[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7323-7375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              {time}  2110


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Chaffetz (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 112-485 offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) had been disposed of.


          Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

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


[[Page 7324]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7325]]

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

                              {time}  2120

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


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Keating

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7326]]

     maintenance, Air Force, is hereby increased by $1,040,000.
       (C) The amount authorized to be appropriated in section 
     4401 for military personnel, Air National Guard, is hereby 
     increased by $21,993,000.
       (D) The amount authorized to be appropriated in section 
     4401 for military personnel (MERHC), Air National Guard, is 
     hereby increased by $2,794,000.
       (2) Reduction.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in 
     the funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 201 for Research, Development, Test, 
     and Evaluation, as specified in the corresponding funding 
     table in section 4201, is hereby reduced by $36,513,000, to 
     be derived from the Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse 
     Defense Segment.

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

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

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

[[Page 7327]]

strong missile defense? Do we not have a strong missile defense? Do we 
follow the President's lead of a weakening of our national defense and 
our missile defense?

                              {time}  2130

  On this side of the aisle, I think the American people believe that 
we need a strong missile defense, we need to make certain that we're 
protecting our homeland; and we're protecting our mainland.
  I asked the White House and I asked the President if they would tell 
us what was in this secret deal that they have with the Russians, and 
they did respond to me in a letter of April 13, as Ranking Member Smith 
mentioned. This letter does not say at all that there are any terms 
that the White House is willing to discuss, but it does say this 
sentence:

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

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


            Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7328]]

be able to serve. However, serving in the United States military is a 
difficult and challenging profession, especially as one gets older in 
years. The Department of Defense does not support this amendment. 
Current law allows enlistments up to age 42; however, all of the 
services' current policies have restricted enlistment to a lesser age, 
with the Army at the maximum age of 35.
  Mr. Chairman, we are currently drawing down the force and recruiting 
conditions do not require this proposal. Even during the most difficult 
recruiting environment at the peak of national emergency, only the Army 
exercised the authority and raised its age limit to 42. This policy was 
only in place for a few years, and the Army has since reinstated its 
old policy of a maximum of 35 years of age because the risks and the 
challenges of training older recruits outweigh the minimum gain.
  What the Army found was that older-level recruits tend to have 
greater health and physical illness, especially when deployed. And once 
injured, these individuals face a longer period of recuperation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not needed and counterproductive to 
recruiting young men and women in the Armed Forces. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm 66 years of age. I'm in the 
United States Navy Reserve today, an active reservist as a general 
medical officer. There are many reservists not only in the Navy, but in 
other branches of the service that are beyond 42 years of age.
  We have a critical need for doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, 
dentists, other specialties in our military, even as we turn down the 
size of our forces. I think it's critical to have the ability for 
people who want to serve, who are physically fit, who can meet all the 
requirements to be able to do so. That's all this amendment does. It 
does not waive any physical requirements. It does not waive anything 
that is out there today for someone to enlist. It's just going to 
utilize people who have the capability of serving to allow them to do 
so. Not doing so is actually discriminating against them just because 
they have celebrated a few birthdays.

                              {time}  2140

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


           Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Carson of Indiana

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

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

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

       (a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     when making determinations about promotions or separations, a 
     promotion board may not request, review, or consider--
       (1) the mental health records, addiction service records, 
     counseling records, or any other documents concerning the 
     pursuit of assistance with mental health issues, ongoing or 
     past, of a member of the Armed Forces; or
       (2) information contained in any of these records or 
     documents whether provided by word of mouth or in writing 
     from commanding officers, noncommissioned officers, or any 
     other individual.
       (b) Limited Exception.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish a process by which a member of the Armed Forces can 
     be excluded from the prohibition and the records and 
     information described in subsection (a) considered, if--
       (1) the member is being considered for a discharge from the 
     Armed Forces based on a severe or untreatable mental health 
     disorder;
       (2) a physician determines that the member could be a 
     danger to himself or herself or other persons as a result of 
     a mental health issue that is unresolved or untreated before 
     the board meets;
       (3) a physician determines that the member will be unable 
     to complete the duties and

[[Page 7329]]

