[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6967-6982]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4310.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHenry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 656 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4310.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1820


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Ross of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which overwhelmingly passed the 
Committee on Armed Services. In keeping with the committee's tradition 
of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I worked collaboratively to 
produce this bill and solicited input from each of our members.
  The legislation advances our national security objectives, provides 
support and logistical resources for our warfighters, and helps the 
United States confront the national security challenges of the 21st 
century. The bill authorizes $554 billion for national defense in the 
base budget, consistent with the allocation provided by the House 
Budget Committee. It also authorizes $88.5 billion for overseas 
contingency operations.
  The legislation continues my priorities set forth when I was elected 
chairman. It contains no earmarks. It carefully analyzes the Defense 
Department for inefficiencies and savings. It helps ensure the 
Pentagon's new national defense strategy is not a hollow one. And 
despite historic cuts to our wartime military, it plugs critical 
capability and strategic shortfalls opened in the President's budget 
submission.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 achieves 
these goals by working to:
  Number one, ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan and globally, 
including the National Guard who are the Nation's first line of defense 
at home, have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time 
they need to successfully complete their missions and return home 
safely;
  Number two, care for our warfighters, veterans, and their families 
with the support they've earned through their service;
  Three, provide critical strategic capabilities in an era of 
austerity;
  Fourth, mandate fiscal responsibility, transparency, and 
accountability within the Department of Defense; and
  Finally, improve the relationship between the Defense Department and 
the supporting industrial base by eliminating red tape and 
incentivizing competition.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2012 we affirmed that the President is authorized to 
detain certain al Qaeda terrorists pursuant to the 2001 Authorization 
for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. Ten years after the horrific 
attacks of 9/11, it was

[[Page 6968]]

time for Congress to once again ensure that our men and women in 
uniform have the authority they need to continue to fight and win the 
war on terror.
  Foreign terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, 
still pose a grave threat to all U.S. citizens. As a result of last 
year's bill, we've heard from a number of concerned citizens wondering 
what this affirmation meant in relation to the rights of U.S. citizens. 
As a result, in this year's bill, we've incorporated Representatives 
Scott Rigell and Jeff Landry's Right to Habeas Corpus Act, which 
affirms the availability of the ``great writ'' habeas corpus to any 
person detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF. As we all 
know, the writ of habeas corpus is the ultimate protection against any 
unlawful detention by the Executive.
  I am especially proud of the bipartisan work done on defense industry 
reform. We have several provisions in our bill that adopt bipartisan 
recommendations to improve the relationship between the Pentagon and 
the defense industry. In a time of declining defense budgets, we can no 
longer afford to conduct business as usual. This bill encourages small 
businesses to compete for Pentagon contracts and closely scrutinizes 
every penny that the taxpayers send to the Armed Forces.
  Finally, in light of the Pentagon's new national security strategy, 
it's Congress' constitutional obligation to ensure this new force 
posture is not a hollow one. To that end, we provide modest increases 
in combat capabilities, with a particular emphasis on our Navy fleet 
and critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee for 
working with us to bring this measure to the floor. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support passage of this bill. In partnership with you, we 
look forward to passing the 51st consecutive National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the committee members, and the staff 
who, once again, did an outstanding bipartisan job in putting together 
this bill.
  One of the paramount duties of our Congress is to provide for the 
common defense and, most importantly, make sure that our men and women 
who serve us in uniform have all the support they need to fulfill the 
missions that we ask them to do. I believe this bill meets that 
standard.
  I thank the chairman for his willingness to work in a bipartisan 
fashion with me and my staff. I believe we have upheld the tradition of 
this committee and have shown that Congress can, in fact, work together 
to get things done, and I always appreciate that opportunity.
  Most importantly, this bill prioritizes supporting the warfighter. We 
still have around 70,000 U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting 
the war. We need to make sure they have the equipment and support they 
need to do that. I believe this bill meets that mission.
  This bill also recognizes the threats we face and adequately funds 
the need to meet those threats, most importantly, the threat from 
terrorist and nonstate actors like al Qaeda and their affiliates. We 
have strong support for the Special Operations Command as well as for 
intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to make sure that we can 
continue to defeat the terrorist networks that would threaten us. Those 
are the top priorities.
  We also make sure that our troops get the 1.7 percent pay raise they 
need and get the support for both the individual troops and for their 
families that are necessary to continue to serve us. We must always 
remember that we have an all-volunteer military. We are dependent upon 
the willingness of people to volunteer. We must make sure that we honor 
that service. We have done that, and we have done it quite well, to the 
point where we have the finest military the world has ever seen, and 
the support from this Congress is critical to maintaining that.
  While there is much in this bill that I think is excellent and that I 
support, I will note just one caution as we go forward: Our bill is $8 
billion over the Budget Control Act. It is over what the Senate is 
going to mark up. At some point, we are going to have to rationalize 
that and figure out how to make our national security strategy and our 
defense budget work in an era where our budgets are coming down.
  We have a sizable deficit, and I believe it's critical that we put 
together a strategic plan and plan for the future. It's not enough to 
go year by year. We don't want to wake up 2 or 3 years from now and 
find out that we've funded more programs than we can afford to 
complete. We need a strategic vision, and we're going to have to work 
to get to that number and get to that cooperation with the Senate.
  I also want to emphasize the importance of an amendment that I plan 
to offer that would change how we handle indefinite detention in 
military custody. I do not believe the executive branch should have 
that power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people 
captured or arrested here in the U.S. I believe the United States 
Constitution and our due process system provides plenty of protections. 
We have arrested and convicted over 400 terrorists using that system. 
We have not used the indefinite detention in military custody power 
given to the President, and we have been able to protect ourselves. 
It's important that we protect the Constitution and that amendment is 
ruled in order, so I would hope that the full House would pass it.
  I am very pleased with the bill. Again, I thank the chairman for his 
outstanding work in making sure that this bill supports the men and 
women in uniform who so bravely serve us. I believe it meets that 
objective. And I appreciate working with Mr. McKeon, all of his staff, 
and all of the members of the committee.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to respond to my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. 
Smith from Washington. He's correct, we are $8 billion over the amount 
that was in the Deficit Reduction Act. In the budget the President 
submitted to us, it was $4 billion over. And we went about $3.7 billion 
above that. But in the overall budget that we will pass out of the 
House--and we did pass out of the House, under Budget Chairman Ryan--we 
increased the spending for defense due to the priorities that we feel 
are most important and the constitutional requirement that we have to 
provide for the common defense. But we will cut in other areas of the 
budget so that we comply fully with the Deficit Reduction Act.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee of Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT. I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. I have the privilege of serving 
as the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. Our 
jurisdiction includes approximately $65 billion of Department of 
Defense research, development, and procurement programs within the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force.
  I want to first thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Silvestre 
Reyes from Texas, and an incredible staff for their support in the 
hearing process and in completing the markup of this bill. Under the 
leadership of Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, the committee 
effort is truly bipartisan.
  The committee's focus is to support the men and women of the Armed 
Forces and their families, providing the equipment they need and the 
support they so deserve. Our first priority is providing the equipment 
to support our military personnel serving in Afghanistan and other 
areas where they may be under threat of hostile actions.
  Over $2 billion in the President's budget request is recommended to 
be

