 
submarines at almost $5 billion a piece. Against whom?
  We need a tiny fraction of this to deal with China or Russia. Our 
nuclear arsenal isn't stopping Iran from trying to achieve its nuclear 
weapon.
  These are sad, missed opportunities to right-size the military, which 
will still be the most powerful in the world, by far.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. For us to deal with the threats that we face today, 
to deal with the damage that we have done in the reckless misguided war 
in Iraq, to be able to deal meaningfully with the Guard and Ready 
Reserve that should be upgraded and healed from the damage that was 
inflicted upon them.
  We can provide far more real security, save tax dollars, deal with 
the needs of veterans that are about to be, sadly, undercut, and 
provide balance to our budget. In fact, the fiscal instability from 
reckless bills like this is, in fact, a national security threat.
  We're no longer going to be able nor should we pay almost half the 
world's entire military spending. We should start by rejecting this 
authorization.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I always hate to try and say we ought to learn lessons of history; 
but the Founding Fathers, when they made that our core constitutional 
responsibility, clearly understood that if you do not have a military 
capacity, you do not have not only the ability to defend the country, 
but you do not have the ability to make diplomatic efforts in any of 
those areas.
  It is interesting that our allies in NATO are spending far more of 
their GDP on military defense than we are. But obviously, and 
ironically, those who are are almost always those countries which 
experienced firsthand what it was like to live under the domination of 
the Soviet Union. They understand the significance of this particular 
proposal and these particular kinds of bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to recognize the soon-to-be-
retired chairman of the Rules Committee who has done so much in his 
tenure here in the Capitol. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Brigham City. I appreciate his 
generosity of yielding me such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I appreciate the fact that my 
friend from Worcester said we should have a defense capability that is 
second to none. We should be preeminent in the world. I appreciate his 
statement. I also appreciate the fact that he talks about the 
multifarious societal needs that are out there, ensuring that we don't 
see those who are struggling to make ends meet suffer. We concur 
wholeheartedly in that goal. But I have said this time and time again. 
I said it in the Rules Committee and Mr. Bishop and I had a discussion 
about this. And Mr. Hastings of Fort Lauderdale got into there as well.
  This is my perspective. Thomas Jefferson said that two thinking 
people given the exact set of facts can draw different conclusions, but 
I've concluded as I looked at the preamble to the Constitution with all 
the important statements in there--We the people of the United States, 
in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the 
general welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the 
United States--I argue, Mr. Speaker, that the five most important words 
in the midst of that preamble are ``provide for the common defense.''
  And the reason I say that is that as we look at all the things that 
the Federal Government does, virtually all of them--not all, but 
virtually all of them--can be handled by individuals, by communities, 
cities, families, counties, and States. But there's one thing that 
cannot be handled by those other entities, and that is our national 
security. We can't have the individual States providing for the 
national security. And that's why I believe it is the single most 
important responsibility for the National Government.
  I believe that we can have a cost-effective national defense. I 
believe that we can correctly focus on waste. We know and have heard 
the horror stories, and we've heard about some of the waste that's 
taken place in the Pentagon. We've got to bring an end to that, no 
doubt about it.
  At the same time, my friend from Utah just talked about the fact that 
our allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are spending a 
greater percentage of their gross domestic product on national security 
for the reason that they have felt threatened. They've lived under 
repression. There are NATO allies that have been countries that were 
basically under the control of the former Soviet Union. And in light of 
that, they continue to live with an understanding of how important 
national security is. We have important countries in Eastern and 
Central Europe that are struggling to not only become members of the 
European Union but to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
because they still are seeking a chance to be free of that kind of 
repression.
  I'm reminded of what took place during the 2008 Summer Olympics in 
Georgia, when we saw the incursion from Vladimir Putin's Russia into 
Georgia over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We 
continue to see lots of threats. It is a very dangerous world. 
Tragically, Plato said: Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  And I remember that as we saw the demise of the Soviet Union, the 
crumbling of the Berlin Wall, many of us did believe as Francis 
Fukuyama famously wrote about the end of history, believing that 
political pluralism, the rule of law, and self-determination and 
democratic institutions would thrive all over the world. Well, it 
hasn't quite worked out that way in the last couple of decades. And we 
all know what the consequences of those threats have been. For the 
first time ever, we had the kind of attack that we did on September 11 
on our soil.
  All this is to say, Mr. Speaker, it's important that we have a 
strong, balanced defense authorization bill. And I