     responsibilities associated with the advancement in rank 
     being considered by a promotion board as a result of a mental 
     health issue that is unresolved or untreated before the board 
     meets; or
       (4) the member consents to consideration of the records or 
     information, such as to explain negative actions considered 
     by a promotion board connected with a mental health issue 
     that has been treated.
       (c) Notification.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure 
     that notification of the prohibition imposed by subsection 
     (a), and the limited exception provided by subsection (b), is 
     made available to members of the Armed Forces not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Carson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which CBO has 
determined will have no impact on direct spending or appropriations, 
seeks to address an issue that I believe is preventing many of today's 
servicemembers from pursuing the mental health and addiction treatment 
that they so desperately need.
  Quite simply, it prevents promotion boards from considering any other 
source of information from official documents, word of mouth, any 
source about the pursuit of treatment for mental health or addiction 
issues. The amendment provides necessary exceptions for individuals who 
are determined by a physician to be a danger to themselves or others, 
would be unable or unfit to accomplish the duties of higher rank, or if 
they give consent to consideration of such information. And lastly, and 
I believe most importantly, the amendment requires the Department of 
Defense to inform current servicemembers about these prohibitions.
  As we all know, Mr. Chairman, mental health issues, like PTSD and 
depression, are the signature wounds of our wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. Unfortunately, we have entered these wars with an outdated 
military culture that stigmatized mental health issues and often 
equated pursuing treatment with weakness.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made amazing progress since then, and I applaud 
the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee for their 
efforts. Yet I still hear from servicemembers who are afraid that 
pursuing mental health treatment will negatively impact their prospects 
for promotion and others who are absolutely convinced that this is a 
pervasive problem in the ranks, that many servicemembers believe this. 
Now, these individuals are dedicated to their jobs and determined to 
progress in their careers, so, not surprisingly, they hesitate in 
pursuing treatment.
  Of course I understand that HIPAA prevents medical records from being 
considered--including those on mental health--with good reason. But we 
need to be absolutely sure that the fears of our servicemembers do not 
come to pass in other ways. We need to make explicit that promotion 
boards are not only prevented from considering medical records but also 
information on treatment received by word of mouth, from other areas of 
personnel files, or in any other form. This will reflect our modern 
understanding of mental health and addiction issues--that they should 
be treated, not ignored, and that individuals can overcome them.
  But I believe, Mr. Chairman, the most important aspect of this 
amendment, the main reason I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting it, is that we need to be sure that our servicemembers know 
and are fully aware about these prohibitions.
  Some may argue against this amendment, claiming that it perpetuates a 
myth, that, in fact, treatment information is not considered. Their 
argument perfectly illustrates why this amendment is so necessary. 
Because many servicemembers believe they will be penalized for pursuing 
treatment. And as long as this is true, we will still have our brave 
men and women suffer in silence. With screening and counseling, they 
could get healthy. They could perform their duties at a much higher 
level. And they could avoid falling into the traps of addiction, 
domestic violence, and homelessness that await too many of our veterans 
when the return home.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the individuals assigned to the 
promotion boards have the best interests of the military at heart, and 
I believe that they do their jobs quite well. The quality of our 
advanced ranks proves just that. But I want to be sure that we do 
everything possible to remove the stigma on mental health treatment 
until all servicemembers are comfortable pursuing the treatment that 
they need. I believe this amendment is an important step in that 
direction. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this 
amendment.

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana. I oppose the amendment because 
it intrudes on the inherent responsibility of commanders to assess the 
fitness for promotion of servicemembers under their command. As a 
former president myself of the Mid-Carolina Mental Health Association, 
I appreciate mental health issues. Our commanders strive to be fair, 
and the service policies prevent prejudicial consideration of mental 
health treatment that carries no implications for performance and 
promotion qualification.
  This amendment would require our commanders to withhold evidence of 
behavior that is clearly inconsistent with promotion. I am concerned 
whether it is even ethical to demand our commanders to ignore such 
information that they see as a risk to force readiness. A commander 
must make a recommendation on every individual regarding promotion 
eligibility. Once aware of facts that would clearly cause a commander 
to question a servicemember's fitness for promotion, it would seem 
impossible for a commander to render a recommendation that supports the 
member's promotion. It is unfair to ask our commanders to be so 
disingenuous.
  The risk is that this amendment would routinely eliminate important 
factors from the promotion process that will result in the promotion of 
unqualified members over more deserving members. This provision 
attempts to replace the commander's judgment with that of an artificial 
standard that cannot account for the complexity of cases.
  The role of commanders is pivotal in the promotion systems operated 
by the Armed Forces. The Nation invests immense trust in our military 
commanders in the most challenging of circumstances, and we must not 
betray that trust by limiting their responsibility to choose future 
leaders.
  Don't tie the hands of our commanders as they assess their 
subordinates' fitness for promotion. Continue to put our trust in 
commanders and defeat this amendment.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of 
the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, whose oldest 
son and I served in Iraq together.
  As a United States Marine, I filled out dozens of evaluations on my 
marines. Some I recommended for promotions, some I did not.
  As has already been said, Mr. Chairman, this amendment must be 
opposed because it would disrupt the vital role commanders play in the 
military promotion process. Our commanders are the best prepared to 
make the difficult judgments of balancing interests of the individuals 
against the need of the Armed Forces to promote the most qualified 
individuals. It is not ethical to ask commanders to overlook 
information that they believe directly bears on the member's 
qualification for promotion. Commanders strive to be fair, and current 
policies prevent prejudicial