[[Page 6969]]

authorized to address urgent operational needs for the warfighter, to 
include counter-improvised explosive device requirements. An additional 
$500 million is provided for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment 
Account.
  The committee bill sustains the Nation's heavy armored production 
base by maintaining minimum sustained production of upgrade 
modifications for Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and Hercules 
recovery vehicles. The Army's budget request would result in a 
production break of 3 to 4 years for the upgrade of these heavy-armored 
vehicles, which would negatively impact many small businesses.
  The committee believes maintaining a minimum sustained production is 
a better alternative for taxpayer dollars than closing production lines 
and then paying to reopen the production lines years later. Minimum 
sustained production would also retain the valuable workforce and 
supplier base that would otherwise be lost and provide upgraded 
vehicles to the Army Heavy Brigade Combat teams.
  The committee bill would also retain the Air Force's Global Hawk 
Block 30 unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
aircraft to support the deployed warfighter rather than placing these 
aircraft in storage, as the Air Force plan would do.
  In addition the committee bill would fund over 150 helicopters of 
varying types for the Army and approximately 70 fighter aircraft of 
varying types for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their support in providing an excellent bill to support the 
men and women of our armed forces.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank our ranking member and my colleagues for their 
indulgence in letting me go a little out of turn here.
  By most counts, the United States Department of Defense is the second 
largest organization in the world, behind only the rest of the United 
States Federal Government, if you took out the Department of Defense. 
It is the only organization of that size that doesn't have audited 
financial statements. So in an organization that spends over $500 
billion a year, we cannot say to the taxpayers of our country with 
certainty exactly what is spent where, by whom, and for what.
  My friend, Congressman Mike Conaway from Texas, has made correction 
of this problem a special mission of his since he joined this 
institution. And I would like to thank him because he chaired a panel 
that Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith saw fit to appoint in 
this Congress to look at how to fix that problem. The solution to the 
problem, I think, is well on the way to being achieved. Secretary 
Panetta and Mr. Hale, who's the comptroller of the Pentagon, worked 
diligently on this and made it a very high priority. And the panel on 
which I was privileged to serve had voluminous hearings to find out the 
progress that we were making.
  Suffice it to say that we are impatient--and we should be. But I do 
believe that the cooperative relationship between the panel created by 
the chairman and the ranking member and the Department of Defense is 
leading us to the day when we will have a clear-eyed assessment of 
exactly what is being spent on what, by whom, and when.
  There will be an amendment, in all probability, offered later in this 
debate which would codify the deadline for reaching some of the 
milestones along that path. I will respectfully oppose that amendment 
because I think codification of this requirement will actually retard 
our progress rather than enhance it.
  So I look forward to debate about all aspects of this bill. I'm proud 
to have supported the bill in the full committee markup.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Service Committee and 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I commend Chairman McKeon for his leadership in 
developing this bill throughout the course of the year and appreciate 
the working relationship that he and the ranking member have, as 
evidenced by the fact that this bill was reported out of committee by a 
vote of 56-5. And I certainly agree with the comments of Mr. Andrews. 
One of the bipartisan goals of this committee is to make sure the 
taxpayers get every dollar of value possible for the money we spend for 
defense, and that is a goal that I think we are making good progress 
toward.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to express special appreciation to the 
members of the staff of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee, especially Mr. Langevin, our ranking member.
  To summarize that portion of the bill, I think one could do it in 
three parts. One is to support the people and missions of the U.S. 
Special Operations Command while also providing objective oversight of 
what they do. Special Operations Forces are at the forefront of 
protecting this country, but that also puts them at the forefront of a 
lot of legal and policy issues, and that makes communication between 
the Congress and the Special Operations Forces and their lawyers and 
other overseers especially important.
  Secondly, our portion of the bill tries to sow and nurture the seeds 
of future capability, such as our science and technology programs. It's 
always tempting to cut research and development in tight budget times, 
but if you do that, then you are handicapping yourself from having the 
capability you need in the future.
  And, thirdly, this mark tries to take several steps forward on 
oversight and policy in the critical new domain of warfare of cyber. 
Obviously, we have talked a lot about that in recent weeks on the floor 
of this House.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just make the point that we have lots of 
problems around the world, but this bill comes to the floor in a time 
of war. So as we come with these various amendments that cut this, 
that, and the other thing, we all need to keep in mind that there are 
still people out there trying to kill as many Americans as they 
possibly can, as recent news reports reflect. We ought to be cautious 
about that.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. REYES. I want to thank our chairman from California and the 
ranking member for, again, leading the way in a bipartisan effort.
  Although probably not a perfect bill, under the circumstances, with 
troops still deployed in war zones, I think a bipartisan agreement to 
this very important and critical legislation was reached. I especially 
want to thank my chairman, Chairman Bartlett, for working and 
continuing the tradition of working on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased 
that our portion of H.R. 4310 supports, I believe, all the high-
priority acquisition programs in the President's budget.
  Some examples are: it fully funds the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle 
program at about $640 million. It provides $5.8 billion for Army 
helicopters, UAVs and other aviation platforms and upgrades. It also 
provides $1.6 billion for 21 V-22 Ospreys, which are a critical 
component of supporting our troops and their operations in Afghanistan 
today.

                              {time}  1840

  It further provides $2.2 billion for upgrading the Army's tactical 
communications network. It increases funding for the Abrams tanks by 
$181 million. It also increases funding for Bradley fighting vehicles 
by $140 million. And more than anything, it protects our industrial 
base at this pivotal and critical time to ensure that we don't lose the 
expertise and the quality workforce that we have in this country and 
all their capabilities.
  But I guess the most important legislative provision in H.R. 4310 is 
legislation requiring the Air Force to continue to operate the Global 
Hawk Block 30 unmanned aerial system, which just reached operational 
capability in August of 2011. This is important because testimony 
before our