[[Page 17960]]

believe that the National Defense Authorization Act that is before us 
is right. And I appreciated hearing the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, praise the fact that it's 
focusing on some of those very important social issues that she has 
raised and addressed. She complimented this defense authorization 
conference report for doing that.
  And there are other things. This morning, I was listening to WAMU. I 
wasn't aware of this, but I heard the Delegate from the District of 
Columbia, Ms. Norton, talk about the fact that we are going to have 
recognition of flags in the District of Columbia for our veterans. And 
there's inclusion in this conference report that deals with that issue. 
She pointed to the fact that flags are very, very important. When we 
have foreign dignitaries come to the United States of America, flags 
are used to recognize their presence. Of course, veterans from the 
States across the country have that, but the District of Columbia 
hasn't. I'm pleased that Ms. Norton was able to have that issue 
addressed in the National Defense Authorization Act conference report.
  And so this is a measure which I believe really transcends political 
party. There's great bipartisan support for it. And it also covers lots 
of important issues that do come back to our Nation's security. And so 
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as we look, again, at those five most 
important words, from my perspective, in the middle of the preamble of 
the U.S. Constitution, ``providing for the common defense,'' that we 
are doing that--and exactly that--with this measure.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the conference 
report that we will have. I believe it will be a great benefit to our 
men and women in uniform and to the future security of the United 
States of America and our allies.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, as we begin debate on this National Defense 
Authorization Act, it's critical that we understand just how important 
it is to our troops and to our country that we pass this legislation 
with a bipartisan vote. It's easy to get bogged down in partisanship on 
most issues, but this cannot be one of them. This legislation provides 
the men and women of our Armed Forces the necessary equipment and 
financial support to effectively carry out their duties while at the 
same time protecting all of our national security. Our troops have 
proven time and again that they are the most skilled forces in the 
world, but we must provide them with the necessary support to help them 
serve and protect our country.
  Congress has an obligation to support the men and women who serve in 
the Armed Forces and who sacrifice so much for us every day. Our 
country owes them more than we can ever repay. And I strongly urge my 
colleagues to honor and respect our Armed Forces by passing this bill 
when it comes up later today and affording our troops the funding that 
they need and deserve.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me first thank Mr. McGovern for yielding 
the time and your tremendous and tireless leadership on the Rules 
Committee, but also for your leadership in protecting our young men and 
women at home and providing strategies for how to bring them home 
quickly and safely and orderly.
  With the drawdowns from two wars, now is the perfect opportunity to 
reevaluate our runaway defense spending and make sure that our defense 
budget reflects our overall national security strategy. Many outside 
experts from across the political spectrum have concluded that the 
Pentagon can afford much more substantial cuts than what's found in 
this bill. Secondly, while this bill contains some audit provisions, 
these measures are only set to take hold in 2017. The Pentagon needs to 
be audited. It should have been audited and should be audited right 
now--last year, this year, next year. We can't wait until 2017.
  Earlier this year, I offered an amendment that would have cut any 
Federal agency's budget by 5 percent if they are unable to provide 
audit-ready financial documents. We need to get some sunlight on the 
Pentagon's books to create a culture of responsibility and 
accountability at the Defense Department.
  On Afghanistan, the bill has some notable positive steps, but 
nonetheless fails to call for a swift and safe withdrawal of our 
troops. On the positive side, I applaud the conferees for including 
provisions to ensure that security for Afghan women and girls is a 
priority during the transition to Afghan security responsibility.

                              {time}  1320

  However, on balance, this bill does not go far enough.
  We all know there is no military solution in Afghanistan, and it's 
time to bring home our brave men and women in uniform and transition to 
full Afghan control. After 10 years and $600 billion invested in an 
unstable country, it's past time to end this war--not in 2014, but 
right now.
  Finally, I'm very concerned about how this bill undermines the 
bedrock values of America, and I'm talking about the constitutional 
guarantees of due process. I was disappointed to see Senator 
Feinstein's provision prohibiting indefinite detention removed during 
the conference. We should not allow those who seek to terrorize the 
American people to win by trashing the very civil liberties at the 
heart of our national identity.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on final 
passage.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a moment of opportunity for us to 
get serious about dealing with our budget deficit by eliminating the 
bloat and the waste in the Pentagon's budget.
  What we have before us has some very good provisions in it, but it 
also has some very bad provisions in it. The gentlelady from California 
mentioned the language on Guantanamo, which is unfortunate. But this 
bill also reflects more money--more money--than the Pentagon even 
wants, more money than the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants. So we're 
throwing more money into this Pentagon budget even though they haven't 
asked for it and they don't want it.
  At the same time, my friends on the other side of the aisle are 
proposing measures--which are going to be taken up in the next rule--to 
decimate the social safety net in this country, to make it more 
difficult for middle-income families, to make it more difficult to send 
your kids to school, to make it more difficult to get affordable 
housing, or to get access to food and nutrition if you are in desperate 
times.
  So it just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, the idea that we're 
giving more money to the Pentagon than they want, but at the same time 
we're taking away from our people right here at home.
  National security has to mean the quality of life and the standard of 
living for the people of the United States of America. It has to mean 
things like jobs and financial security for our families.
  I regret very much that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
seem to not care about what happens to people here in this country 
because their budgets and their tax bills go directly after middle-
income families and constitute an all-out war on the poor.
  There was an article in The Washington Post on December 19: ``John 
Boehner's Plan B Would Raise Taxes on the Poor.'' Really? I mean, is 
that how you're going to balance the budget, by sticking it to people 
who already are in vulnerable times? This is wrong.
  My friends talk about the debt and the deficit, but what they don't 
talk