[[Page 7330]]

consideration of mental health treatment that carries no implications 
for performance and promotion qualification.
  The provision attempts to replace the commander's judgment with an 
artificial standard that cannot account for the complexity of cases. 
The Nation invests immense trust in our military commanders in the most 
challenging of circumstances, while leading marines and soldiers in 
combat, and we must not betray that trust.
  I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. How much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the 
gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I applaud his intent of trying to 
remove the stigma of seeking mental health services in the military. 
Again, as a physician in the Army Reserves, I've experienced the issues 
that he's trying to address here this evening. But I also have to agree 
with my colleagues that have brought up the issues regarding the impact 
on the commander's ability to make a truthful and honest recommendation 
for promotion.
  Having had the honor to command and having had the opportunity to 
serve on promotion boards, I know that this information is vitally 
important. It's hard to draw the distinction as to whether or not 
you're using the information that the person sought care or was it 
because of the behavior that that person demonstrated that caused them 
to seek the care. Nonetheless, that information is vital.
  When a physical profile or medical profile form is included in a 
packet that shows there's a duty restriction, perhaps because of a 
psychiatric disturbance or for a generally physical disturbance, that 
information is taken into consideration when determining whether or not 
that individual is fit for promotion and the duties that would be 
assigned subsequent to that promotion.
  Again, I applaud my colleague's intent, but I think the answer to 
this is better education of our servicemembers to rid ourselves of this 
pervasive misconception than trying to pass this amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 22 will not be offered.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Wittman

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

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

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

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

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

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, with that I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).
  Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wittman, and I do rise to 
support this amendment. Having spent time in the military, we were 
taught that there were some basic principles. A couple of those basic 
principles are unity of command and unity of effort.
  I will take nothing away from the civilian appointee that we have in 
this position currently, but as we said, this is the Army national 
cemetery. And it being the Army national cemetery, I feel it is very 
important we have a chain of command, a chain of leadership. That could 
fall under the Military District of Washington.

[[Page 7331]]

  As a matter of fact, the sergeant major of the Military District of 
Washington is someone that I served with at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 
when I was a young major, and we understand chain of command. We 
understand responsibility and accountability. And I talked to him about 
this, and he feels that will be something that will be very well 
appropriate, to have a military commissioned officer.
  When you look at our arsenals, our arsenals out there have strong 
civilian leadership and also strong civilian employees, but yet we have 
a military commander. When you look at an organization such as the Army 
Material Command, which is some 60 to 70 percent civilian, but yet we 
have a four-star general, General Ann Dunwoody, someone that I also 
know very well and served with, who is in charge of that organization.
  So I think if we want to make sure that we have right type of unity 
of command, unity of effort, chain of command in place, we need to make 
sure that we have a uniformed military person that's in control and in 
command of this Army National Cemetery.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and the 
gentleman from Florida.
  I would like to start by talking about what this means to me. This is 
about accountability, responsibility, and authority. All of these 
leadership themes are well defined throughout the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, but a civilian team does not protect the Tomb of the 
Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. That's the 3rd United 
States Infantry Regiment that has the responsibility to honor our 
fallen comrades and conduct ceremonies and special events to represent 
the U.S. Army. One of most known tasks of this unit is the 
distinguished charge of guarding the Tomb of the Unknown at Arlington 
National Cemetery, which it has done with honor since July of 1937. 
Again, this is a military unit, it's not a civilian unit.
  Many of our fallen heroes who were killed in action choose to be 
buried in Arlington, home to our Nation's military history, the men and 
women who sacrificed to make this country what it is today.
  The current chain of command under the Department of the Army has a 
civilian executive director of the Army National Cemeteries reporting 
directly to the Secretary of the Army. Nowhere in the current chain of 
command does there exist a uniformed military officer of appropriate 
rank with commensurate command authority, accountability, and 
responsibility who is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  If we are only going to have one major national cemetery that is run 
by a branch of the DOD, then there needs to be a uniformed chain of 
command that runs the cemetery in a professional, military manner.
  In closing, I would state, Mr. Chairman, I have friends that may 
choose to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery, and I would urge 
adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor 
of the amendment if he has any more speakers?
  Mr. WITTMAN. I do to close.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. With that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, you know, as you've heard, this issue is 
really about this: it's about making sure that there's accountability 
and that there's responsibility at this Nation's most distinguished 
resting place where our heroes that have defended this Nation go for 
their final resting place. If we put a uniformed officer in command of 
Arlington National Cemetery, then that officer will be held accountable 
to the exact same standards as the heroes buried at Arlington once 
were; that is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  The men and women of our all-volunteer force who fall in combat, and 
those who serve and who choose to be buried at Arlington, deserve the 
honor of having a uniformed commanding officer to watch over them as 
they rest, to set and enforce a standard of military excellence and 
commitment, honor and integrity that only those serving in uniform can 
fully comprehend.
  Folks, these are our Nation's heroes. We owe them nothing less, 
especially in light of the problems that we've had there at Arlington. 
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to put back in place 
the distinction and the honor deserved by our men and women who have so 
honorably served this Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). The question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Cummings

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

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 303. MORTGAGES AND TRUST DEEDS.