[[Page 6970]]

committee underscores what we have known all along and in the 4 years I 
was chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that we have to continue to 
emphasize ISR capability. This legislation, H.R. 4310, holds the Air 
Force to its plan from last year to continue to operate both the Global 
Hawk and U-2 systems through 2014. So I ask all Members to support this 
critical piece of legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding and for 
his leadership for the national defense of our country.
  I rise in support of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act. As you've heard, Mr. Chairman, this bill reflects a 
bipartisan effort to address the many issues impacting the readiness of 
our military.
  This year's bill prohibits funding from being used to plan for 
another round of BRAC, which I believe would be founded on a flawed 
premise that assumes the administration's proposal for a reduced force 
structure is correct. I categorically refuse to accept a diminished 
Department of Defense and believe that additional force structure is 
necessary to support our combatant commanders.
  We have also done our best to craft a bipartisan way forward on depot 
maintenance reform, returning the Nation to a long-standing balance 
between the public and private sectors. Although I will admit this bill 
is not all things to all people, we look forward to continuing to 
improve these portions of the bill in conference.
  This bill also takes several steps to ensure our Navy readiness, 
including the restoration of funding to retain three Ticonderoga class 
guided missile cruisers that the Navy proposed to retire well before 
the end of their expected service life.
  Finally, in this year's bill, we address the administration's efforts 
to reduce military and civilian workforce, while increasing its 
contractor full-time equivalents. By building upon last year's effort 
to direct the DOD to create a policy for total force management, we 
direct GAO, in this year's bill, to provide their assessment of what 
measures DOD is taking to appropriately balance its current and future 
workforce structure against its requirements.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Armed 
Services Committee, especially my Readiness Subcommittee ranking 
member, Ms. Bordallo, for their help in providing the unyielding 
support for the men and women who so heavily rely on our efforts, and 
our staff who work tirelessly to produce this product.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on 
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking 
member for the time, and I also want to thank Mr. Turner, our chairman 
on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, for his leadership, and all of 
the members who work on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee for all of 
their work and contributions to this year's mark.
  I think that there are a lot of issue areas that we can agree upon, 
especially in the Strategic Forces Committee, to make our Nation 
stronger and to really look after our nuclear arsenal.
  I think there are particular provisions that I really like in this 
bill, for example, the cost effective and accountability on some of 
these things. And supporting nuclear nonproliferation, for example, is 
a very important issue, and I think this bill does a good job on that. 
Maintaining a safe and secure and reliable nuclear arsenal, I think 
that is also important. Fully authorizing the environmental cleanup 
that we have to do related to these activities, that is also included 
in this bill. Increasing the regional missile defense systems that we 
have that protect our troops when they are, for example, in Europe, 
when they're deployed, and also our allies for the short- and medium-
range missile attacks that might happen, protecting long-term and cost-
effective investments in our military space assets, these are all areas 
that we have agreed upon.
  However, I am extremely concerned about some of the other issue areas 
where we do not agree. For example, provisions that impede nuclear 
weapons reductions, I think that is incredibly important to allow the 
administration to move forward, not only with New START Treaty, but 
also to look at other ways in which we can bring down our arsenal if we 
don't need it.
  The governance and management reforms that will undermine independent 
oversight related to health and safety, including nuclear safety.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank my ranking member.
  These are very important to our people who work in this arena. What 
is their safety going to be when they're working with nuclear weapons 
in the complexes that we have? I think that the standards and the way, 
the management way that the Republicans like to do are going to 
probably cause some inconsistent standards in protecting our workers--
and risk people's lives, quite frankly.
  Increasing funding for nuclear weapons by more than $400 million over 
the President's budget request when our own Pentagon didn't want that, 
or increasing funding for the ground-based midcourse defense program by 
over $350 million while there are still test failures going out, when 
we have had 9 of 17 tests fail on us, then I don't think we should be 
continuing to invest in the same system. We should look and try to take 
care and find out what went wrong.
  I look forward to trying to work these things out in the conference.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I thank Chairman McKeon.
  Mr. Chairman, much of this bill is totally bipartisan. Two important 
provisions relate to missile defense and our nuclear weapons 
infrastructure modernization. Let me talk briefly about those two.
  The first, in this bill we restore the funding for our national 
missile defense system, the budget for which the President has 
repeatedly slashed. This bill also sets up a third missile defense site 
for the east coast, adding another layer to homeland defense.
  The bill fully funds the nuclear modernization program that President 
Obama promised when he sought ratification of the New START Treaty. 
National security demands Members make a choice--fully fund 
modernization or don't implement New START.
  Also a focus of this bill is reform of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. If we didn't strike the right balance after several 
bipartisan sessions and hearings Ms. Sanchez and I convened, we have a 
long process ahead of us to work to get it right.
  As the National Academies, Strategic Posture Commission, and others 
have found, NNSA is, quite simply, broken and cannot afford to be left 
unfixed. I am absolutely committed to working with the minority and the 
administration to ensure a more efficient NNSA that has the nuclear 
deterrent and safety as unchallenged priorities. I look forward to an 
administration proposal on the subject.
  I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), our 
ranking member, for her support, leadership, and contributions to our 
process thus far this year. I want to thank Chairman McKeon for his 
leadership.
  Nuclear weapons and missile defense are two very important issues for 
the safety and security of our Nation. Our subcommittee has taken a 
strong commitment to these, and we look forward to this bill moving 
forward to the Senate as we try to strengthen both our missile defense 
capability and our nuclear deterrent.

[[Page 6971]]


  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis) ranking member on the Personnel 
Subcommittee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their leadership, and Chairman Wilson for making our 
subcommittee work a bipartisan effort. I also want to thank the staff 
for producing this important piece of legislation.
  I am pleased the bill includes provisions that are important to our 
men and women in uniform, such as a 1.7 percent pay raise, improvements 
and additional efforts to combat sexual assault, transition assistance 
for members leaving the service, and Impact Aid funding for our 
military children.
  However, I am concerned because the majority on this committee 
adopted several amendments that distract from the wonderful work that 
we have done. Two provisions deal with gays in the military. The first 
would prohibit same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed on 
military installations.

                              {time}  1850

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

[[Page 6972]]