[[Page 17961]]

about is that we have fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we 
haven't paid for it, all on our credit card. We send our young men and 
women into harm's way, and we ask them and their families to sacrifice, 
and we do nothing. We just put the bill on our credit card.
  A few months ago, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, 
said it's about $1.3 trillion--I think he's lowballing it--but $1.3 
trillion on our debt, and nobody over there says a word. They all go 
after programs like Social Security and Medicare and food stamps.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to 
make in order an amendment that will allow the House to have a chance 
to vote on a bill passed by the Senate to extend middle class tax cuts, 
which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 15. Also, the amendment 
would prevent this House from adjourning until we have averted the 
fiscal cliff and the President has signed legislation to prevent tax 
increases on the middle class.
  There is a rumor out there that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are going to try to pass Plan B and C and run out of town and 
just leave for vacation. I want to get home for Christmas as much as 
anyone else, but the bottom line is that we are facing a crisis--an 
artificial crisis that my friends helped create, but we need to avert 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  I would again remind my colleagues that national security and 
national defense also has to mean the quality of life for people here 
in the United States.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  There are several things I wish to address that have been brought up 
in the last speech. The first one is, I was just informed that by all 
means we probably will be here tomorrow and voting, which really hurts 
my feelings. In one respect, I don't have an upgrade on tomorrow's 
flight, so maybe it's a good thing that we will be, but there are other 
times that we will be dealing with these issues.
  People have talked about the amount of money that's going here. I 
hope Members of the House realize that 50 percent of all the cuts that 
have been made by this administration have been made on the backs of 
the military, even though the military defense represents less than 20 
percent of the Federal budget. Military has, over the past years, been 
cut and cut and cut again.
  This increase over what the President's budget request was is only 
0.3 percent higher than the President's budget, and it is less than 
last year's authorization. I say that only as a fact, not something I 
think is good because I think we need to be spending more on what these 
people have to do.
  To say that the people in uniform don't want or don't need the 
programs that are in here is unfair to them. They have to say a 
specific line in the positions they are in. But the idea that you 
wouldn't take the cruisers that are going to be expended in here and 
continue to keep those even though they were scheduled to be mothballed 
decades before their life span is over, or that you are using these 
funds to restructure the force structure of the Air Force, which is 
critical to this country so that we maintain the air superiority we 
have had since the Korean conflict, that is a ridiculous concept.
  This bill is about people. The gentleman from Massachusetts has an 
air base, Hanscom, in his State--probably not in his district, but his 
State. I have air complexes. I have people who are working on these 
issues. We have not modernized our equipment, which means we have to 
have people working on our air complexes to try to take our antiquated 
equipment and restore it so it can be useful, so that those who are put 
in harm's way defending this country at least have the vehicles and the 
resources available to defend themselves and present the possible 
outcome. These are the people that are going to be helped. These are 
the jobs that are going to be helped by the passage of this particular 
bill. These are the people who get TRICARE, which was given to them 
either as a bonus to sign or given to them in lieu of salary increases. 
And it is unfair for the President to say they should have an increase 
in their copay.
  These people who are working at these bases, they're not making 
$50,000 a year in a pension--they'd be lucky if they make that much 
money as part of their salary. Those are the people that we need to 
look after. It is the people who make sure that we have a military that 
functions, not just those on the front line, not just those in uniform, 
but also those who provide their services and provide the material that 
they need to maintain this stuff. This bill moves that forward.
  I hope that we do not have as a body a myopic approach to the need 
for the securing of this country, and we understand how significant 
this is. This is one of the few responsibilities Congress has to do 
this year and every year.
  I want to just say one thing about the potential previous question. 
It's not an issue of when we get a chance to vote on it. We have voted 
on the previous question that the Democrats would like to put in place 
of this. On August 1, we did have a vote, the Levin of Michigan 
amendment. It was defeated in this House in a bipartisan manner, with 
19 Democrats voting ``no'' on the amendment. Another vote on this at 
this time is a redundancy; it's been done. Now let us move on to do 
what this bill is supposed to do, the conference report that solves the 
problems and puts us moving forward in our defense authorization so 
that we actually do come up with the programs we need, not just for 
today but also for the future. It's a good conference report. It's a 
good underlying bill. We need to move forward.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to support this rule, 
which is--I misspoke earlier, it is a standard rule for all conference 
reports. I urge them to support the underlying provisions of this 
conference report and of our bill because it is essential for our 
Nation's defense. It is our core constitutional responsibility, and we 
should not in any way, shape, or form shirk that.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 840 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. When the House considers the Senate amendment to 
     H.J. Res. 66, it shall be in order to consider a substitute 
     amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 15, if offered by 
     Representative Levin or his designee.
       Sec. 3. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die 
     unless the House has been notified that the President has 
     signed legislation to prevent a tax increase on the middle 
     class, and to avert the so-called ``fiscal cliff.''
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the

[[Page 17962]]

     control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

                              {time}  1330

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________