       ``(a) Mortgage as Security.--This section applies only to 
     an obligation on real or personal property that is secured by 
     a mortgage, trust deed, or other security in the nature of a 
     mortgage and is owned by a covered individual as follows:
       ``(1) With respect to an obligation on real or personal 
     property owned by a servicemember, such obligation that 
     originated before the period of the servicemember's military 
     service and for which the servicemember is still obligated.
       ``(2) With respect to an obligation on real property owned 
     by a servicemember serving in support of a contingency 
     operation (as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
     United States Code), such obligation that originated at any 
     time and for which the servicemember is still obligated.
       ``(3) With respect to an obligation on real property owned 
     by a veteran described in subsection (f)(1)(B), such 
     obligation that originated at any time and for which the 
     veteran is still obligated.
       ``(4) With respect to an obligation on real property owned 
     by a surviving spouse described in subsection (f)(1)(C), such 
     obligation that originated at any time and for which the 
     spouse is still obligated.
       ``(b) Stay of Proceedings and Adjustment of Obligation.--
     (1) In an action filed during a covered time period to 
     enforce an obligation described in subsection (a), the court 
     may after a hearing and on its own motion and shall upon 
     application by a covered individual when the individual's 
     ability to comply with the obligation is materially affected 
     by military service--
       ``(A) stay the proceedings for a period of time as justice 
     and equity require, or
       ``(B) adjust the obligation to preserve the interests of 
     all parties.
       ``(2) For purposes of applying paragraph (1) to a covered 
     individual who is a surviving spouse of a servicemember 
     described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the term `military 
     service' means the service of such servicemember.
       ``(c) Sale or Foreclosure.-- A sale, foreclosure, or 
     seizure of property for a breach of an obligation described 
     in subsection (a) shall not be valid during a covered time 
     period except--
       ``(1) upon a court order granted before such sale, 
     foreclosure, or seizure with a return made and approved by 
     the court; or
       ``(2) if made pursuant to an agreement as provided in 
     section 107.
       ``(d) Misdemeanor.--A person who knowingly makes or causes 
     to be made a sale, foreclosure, or seizure of property that 
     is prohibited by subsection (c), or who knowingly attempts to 
     do so, shall be fined as provided in title 18, United States 
     Code, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
       ``(e) Proof of Service.--(1) A veteran described in 
     subsection (f)(1)(B) shall provide documentation described in 
     paragraph (2) to relevant persons to prove the eligibility of 
     the veteran to be covered under this section.
       ``(2) Documentation described in this paragraph is a rating 
     decision or a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     that confirms that the veteran is totally disabled because of 
     one or more service-connected injuries or service-connected 
     disability conditions.

[[Page 7332]]

       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `covered individual' means the following 
     individuals:
       ``(A) A servicemember.
       ``(B) A veteran who was retired under chapter 61 of title 
     10, United States Code, and whom the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, at the time of such retirement, determines is a 
     totally disabled veteran.
       ``(C) A surviving spouse of a servicemember who--
       ``(i) died while serving in support of a contingency 
     operation if such spouse is the successor in interest to 
     property covered under subsection (a); or
       ``(ii) died while in military service and whose death is 
     service-connected if such spouse is the successor in interest 
     to property covered under subsection (a).
       ``(2) The term `covered time period' means the following 
     time periods:
       ``(A) With respect to a servicemember, during the period 
     beginning on the date on which such servicemember begins 
     military service and ending on the date that is 12 months 
     after the date on which such servicemember is discharged from 
     such service.
       ``(B) With respect to a servicemember serving in support of 
     a contingency operation, during the period beginning on the 
     date of the military orders for such service and ending on 
     the date that is 12 months after the date on which such 
     servicemember redeploys from such contingency operation.
       ``(C) With respect to a veteran described in subsection 
     (f)(1)(B), during the 12-month period beginning on the date 
     of the retirement of such veteran described in such 
     subsection.
       ``(D) With respect to a surviving spouse of a servicemember 
     described in subsection (f)(1)(C), during the 12-month period 
     beginning on the date of the death of the servicemember.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 107 of the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 517) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Other Individuals.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `servicemember' includes any covered individual under 
     section 303(f)(1).''.
       (3) Repeal of sunset.--Subsection (c) of section 2203 of 
     the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 
     110-289; 50 U.S.C. App. 533 note) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Increased Civil Penalties for Mortgage Violations.--
     Paragraph (3) of section 801(b) of the Servicemembers Civil 
     Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil 
     penalty--
       ``(A) with respect to a violation of section 303 regarding 
     real property--
       ``(i) in an amount not exceeding $110,000 for a first 
     violation; and
       ``(ii) in an amount not exceeding $220,000 for any 
     subsequent violation; and
       ``(B) with respect to any other violation of this Act--
       ``(i) in an amount not exceeding $55,000 for a first 
     violation; and
       ``(ii) in an amount not exceeding $110,000 for any 
     subsequent violation.''.
       (c) Credit Discrimination.--Section 108 of such Act (50 
     U.S.C. App. 518) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Application by'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Application by''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) In addition to the protections under subsection (a), 
     an individual who is eligible, or who may likely become 
     eligible, for any provision of this Act may not be denied or 
     refused credit or be subject to any other action described 
     under paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) solely by 
     reason of such eligibility.''.
       (d) Requirements for Lending Institutions That Are 
     Creditors for Obligations and Liabilities Covered by the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.--Section 207 of the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 527) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Lending Institution Requirements.--
       ``(1) Compliance officers.--Each lending institution 
     subject to the requirements of this section shall designate 
     an employee of the institution as a compliance officer who is 
     responsible for ensuring the institution's compliance with 
     this section and for distributing information to 
     servicemembers whose obligations and liabilities are covered 
     by this section.
       ``(2) Toll-free telephone number.--During any fiscal year, 
     a lending institution subject to the requirements of this 
     section that had annual assets for the preceding fiscal year 
     of $10,000,000,000 or more shall maintain a toll-free 
     telephone number and shall make such telephone number 
     available on the primary Internet Web site of the 
     institution.''.