two amendments I offered that would enable a comprehensive approach to 
cybersecurity across the government and secure the infrastructure on 
which our military and our Nation depend.
  On balance, this is a good bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their hard work, as well as the staff.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Schilling).
  Mr. SCHILLING. I'd like to thank Chairman Buck McKeon for his hard 
work and dedication to getting this put together, and all of the staff 
members.
  I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013. This bill shows our support for our troops and allows 
them to continue their mission in defending our country. We are facing 
difficult fiscal choices, but we must not penalize our brave men and 
women who are in harm's way.
  I am particularly supportive of how this bill supports small 
businesses that contract with the Department of Defense, our organic 
base that ensures our soldiers are equipped and ensures that those who 
would do harm to our Nation are not allowed within its borders. I am 
also pleased that it will provide insight on how TRICARE can be better 
suited to the needs of the children of our warfighters, and that it 
will provide more flexibility for the DOD to bring our soldiers who are 
missing in action home from previous conflicts.
  I am privileged to represent the Rock Island Arsenal in the Illinois 
17th District. These hardworking men and women support our warfighters 
with the tools they need to accomplish their goals and missions. I look 
forward to continuing my work on the House Armed Services Committee 
with my colleagues to ensure that our organic base is ready and able to 
respond when our warfighters need them.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
bill and pass it for the 51st year in a row.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to 
highlight the Defense Business Panel's work over the past 6 months and 
discuss our proposals for a series of procurement, contracting, and 
export control reforms that seek to help small and medium-sized 
businesses access the nearly $400 billion-a-year defense market.
  Burdensome regulations and arcane auditing requirements are driving 
many companies to quit the defense market and are deterring new 
suppliers from entering the market. I am pleased that many of the 
bipartisan recommendations from the Defense Business Panel's report, 
``Challenges to Doing Business with the Department of Defense,'' have 
made it into this year's National Defense Authorization Act and have 
received overwhelming support by the HASC committee members.
  To ensure the Pentagon uses small businesses more, the FY13 NDAA 
requires the Department of Defense to award 25 percent of the total 
value of all prime contracts each year to small businesses. The panel 
heard from many companies around the Nation about how to modernize our 
export control regime. Tomorrow we may be debating an amendment that 
would grant the administration authority to remove commercial 
satellites and components from the Munitions List to the Commerce 
Control List. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  The panel focused on the steps that can be taken to commercialize 
innovative products that originate from small businesses. This year's 
NDAA will restore 1 percent funding for expenses for the 
commercialization and readiness program and will require program 
offices to import SBIR Phase 2 programs into programs of record, when 
appropriate.
  We accomplished much to help small businesses over the panel's 6 
months of work, but we've only scratched the surface. More can be done 
to help small businesses contract with the DOD, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to implement these changes.
  Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), who is the chairman of this panel, for his leadership, and 
the chairman of the full committee and ranking member, Mr. McKeon and 
Mr. Smith, for appointing the panel.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. West), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, and a man who has led troops in battle.
  Mr. WEST. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, and thank you, Ranking Member 
Smith.
  I stand today to offer my support for H.R. 4310, Fiscal Year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  To echo the comments of my colleague from Washington (Mr. Larsen), I 
am very happy to see that the recommendations from the Defense Business 
Panel will be included in this legislation because we have to 
streamline our processing and our contracting opportunities as well for 
our small businesses.
  I'm also very happy to know that the End Strength Reduction Act was 
included in this legislation to make sure that we have the proper 
procedures in tearing down the reduction of our forces, and making sure 
we periodically go back and reassess our national security objectives 
to make sure that our end strength of our military meets those 
objectives.
  I'm also very pleased to know that we continue to protect the well-
earned TRICARE health care benefits for our veterans and for military 
retirees, staying away from the tripling of those health care rates. We 
will continue to index that toward the COLA.
  We will continue to provide for the proper support of our military 
families and their children and the programs on our installations.
  But most importantly, I am very happy to know that we will continue 
to resource our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and our Marines, 
because as we are standing here today debating this piece of 
legislation, someone is out there being the watchman on the wall. 
Someone is out there about to go on a patrol, and they are trusting and 
depending upon us to do the right thing through the amendment process 
of this legislation to ensure that they are given the resources so they 
can provide victory and once again provide for the common defense of 
this great Nation.
  We must make sure that our military cannot be seen as a bill payer 
for fiscal irresponsibility. And the most important thing is, when you 
look at our track record for predicting the next conflict, it is not a 
good track record.
  We must make sure that we do not destroy our military and decimate 
its capabilities and capacities while we're trying to rectify the 
fiscal situation here. Let's stay focused on our primary responsibility 
of providing for the common defense.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member on the 
Seapower Subcommittee.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Seapower and 
Projection Forces Subcommittee, I want to thank Chairman Akin for his 
hard work in helping our subcommittee put together our portion of the 
FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act. Throughout the process, there 
was a strong bipartisan effort to deliver what is truly needed by our 
men and women in uniform.
  There are a number of provisions with which I'm particularly pleased: 
The multiyear procurement authority for up to 10 Virginia Class attack 
submarines. This provision also gives incremental funding authority and 
restores advance procurement in FY 13 that will allow the Navy to 
procure a second Virginia class submarine in FY 13.
  Also, the multiyear procurement authority for up to 10 DDG-51 Arleigh 
Burke Class Destroyers and the extension of the Ford-Class Aircraft 
Carrier incremental funding from 5 years to 6 years.

[[Page 6973]]

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

                              {time}  1910

  Ms. BORDALLO. Again, Mr. Chairman, along these lines, I believe the 
bill takes important steps to protect the Air National Guard from 
unwarranted cuts in mission realignments. I appreciate that the bill 
does not increase most TRICARE fees and copays and that it prohibits 
the department from implementing new fees.
  I want to thank Chairman Forbes for his strong partnership on the 
Readiness Subcommittee and also to thank members of the staff.
  Again, I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
measure as well.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for working so 
diligently with me to protect the civil liberties that we enjoy so much 
in our country.
  Mr. Chairman, as we debate the protection of these civil liberties in 
this bill, we need to ask ourselves: What are we trying to provide? We 
must protect every citizen's basic due process rights. What are those 
basic due process rights?
  Specifically, it would be the right to notice, the opportunity to be 
heard, the right to a neutral forum, the right to counsel when before 
the court, and the right to an appeal. Some of my colleagues are 
proposing the creation of additional rights. Doing so does not further 
protect us under the Constitution nor does it further the protections 
of our constituents.
  They say we must allow foreign terrorists captured domestically to be 
tried in criminal court, enveloping them with all of the protections 
granted to civil criminals. It gives them access to our national 
security intelligence that ordinary Americans currently are denied. We 
incentivize them to come to America. The base text of the bill makes it 
clear and precise that anyone detained is afforded access to the basic 
rights of due process that I mentioned earlier. Therefore, those basic 
rights are now enshrined.
  I urge Members to support the underlying bill, accompanied by the 
Gohmert-Landry-Rigell amendment, and to oppose any other attempts to 
create additional rights for foreign terrorists.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  There are no additional rights contained in this amendment. We have 
the rights that are in the Constitution that are the due process. The 
gentleman's comment that additional rights are

[[Page 6974]]

being granted by this is patently false. The Constitution is clear. It 
provides all persons in the United States the same rights. All we are 
doing is going back to the Constitution and repealing the authority of 
the President to circumvent those rights and reduce them. That's a very 
critical point that we will talk further about tomorrow.
  I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
  Yesterday, we debated H. Res. 568, which draws a red line for 
military action at Iran's achieving a nuclear weapons ``capability,'' a 
nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear 
program. As a result, the language in that bill makes a negotiated 
solution impossible.
  Now, this bill, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act, in 
section 1221 makes military action against Iran a U.S. policy. Right in 
the bill, it talks about deployments and military action. To create a 
plan, under article B of section 1222, it says that the Secretary of 
Defense shall prepare a plan for the Fifth Fleet to conduct military 
deployments. In section A of article II, it says that there should be 
prepositioning, sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions--bombs, 
fuel, and other materials--for both air- and sea-based missions against 
Iran. So that sets the stage for war. Then section B calls for an 
execution of the war, bolstering United States' capabilities to launch 
a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and 
military targets.
  They're not threatening us. We're threatening them with this. Then we 
call for a showdown in the Strait of Hormuz in section C.
  Now look. We've been through this before. I led this Congress in 
October of 2002 to challenge the Bush administration's march towards 
war against Iraq, and it proved that it was wrong to do that. There 
were no weapons of mass destruction. This is Iraq all over again, and 
we should at least have a separate debate on whether or not we should 
be recommending an attack on Iran without including it in this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of section 552 of H.R. 4310. In fact, I rise in 
favor of the entire National Defense Authorization Act but specifically 
of this provision which justly awards the victims of Fort Hood and the 
Arkansas recruiting station shootings with the Purple Heart.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the distinct honor of representing Fort Hood, 
Texas. We call it the ``Great Place.'' The day after the attack at Fort 
Hood, I was there. At that point in time, I began working on 
legislation to award combat status to the victims so that they could 
all receive the appropriate benefits that they deserve.
  The shootings at Fort Hood and in Little Rock left 14 dead and 44 
wounded. These soldiers were at a deployment processing center in Fort 
Hood and at a recruiting station in Arkansas when they were fired upon. 
Many of them at Fort Hood were getting ready to go to war or were 
returning from war for the reassignment to other assignments. In my 
opinion, the shooters extended the battlefield from Iraq and 
Afghanistan to Fort Hood and Little Rock in order to claim their 
targets before they reached their destinations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  While I am pleased to see the victims receive the Purple Heart, we 
should continue to work towards awarding the victims combat status and 
the appropriate recognition that they may deserve, including 
recognizing the civilians who were killed. But make no mistake, at Fort 
Hood, they targeted soldiers.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this 
language but to continue to work towards awarding combat status for the 
victims as well. This is a bipartisan issue. I am very grateful to 
Chairman King for getting on board with this issue and for driving the 
force, as are all of our soldiers, and I am very grateful for the 
bipartisan consideration this concept had on both sides of the aisle. I 
support the National Defense Authorization Act. It is good for our 
country.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. To the ranking member and the chair of the committee, 
thank you for a long slog of hard work and for the production of a bill 
that has much good in it.
  Certainly, we have to provide for our military. We need a strong, 
agile, smart, and deadly national defense program. That's certainly in 
this bill. We also need to provide for our soldiers--for the men and 
women--and those who serve this country, and that's in this bill. The 
issue of those who have served and who have come home remains an issue 
that we'll probably take up in other legislation.
  Provisions in the bill also provide for the intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance necessary for us to be smart, and the 
bill provides for us to be agile in air mobility. Those are good 
things. However, there are many parts of this bill that I find 
objectionable, which has led to my ``no'' vote on this legislation. Let 
me quickly list those:
  Certainly, we've already talked about, here on the floor, the issue 
of due process. It needs to be addressed, and I want to congratulate 
the ranking member of the committee for his work in developing a very 
good proposal that deals with the due process issue, which provides 
that every person in this country has full access to the civil 
liberties in the Constitution;
  The Afghanistan war is not taken care of in this bill. In fact, there 
are provisions in this bill that, in all likelihood, would increase the 
number of soldiers in Afghanistan by some 20,000 and leave them there 
in perpetuity. We cannot do this. We've got to bring this war to an end 
very, very quickly, and the bill does not go in that direction. In 
fact, it goes in the opposite direction. We just heard a discussion 
about Iran, and I will simply second that portion of the bill as being 
out of place and incorrect;
  There are also things in this bill that are a vast waste of money: 
missile defense on the east coast, a missile system that doesn't work 
to protect us from a nonexistent threat. Why would you spend $100 
million this year and up to $5 million to $7 million in the succeeding 
2 years? We ought not do that.
  Some things are also to be found at home. The Lawrence Livermore Labs 
need to be protected.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that is 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. Does the gentleman have further speakers?
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. We do not have further speakers at this 
point, and I believe we're prepared to close.
  Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I want to again thank the chairman and thank the folks 
who worked on this bill. As you see from the debate, there are a lot of 
controversial issues that wound up in this bill, issues of enormous 
importance, from our policy towards countries like Afghanistan and 
Iran, to civil liberties and on. It takes a great deal of work on 
behalf of the staff and a great deal of commitment to a bipartisan 
spirit to work through that, have fair debates, have the votes, carry 
on, and always remember that underlying it all is making sure that we 
fund the defense of this country, and we fund the troops who are tasked 
with protecting it. I think our committee and our staff do an 
outstanding job of dealing with those challenges.
  I want to talk again about the indefinite-detention issue. The 
gentleman who spoke a couple of minutes ago raised some concerns, and I 
think it gives us a pretty good preview of what

[[Page 6975]]

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

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

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

[[Page 6976]]

and our colleagues in the Congress to support this very important bill 
to help them carry out that important mission.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                                          Committee on the Budget,


                                     House of Representatives,

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

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

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

                                   Committee on Homeland Security,


                                     House of Representatives,

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



                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     House of Representatives,

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

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act contains badly needed reforms that are vital to our 
national security and our defense industrial base.
  America's small business industrial base has supported our military 
for generations, and their participation enhances competition, helps 
control costs, and spurs American innovation. H.R. 4310 recognizes that 
our defense maintenance needs are best met when we have capabilities 
both internally in the Department of Defense and in a private sector 
where work is competitively awarded.
  Sections 1631 and 1632 will help maintain a strong small business 
presence in our defense industrial base which is essential to reducing 
maintenance and procurement costs as well as maintaining a strong 
national defense.
  It is my strong belief this important legislation will help ensure 
that the highest level of support services are provided to the men and 
women who protect our freedom.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I submit the following letters:

        House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
                                                   Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     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. 4310, the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
     amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation 
     which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
       However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
     This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding 
     that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice 
     the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or 
     to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill or similar legislation which fall 
     within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you 
     urge the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any 
     conference committee named to consider such provisions.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee 
     report on H.R. 4310 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 11, 2012.
     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. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. 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 financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``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 Financial 
     Services in H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2013. The bill contains provisions that fall 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial 
     Services under rule X of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.
       In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, 
     I am willing to waive the Committee on Financial Services' 
     right to a sequential referral. I make this commitment with 
     the mutual understanding that this will not prejudice the 
     Committee on Financial Services with respect to its 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation. Further, it is 
     our mutual understanding that the Committee on Financial 
     Services be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill 
     or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address 
     any issues relating to the provisions that fall 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 of any such request.