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

                              {time}  2210

  That section alone makes a significant change to a provision that is 
over 70 years old. And while I don't necessarily oppose such an 
extension, we need to get the views of the major stakeholders, 
including the VA and the home mortgage industry.
  Secondly, as written, some provisions are open to very wide 
interpretation.

[[Page 7333]]

For example, there is a provision that provides a 12-month protection 
from foreclosure to those who are separated or retired because of a 
disability and rated by VA as permanently and totally disabled.
  Since it's very rare that a servicemember would actually leave the 
military with a 100 percent rating from the VA and the VA adjudication 
process, as most of us know, can take months, if not years in some 
cases, how would this provision be implemented? That is left unclear in 
this amendment. For example, would a bank be required to give back a 
foreclosed home if the veteran was found several years later to be 
rated as totally and permanently disabled?
  The amendment also contains a significant increase in penalties for 
violating SCRA provisions. And again, while I don't necessarily oppose 
the change, I think we need to hear from the legal community on these 
provisions.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, may I inquire as to how much time we 
have, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen on both sides have 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  I think Mr. Miller raises some justifiable concerns about how much 
we're going to need to look into this further as we go forward. I 
believe we can be committed to doing that in conference and have that 
conversation.
  But the biggest reason to pass this is because of the first thing it 
does, and that extends the current law that is set to expire for 
servicemembers who are deployed not being foreclosed. We have passed it 
in this Chamber; it has not passed in the Senate. If we put this into 
the Defense authorizing bill, it gives us another bite at the apple, 
another chance to make sure this passes without being sunsetted.
  And then the other provisions I think are worthy expansions of the 
protection.
  Now, just so we're clear, it doesn't expand it forever so that 
someone who's 100 percent service disabled would never be foreclosed 
upon. It merely gives the judge greater discretion to prohibit that 
foreclosure as long as justice would require, which I think is good 
protection for people who are 100 percent service disabled and for 
surviving spouses and for the others that are added to this.
  I think there is cause to further vet this. I personally pledge to 
work with the majority as we go forward to do that, but I think the 
amendment is worthy of support because of how important this issue is.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I appreciate the ranking member drawing 
attention to the fact that this is bottled up in the Senate, even 
though it has passed the House in regards to the extending of the 
sunset provisions of the SCRA.
  I would say that, to confirm our concerns, my staff actually talked 
with an expert on SCRA who was the author of the 2003 major revisions, 
and here were some of his concerns:
  Nothing mandates that a deployed servicemember give notice of their 
deployment to the financial institution. Without this information, how 
will the institution know that the servicemember is now covered by 
these new protections under SCRA?
  The current Web site that financial institutions use to see if 
somebody is on active duty does not differentiate between deployed and 
nondeployed, thereby making it extremely difficult for the financial 
institution to keep track.
  What is going to be the duration of the protection for surviving 
spouses--which is something Mr. Smith just brought up--and disabled 
veterans? Indefinitely? He says no. But will institutions be 
discouraged from making loans to servicemembers because of this 
potential problem?
  If we believe that we should expand this protection to mortgages, why 
not extend the protections to other areas?
  These are the types of complex questions that really should be 
thought out and reviewed by experts in this area under regular order. 
That is why we have committees in this process.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the argument about the 
deployment and notice, the Department of Defense has a long-standing 
database in place that lenders currently utilize to access this 
information, and I think that that would be sufficient with regard to 
that.
  The question that the gentleman raises, Mr. Miller, is a very good 
one with regard to the 100 percent disability. The amendment I've 
offered does not include those rated 100 percent disabled after 
multiple appeals. It only applies to those rated 100 percent disabled 
at the time of discharge. And you're probably right; it won't be but so 
many people.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I believe it says rated by VA. DOD makes a 
rating when you separate from service, and it says, VA. That is a 
problem because of the time that it takes for VA to do their rating.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Reclaiming my time, when we checked with VA within the 
last 2 hours, they said that the average is about 188 days. But be that 
as it may, I go back to what the ranking member said--we really ought 
to get this into conference. If there are issues that the gentleman is 
concerned about, perhaps they could be worked out at that time. But 
we've got servicemembers who are being abused right now. I know that, 
as chairman of Veterans', I know the gentleman wants to make sure that 
he protects our veterans.
  So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I would say that absolutely, if this were just 
an extension of SCRA to get past the sunset provisions, we would not 
have a problem with that. But I know, as any other Member in here, that 
the last thing we would want to do is to cause a problem for our 
veterans without thinking through all the potential consequences.
  I would note that Mr. Cummings introduced an identical piece of 
legislation, H.R. 5737, earlier this week, which would give the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs an opportunity to review these issues. I 
would ask the gentleman to give our committee an opportunity to review 
this proposal in bill form through regular order. I pledge my 
commitment to work with you to make sure that your concerns are 
addressed in proper fashion.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Sablan