[[Page 6977]]

       Further, I appreciate your agreement to include 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. 4310.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on 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 Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     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. 4310, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     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 and any similar 
     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. 4310 and the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of this measure on the House 
     floor.
       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 11, 2012.
     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. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. 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 
     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 Veterans' Affairs,

                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 2012
     Hon. Howard ``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. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2013. There are certain provisions in the 
     legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
       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 Veterans' Affairs 
     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. 
     4310 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,
                                                      Jeff Miller,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     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. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. 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 Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``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 Natural Resources 
     in matters being considered in H.R. 4310, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
       Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4310 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     Of particular note, in Section 28XX--Transfer of 
     Administrative Jurisdiction, Fort Lee Military Reservation 
     and Petersburg National Battlefield, Virginia, the Committee 
     agrees only to a 1.7 acre land exchange. This waiver, 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 Natural Resources 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 Committee on Natural Resources 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,
                                                      Doc Hastings
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     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. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. 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.

  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to bring to your attention a 
non-partisan, good governance issue--accountability and transparency. 
Specifically, accountability and transparency for the War Budget, which 
for accounting purposes is treated separately from the Department of 
Defense (DoD) Base Budget.

[[Page 6978]]

  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, CBO, and the Congressional Research Service, CRS, have all 
testified before Congress about the limited transparency in DoD war 
cost estimating and reporting) Despite this challenge, members from 
both political parties have worked in a bipartisan manner to support 
our 43rd and 44th Commanders in Chief to ensure that our troops have 
the war-related resources they need to win the Global War on Terror. As 
we move forward, it is my hope that we will preserve this spirit of 
bipartisanship while also working to overcome the challenge of 
providing good faith estimates about what our war effort actually 
costs.
  Last year's Budget and Control Act, BCA (P.L. 112-25) appropriately 
recognized the distinction made by previous Congresses between the Base 
Budget and the War Budget. It places specific limits, or caps, on the 
Base Budget; the War Budget, however, has no limit. This creates a 
potential loophole for the President and/or Congress to evade the BCA 
limits by moving money for regular activities from the Base Budget to 
the War Budget's unlimited resources.
  This is the first full cycle of Budget requests, authorizations, and 
appropriations under the BCA. Despite the varied views on the law, the 
President and the Congress have a duty to abide by its letter and 
spirit unless an alternative law is agreed upon. This bill is not about 
finding an alternative replacement for the BCA; it's about making sure 
the men and women in harm's way have the appropriate legal authority 
and resources to effectively fight on our behalf. It should also be 
about providing for our troops in an accountable and transparent 
manner.
  The FY2013 Budget Request calls for shifting $6.1 billion in basic 
compensation for military personnel from the Base Budget to the War 
Budget. The troops associated with these costs are currently not 
deployed in overseas combat operations. Rather, they are part of the 
troop reductions set to begin next year. This means the FY2013 War 
Request and this bill's War Budget are overstated by $6.1 billion with 
basic compensation costs that have traditionally been funded through 
the Base Budget. As the GAO has stated, ``Costs that are incurred 
regardless of whether there is a [war] operation, such as the base pay 
of active duty military personnel, are not considered [war-related] 
(emphasis added).'' This new use of the War Budget for base pay was 
highlighted earlier this year at a House Budget Committee oversight 
hearing entitled The Department of Defense and Fiscal Year 2013 Budget. 
It is a clear circumvention of the BCA limits.
  As we move forward in the Budget process, we should aim to ensure our 
troops receive full, base salaries and benefits from their usual 
source--the Base Budget. After all, the primary reason we employ troops 
is to protect our nation, and we need to continue to use the Base 
Budget to compensate our troops. This bill undermines public reporting 
of accurate War costs by accepting the President's request to shift 
$6.1 billion in base salaries from the Base Budget to the War Budget. 
However, neither the President's request nor this bill actually funds 
the DoD. So, in the days ahead I urge us to work towards preserving the 
integrity of the law by restoring accountability and transparency 
between the Base Budget and the War Budget.
  If we fail to bring to light any potential exploitation of BCA 
loopholes in the law's early years of enforcement, then we simply make 
tomorrow's challenges greater while willfully turning a blind eye to 
the oversight record provided by the GAO, CRS, CBO and other credible 
sources.
  H.R. 4310 was reported out of the Armed Service Committee and passed 
the House on a bipartisan vote of 56-5 and 299-120, respectively. I 
applaud the Armed Services Committee for including report language that 
states, ``[Section 403] would require that the [FY2014-2017] Department 
of Defense budget request include amounts for the end strength of the 
regular component of the Army and the Marine Corps in the base budget 
and not through emergency, supplemental, or overseas contingency 
operation funds.'' I hope the bipartisan majority supporting the bill 
will have the opportunity this year to accelerate its call to fully 
compensate our troops in an accountable and transparent manner.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4310, the 
National Defense Authorization, NDAA Act. Our country has always spent 
too much taxpayer money on an outdated, ineffective military apparatus; 
this year's reauthorization is no different. The pattern of lopsided 
investment causes us to sacrifice critically needed investments in job 
growth, health care, education, and economic recovery. Simply put, our 
level of defense spending does not reflect my values or those of the 
majority of Americans. Therefore, I will once again vote against the 
NDAA.
  Defense already comprises almost 60 percent of the federal 
government's discretionary spending. Our nation dedicates entirely too 
much of its capital to military efforts at great monetary and human 
costs. We have spent trillions of dollars on wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and lost thousands of lives. The American people have had enough. 
Almost 70 percent of Americans want a complete and early withdrawal of 
troops from Afghanistan, according to a recent Rasmussen survey.
  What's more, two-thirds of Republicans and nine out of ten Democrats 
support making immediate and drastic cuts to defense spending, 
according to a recent survey by the nonprofit groups, Center for Public 
Integrity, the Program for Public Consultation, and the Stimson Center. 
The average suggested defense cut by those polled came to more than $80 
billion. That amount is almost twice what is due to be cut from defense 
in the sequester, the bipartisan deal reached at the end of last year 
to reduce our deficit.
  Rather than listen to the American people, House Republicans have 
chosen to do the opposite--further increasing defense spending in this 
legislation. They've added an additional $8 billion above the budget 
limits that were approved earlier this Congress as part of the Budget 
Control Act. This is why I joined with Representative Barbara Lee (D-
CA) to offer an amendment to cut that $8 billion from the defense 
authorization. Doing so would simply ensure that defense spending falls 
in line with the limits set by Republicans in their own Budget Control 
Act. Unfortunately, the amendment was not approved.
  The bottom line is that it's beyond time for us to cut defense 
spending, withdraw our troops, and redirect our focus to the troubles 
we're facing here at home. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against this bill.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,'' which 
provides $642 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense 
and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
  Although the bill is not perfect and contains several provisions that 
I do not support, on balance I support the legislation because it (1) 
provides our troops the resources they need to protect and defend our 
country and themselves; (2) supports military families; (3) makes 
important investments to keep our homeland safe; and (4) incorporates 
three critical amendments I offered to strengthen the nation's 
strategic ports (of which the Port of Long Beach is perhaps the most 
critical), provide expanded protections for women service members, and 
enhances the effectiveness of the Northern Command (``NORTHCOM'') in 
protecting the homeland in event of war.
  I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their hard work 
in shepherding this bill to the floor on this bill and for their 
commitment to the men and women of the Armed Forces.
  Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions that I support.
  I support the provisions in the bill providing all service members a 
pay raise of 1.7 percent, the level included in the President's 
request, and extends certain special pay and bonuses for active-duty 
and reserve personnel. The bill limits any annual increase in cost-
sharing rates under the TRICARE pharmacy program to the percentage 
increase in retiree pay, beginning October 1, 2013. I am also pleased 
that the bill extends access to family housing for six months for 
service members mustering out due to personnel reductions.
  Mr. Chair, combating domestic violence and deterring sexual offenses 
in both the civilian and military sectors is a national priority. That 
is why I am pleased that this bill includes provisions requiring 
secretaries of the military departments to establish special victim 
teams for investigation, prosecution and victim support in connection 
with child abuse, serious domestic violence or sexual offenses under 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The bill further requires that at 
least one team in each military department be in place within one year 
of enactment and that each secretary report within 270 days of 
enactment with a plan and timeline for the establishment of the 
remainder of the special victim teams that the secretary has determined 
are needed.
  Mr. Chair, this bill provides the resources needed to protect our 
troops in harm's way. It provides:
   $2.8 billion for measures to counter IED activities in Afghanistan;
  $3.2 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in 
Afghanistan;
   An increase of $321 million in unrequested funds for modernization 
of M-1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, vehicles that help 
protect the lives of our troops; and