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7334]]

       (2) in the heading for such subsection, by striking 
     ``United States or Guam'' and inserting ``United States, 
     Guam, or Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.

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

                              {time}  2220

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

                               Office of the Governor of Guam,

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

     
                                  ____
                                                    Guam Shipyard,


                                      Naval Activities Branch,

                                   Santa Rita, Guam, May 18, 2012.
     Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Bordallo: I write in support of 
     legislation to expand domestic ship repair locations covered 
     by Section 7310 of Title 10 to include the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
       Currently, Section 7310 requires that vessels under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy, with a homeport in 
     the United States or Guam, be overhauled, repaired and 
     maintained in the United States or Guam, except in the case 
     of voyage repairs. In March 2012 Congressman Sablan of the 
     CNMI introduced H.R. 4338 which would amend Subsection (a) of 
     Section 7310 10 by striking ``the United States, or Guam'' in 
     each place where it appears, and replacing it with ``the 
     United States, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands''. More recently, Congressman Sablan offered 
     an amendment to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for FY-13, which would have the same effect.
       At present, there is no shipyard in CNMI capable of 
     overhaul, repair and maintenance of Navy ships. However, Guam 
     Shipyard is in discussions with Governor Fitial, about 
     leasing land at the Seaport to set up a small ship repair 
     facility in Saipan. We believe there is a market there for 
     fishing and other small vessels, and perhaps even small Navy 
     vessels. However, the water depth and other physical 
     constraints of the harbor at Saipan would not permit its use 
     to overhaul, repair and maintain the large Navy ships which 
     form the bulk of the work at Guam Shipyard. Thus, the 
     shipyard we contemplate opening in Saipan would not compete 
     with Guam Shipyard for the work it currently performs for the 
     Navy.
       As always, we greatly appreciate the leadership and long-
     standing support you have provided on behalf of domestic 
     repair of Navy vessels, and especially ship repair in Guam. 
     Your dedicated engagement in Washington on behalf of Guam 
     Shipyard, has been instrumental in ensuring it remains a 
     shipyard facility, ready and able to meet Navy ship repair 
     requirements in the Western Pacific, now and in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mathews Pothen,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. 
Hanabusa), my friend and colleague on the committee.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Sablan 
amendment. The reason is that it really is not necessary at this time 
and, at this period of time when we have budget issues and we have 
sequestration issues, we don't need to tackle this one as well.
  What the amendment seeks is to amend 10 USC 7310 subsection A, which 
basically states U.S. Navy vessels home ported in the United States or 
Guam may not be overhauled, repaired, or maintained in shipyards 
outside the United States or Guam, except for voyage repairs. This is 
being sought to be amended to include CNMI.
  I'd like to say, first of all, that I understand perfectly well why 
my good friend and colleague from the Northern Mariana Islands wants to 
do this. I mean, he's representing his constituents. But the points 
against it are overwhelming.
  First of all, the Navy states it has the requirement for a public or 
private sector ship maintenance facility in CNMI. And also the Navy 
currently says it can conduct repairs in CNMI, but there is limited 
pier space and no drydocking capability, and that they can do the work 
elsewhere for the Navy and for the Military Sealift Command.