[[Page 6979]]

   $7.6 billion for operations and maintenance of the Special 
Operations Command, an amount that includes $2.5 billion in the 
Overseas Contingency Operations account.
  Another reason for supporting this bill is that it provides expanded 
opportunities for small businesses to participate in Defense Department 
contracts. For example, the bill includes several provisions designed 
to eliminate barriers that have prevented many small and medium-sized 
businesses from competing for Pentagon contracts. It also establishes 
new DOD goals for procurement contracts awarded to small businesses. 
There are also provisions to amend the Small Business Act to establish 
a government-wide goal for participation by small businesses at not 
less than 25 percent of all prime contracts for each fiscal year, and 
40 percent of all subcontract awards for each fiscal year.
  Mr. Chair, as I noted earlier in my remarks, an additional reason why 
I support this legislation is because it includes three amendments that 
I offered to improve the bill. I want to thank Rules Committee Chairman 
Dreier, Ranking Member Slaughter, Armed Services Committee Chairman 
McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for working with me to include these 
amendments.
  My first amendment, Richardson Amendment No. 82, requires the 
Department of Defense to post on all its websites information on sexual 
assault prevention and response resources.
  In light of technology, many people, particularly service personnel 
receive the majority of their information via the Internet.
  Further, online access to the needed information is particularly 
important because persons needing sexual assault resource information 
may be reluctant to seek information in a public setting without fear 
of losing privacy, or worse retaliation.
  My second amendment, Richardson Amendment No. 112, improves the bill 
by increasing the effectiveness of the Northern Command (``NORTHCOM'') 
in fulfilling its critical mission of protecting the U.S. homeland in 
event of war and to provide support to local, state, and federal 
authorities in times of national emergency. This amendment was included 
in last year's National Defense Authorization Act and I am pleased that 
it is included again this year also.
  The purpose for NORTHCOM's existence 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 a disaster has occurred if they are trained in the 
techniques of effective engagement with civilian leadership. My 
amendment ensures that such training will be available.
  I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Congressman Don Young 
of Alaska for working with me across the aisle and partnering with me 
on the amendment, Young/Richardson Amendment 141. This amendment calls 
for the expedited completion of the study of the Nation's strategic 
ports called for in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 Conference Report 112-329.
  As the representative of a district served by the largest port 
complex in the nation, I have long been a strong champion on protecting 
our nation's ports.
  My colleagues have heard me say often that ``in times of war, the 
role of the ports is to protect the forts.''
  This amendment also directs the Department of Defense to provide a 
copy of the report to the GAO for additional review of the extent to 
which the facilities and infrastructure serving strategic seaports meet 
the Department of Defense's requirements.
  The completion of this report is vital in the assessment of the 
structural integrity and deficiencies of the port facilities.
  It further examines infrastructure improvements that are needed 
directly or indirectly to meet national security and readiness 
requirements.
  In addition to assessing the impact on operational readiness, this 
report will identify potential funding sources to undertake needed 
improvements.


                               CONCLUSION

  Finally, let me note my strong support for the bipartisan Smith/Amash 
Amendment, which was accepted and included in the bill. This amendment 
amends detention provisions enacted last year in order to ensure that 
any individual detained on U.S. soil has the rights and liberties 
enshrined in the Constitution. The amendment would ensure that no 
person detained, captured, or arrested in the U.S. pursuant to the 
Authorization for the Use of Military Force could be indefinitely 
detained, held in military custody, or forced to face a military 
tribunal. As the Constitution states, it makes clear that any person 
apprehended in the United States would be guaranteed due process 
provided by a civilian court established under Article III of the 
Constitution. This commonsense, bipartisan amendment is supported by 27 
Retired Generals and Admirals and more than 25 leading organizations, 
including the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, United Church of 
Christ, United Methodist Church, Union for Reform Judaism, Physicians 
for Human Rights, and National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
  Finally, let me note my opposition to sections 536 and 537 of the 
bill relating to service members who are gay and lesbian. These 
provisions are unnecessary and unhelpful for the reasons discussed in 
the Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Obama 
Administration. I agree with the Administration's position and oppose 
the inclusion of these provisions. It is my hope that they will be 
removed before this bill reaches the President's desk.
  In conclusion, I believe the good things in this bill outweigh the 
bad and for that reason urge my colleagues to support and join me in 
voting for the bill on final passage.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I am in opposition to this bill.
  Let me begin by praising our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Washington, Representative Adam Smith. Ranking Member Smith brought 
forward a number of excellent proposals that would have significantly 
improved this bill, especially his effort to eliminate the indefinite 
detention provisions that were included in last year's bill. He also 
supported efforts to rein in excess Pentagon spending by supporting 
Representative Barbara Lee's amendment to trim $8 billion from the 
bill. Had the amendment passed, it would have restored the funding 
level in the bill to what Democrats and Republicans had agreed to in 
this year's Federal budget bill.
  Unfortunately, the majority chose to vote down both of those 
amendments and thus continue a misguided, counterproductive detainee 
policy and still more reckless spending. Moreover, the majority is 
attempting to interfere with the President's ability to negotiate arms 
control agreements with Russia, a potentially unconstitutional action. 
Additionally, this bill continues to fund Cold War legacy weapon 
systems like the F-35 and V-22 which we neither need nor can afford. 
Indeed, it's worth remembering that if we proceed with the procurement 
of the F-35, that program will cost taxpayers in excess of $400 
billion--$50 billion more than the entire defense budget was a decade 
ago. We need to think anew about how best to defend our country, not 
continue to buy weapons to deter a Soviet Union that ceased to exist 
over 20 years ago.
  Finally, this bill continues the deadly folly that is the war in 
Afghanistan, now the longest war in our country's history. There is no 
good reason for us still to be involved in combat operations in 
Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and his key 
lieutenants--the men who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks on our 
Nation. Last year, President Obama authorized the operation that 
eliminated bin Laden. The chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid 
Sheik Mohammed, has been in our custody for years. The Al Qaeda we went 
to war with in 2001 effectively no longer exists, and thus the reason 
we sent our troops to Afghanistan no longer exists, which is why they 
should come home now but won't, thanks to this misguided bill. It is 
for all these reasons that I will vote against this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters:

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC
       Dear Chairman McKeon. I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation 
     contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. However, in 
     order to expedite floor consideration of this important 
     legislation, the committee waives consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform takes this 
     action only with the understanding that the committee's 
     jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation 
     are in no way diminished or altered.
       The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the 
     House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Darrell Issa,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 6980]]

                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Darrell Issa,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     3210, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. 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, Committee on Education and the 
           Workforce,
                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2012.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Thank you for 
     consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     with regard to H.R. 4310 on those matters within the 
     committee's jurisdiction.
       In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of 
     H.R. 4310, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will 
     forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so 
     only with the understanding that this procedural route will 
     not be construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional 
     interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my 
     committee in the future.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in 
     a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include 
     our exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee 
     Report on H.R. 4310 and in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for 
     your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Kline,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. John Kline,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on 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 Foreign Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation 
     contains subject matter that falls within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. However, 
     due to our cooperation in working out text prior to your 
     markup, and in order to expedite Floor consideration of this 
     important legislation, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not 
     seek a sequential referral or object to Floor consideration 
     of the bill text approved at your Committee markup.
       The House Committee on Foreign Affairs takes this action 
     only with the understanding that our jurisdictional interests 
     in this bill, any subsequent amendments, and similar 
     legislation are in no way diminished or altered.
       The Foreign Affairs 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 your Committee report on the bill, and in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the 
     House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                              Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on 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.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on 
           Intelligence,
                                                     May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of 
     expediting the passage of H.R. 4310, the ``Fiscal Year 2013 
     National Defense Authorization Bill,'' the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further consideration 
     of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional interests in 
     H.R. 4310, 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, including in connection with any 
     subsequent consideration of the bill by the House. 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. 4310. I appreciate the 
     constructive work between our committees on this matter and 
     thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mike Rogers,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Mike Rogers,
     Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the 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 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4310, the 
     ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.'' 
     I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 4310 so that it may 
     proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
       This is done with the understanding that the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce is not waiving any of its jurisdiction on 
     this or similar legislation. In addition, the Committee 
     reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 4310 and 
     requests your support when such a request is made.
       I would appreciate your response confirming this 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 4310 and ask that a copy 
     of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 6981]]

     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on 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 Small Business,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to you concerning the 
     bill H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2013. There are certain provisions in the 
     legislation which fall within Rule X (q) 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. 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 within its Rule X (q) 
     jurisdiction, including future bills that the Committee on 
     Armed Services will consider. 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. 
     4310 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.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Sam Graves,
     Chairman, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on 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 the Judiciary,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Buck McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: On May 10, 2012, the Committee on 
     Armed Services ordered H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as amended, to be 
     reported to the House. As a result of your having consulted 
     with the Judiciary Committee concerning provisions of the 
     bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, and having 
     made amendments to the bill in consideration thereof, I am 
     able to agree to discharging our committee from further 
     consideration of the bill so that it may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House Floor.
       The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that, by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4310, 
     as amended, at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction 
     over the 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 
     that fall within our Rule X 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.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 4310, and 
     would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in your committee's report on H.R. 4310 
     and/or in the Congressional Record during floor consideration 
     thereof.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lamar Smith,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                         Washington, May 11, 2012.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013. I agree that the Committee on the 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.

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4310, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. As a former 
Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve, and as the son of a 
World War II veteran, I firmly believe that Congress has a 
responsibility to ensure that the United States has the best trained 
and best equipped military in the world. However, I have a number of 
concerns about this legislation that cause me to be unable to support 
it.
  Last year during consideration of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act of 2012, I expressed my disappointment in the pace 
of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan initiated by President Obama. I 
supported an amendment to that bill that would have accelerated the 
withdrawal by reducing funding for combat operations while allowing for 
a reserve force of 25,000 troops to protect American personnel, carry 
out anti-terrorism operations, and assist with the training of 
Afghanistan's security forces.
  While a similar amendment was submitted to the National Defense 
Authorization Act we are considering today, the Republican majority 
unfortunately refused to make it in order and instead only allowed a 
vote on an amendment offered by my colleague Representative Lee. Her 
amendment would require the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from 
Afghanistan. While I support the intent of the amendment, I am 
concerned that it does not provide our President and military leaders 
with the ability to keep a small reserve force in Afghanistan to help 
build up the capacity of the Afghan military or carry out limited 
operations against terrorists plotting against the United States. I 
prefer the approach advocated by my colleague Rep. McGovern, which is 
why I am a cosponsor of legislation he has authored entitled the 
Afghanistan Exit and Accountability Act. This bill would require the 
President to submit a plan to Congress for an accelerated transition of 
our military out of Afghanistan, and to report regularly on the 
implementation of that plan.
  During consideration of last year's National Defense Authorization 
Act, the Senate included provisions that could be construed as allowing 
for the indefinite detention of those apprehended on United States 
soil. The Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee Adam Smith and 
my colleague from Michigan Representative Justin Amash offered an 
amendment that would have clarified that any person captured in the 
United States must be extended the right to be charged and tried in a 
U.S. Court consistent with the Constitution. Unfortunately this 
amendment was defeated, and the bill now creates a dangerous, and I 
believe unconstitutional, precedent.
  Finally, the bill funds the Department of Defense at a level $8 
billion above the one set for defense spending in the Budget Control 
Act passed last year. If signed into law, this would necessitate 
dangerous cuts to non-defense spending if we are going to meet the 
deficit reduction targets agreed to by President Obama and the 
Republican Leadership in the House. The Republican Budget would offset 
these increases in defense spending by imposing harmful and draconian 
cuts on programs that help provide food assistance to needy children, 
health care to our seniors, and assistance to unemployed parents trying 
to get back to work.
  Everyone in this body supports keeping our Nation and our troops 
safe. Unfortunately, for the reasons outlined above, I cannot support 
this legislation. I remain hopeful that the Senate will produce a 
bipartisan bill that responsibly ends the war in Afghanistan as soon as 
safely possible, respects the Constitution, and

[[Page 6982]]

ensures that our deficit reduction goals are met through balanced cuts 
that do not disproportionately impact the most vulnerable Americans.

                              {time}  1930

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

                          ____________________