[[Page 7335]]

  In addition to that, the shipyard repair capacity in both public and 
private shipyards exists today in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Bremerton, 
Washington, and Guam for both the U.S. Navy and the MSC ships.
  Now, the Navy has no future requirement for the repair capacity in 
the Pacific region. And it's been testified to that the buildup on Guam 
does not create a demand for additional ship repair capacity. So the 
Navy's current regional ship maintenance work log only minimally 
supports the current maintenance facilities in Guam, and we don't need 
any additional facilities.
  In addition to that, the Navy officials have stated there is not 
enough U.S. Navy or MSC work in current and future operating plants. It 
is for these reasons that I regretfully oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my good friend and colleague 
from Hawaii that there is no need for large vessel repairs. Those are 
being presently performed in Honolulu, Hawaii, or on Guam. Actually, 
the letter to Ms. Bordallo from Guam shipyard actually says this. It 
says the water depth and other physical constraints of the harbor of 
Saipan would not permit its use to overhaul, repair, and maintain large 
Navy ships, which form the bulk of work at Guam shipyard. So there is 
no disagreement with my good friend from Hawaii on this.
  Thus, the shipyard we contemplate opening in Saipan would not compete 
with Guam shipyard for the work it currently performs for the Navy.
  We're not asking for anything here. We're just asking for the 
authorization. It may not happen. But then again, it may. And we're not 
asking for money here. We're asking for authorization so that private 
businesses who want to do it, who find some capacity to do it, can come 
in and establish a shipyard or a small repair yard on Saipan in the 
Northern Marianas and do the work and compete for the business. And 
that's what we need to do here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. How much time do we each have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 3 minutes. The 
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands has 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. And we have the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. That is correct.
  Mr. McKEON. We just have one more speaker, so I will reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I just urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to join the distinguished lady from Hawaii in opposing this 
amendment, and also in her complimenting the gentleman who brought it. 
I know his motives are very good in trying to create jobs in his area.
  The problem we have, as the gentlelady from Hawaii has stated, is 
that we already have authority to conduct repairs in the Mariana 
Islands at this particular point in time. The problem is that there's 
limited pier space, and there's no drydock capability.
  To allow private sectors to invest huge monies, or to come back here 
later after we get the authorization to say we want more money from 
Congress to appropriate there would not be appropriate because, as the 
gentlelady from Hawaii said, we already have sufficient capacity, both 
in Pearl Harbor, in Washington, in California, and in Guam.
  And to show that there are no requirements for this further ship 
repair capacity in the Pacific region, you can just look at last year, 
where the absence of need was perhaps best exemplified by the fact that 
the Navy only received one bid when it had a proposal from shipyards in 
the Pacific region for a long-term operating lease for the Guam ship 
repair facility property, and that bid was from the current Guam 
shipyard operator.
  The distance from overseas home ports and from the regions in which 
the MSC ships operates makes a shipyard in the Mariana Islands 
prohibitive in terms of operating costs to and from there.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that Congress will not go down this line. At 
this particular point in time, the Navy has absolutely no additional 
requirements or needs that they have for this particular yard there. We 
are struggling, at this particular point in time, to keep the other 
yards going with the capacity that we currently have, and to invest 
this kind of investment there when we're not going to be able to take 
advantage of it would not be appropriate for us to do, this body at 
this time.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will defeat this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the Northern 
Mariana Islands will be postponed.


             Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. McKeon

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

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


            amendment no. 35 offered by ms. brown of florida

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

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

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


           amendment no. 37 offered by mr. baca of california

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

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

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

[[Page 7336]]

     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report that describes the results of the 
     study.


            amendment no. 44 offered by ms. granger of texas

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

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

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


           amendment no. 60 offered by mr. carson of indiana

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

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

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


          amendment no. 63 offered by mr. smith of washington

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

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

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


         amendment no. 69 offered by mr. cravaack of minnesota

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


          amendment no. 71 offered by mr. cummings of maryland

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


         amendment no. 80 offered by mr. thompson of california

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

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

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


          amendment no. 84 offered by mr. smith of washington

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is a Sexual Assault and 
     Harassment Oversight and Advisory Council (in this section 
     referred to as the `Council').
       ``(b) Membership.--(1) The Council shall be comprised of 
     individuals appointed by the Secretary of Defense who are 
     experts and professionals in the fields of sexual assault and 
     harassment, judicial proceedings involving sexual assault or 
     harassment, or treatment for sexual assault or harassment. At 
     a minimum, the Council shall include as members the 
     following:
       ``(A) The Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
     Response Office of the Department of Defense.
       ``(B) The Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, and 
     Air Force.
       ``(C) A judge advocate from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
     Marine Corps with experience in prosecuting sexual assault 
     cases.
       ``(D) A Department of Justice representative with 
     experience in prosecuting sexual assault cases.
       ``(E) An individual who has extensive experience in 
     providing assistance to sexual assault victims.
       ``(F) An individual who has expertise the civilian judicial 
     system with respect to sexual assault.

[[Page 7337]]

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


           amendment no. 86 offered by mr. terry of nebraska

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

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

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


           amendment no. 87 offered by mr. carson of indiana

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


           amendment no. 94 offered by mr. rivera of florida

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

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

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


        amendment no. 109 offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania

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

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

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


           amendment no. 110 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas

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

[[Page 7338]]



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

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


           amendment no. 117 offered by mr. quayle of arizona

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

     SEC. 10__. CONSOLIDATION OF DATA CENTERS.

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


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

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

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

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


       amendment no. 137 offered by ms. tsongas of massachusetts

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

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

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


         amendment no. 140 offered by mr. cummings of maryland

       At the end of title XXXV add the following:

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

       (a) Identification of Actions.--Section 501(b) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``When the head''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Maritime Administration 
     shall--
       ``(A) in each determination referred to in paragraph (1), 
     identify any actions that could be taken to enable qualified 
     United States flag capacity to meet national defense 
     requirements;
       ``(B) provide each such determination to the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the head of the agency referred to in 
     paragraph (1) for which the determination is made; and
       ``(C) publish each such determination on the Internet site 
     of the Department of Transportation within 48 hours after it 
     is provided to the Secretary of Transportation.
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Armed Services of 
     the Senate--
       ``(i) of any request for a waiver of the navigation or 
     vessel-inspection laws under this section not later than 48 
     hours after receiving the request; and
       ``(ii) of the issuance of any waiver of compliance of such 
     a law not later than 48 hours after such issuance.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall include in each notification 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii) an explanation of--
       ``(i) the reasons the waiver is necessary; and
       ``(ii) the reasons actions referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     are not feasible.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the 
amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the 
majority and the minority.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Rivera).
  Mr. RIVERA. Mr. Chairman, right now, I believe many Americans would 
be surprised, perhaps shocked to know that there are foreign businesses 
that also do business with terrorist nations that are currently engaged 
in contract and procurement activity with the Pentagon, with the 
Department of Defense. This, I believe, and I think most Americans 
would believe, is not only a

[[Page 7339]]

threat to American security, but it is also threatening American jobs 
because these foreign businesses are taking opportunities from 
American-based businesses that could be contracting and procuring with 
the Pentagon.

                              {time}  2230

  This amendment would prohibit businesses that engage in business 
activity with terrorist nations--and those are nations that have been 
officially designated as sponsors of terrorism by our own government--
from contracting and procurement opportunities with the Department of 
Defense.
  This is an issue of protecting not only American security but of 
protecting American jobs, and I encourage its passage.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment includes 
two of my amendments.
  The first seeks to address what many consider to be a serious mistake 
made by our military and this Congress over the last decade of war, 
that is, allowing some of our troops, including several of my 
constituents, to deploy without certain equipment that they need to be 
safe in combat. Instead, these troops had to rely on their families and 
friends to send them this vital equipment.
  My amendment calls on the DOD to survey troops who have served since 
September 11 in order to find out what, if any, equipment they did 
without and what equipment they relied on family and friends to send 
them.
  I want to be clear. This is not an effort to condemn our military or 
the Armed Services Committee. In fact, I applaud their valuable efforts 
in this area. Yet, now that we are winding down our war in Afghanistan 
and we are out of Iraq, we need to understand our mistakes to avoid 
making them again in future conflicts.
  My second amendment is very simply a reintroduction of language 
adopted last year by unanimous consent but that was, unfortunately, 
removed in conference.
  It addresses the fact that our servicemembers deployed in Afghanistan 
only receive mental health assessments prior to deployment and after 
returning home. Yet it is during deployment--in combat--that these 
events leading to mental health issues are most likely to occur. Over 
months of deployment without diagnosis or treatment, their performances 
could suffer; they could develop dangerous addictions; and in tragic 
but far too common instances, they could hurt themselves or others.
  My amendment requires the DOD to provide mental health assessments to 
our troops during deployment, improving the chances of catching and 
treating PTSD and other issues early.
  I ask all of my colleagues to stand up for the physical safety and 
mental well-being of our troops.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today to urge the support for my amendment, which requires the 
Secretary of State to submit a report to the Congress explaining 
whether Boko Haram meets the criteria for designation as a foreign 
terrorist organization. If the Secretary determines that Boko Haram 
does not merit a foreign terrorist organization designation, the 
amendment would require the Secretary to inform Congress which criteria 
are not met.
  Mr. Chairman, 6 months ago, the Department of Justice reached out to 
the Department of State in urging this determination. My committee, the 
Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, held hearings and 
issued a report identifying the activities of Boko Haram, which is an 
Islamist terrorist-based group based in Nigeria that has quickly 
evolved from wielding machetes to using deadly, vehicle-borne 
improvised explosive devices. This is the same kind of conduct that was 
conducted by other terrorist organizations, and only later did the 
Department identify them as FTOs.
  I urge its support.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank both the ranking member and the 
chair.
  I have so much to say about this very passionate issue. I will 
quickly say that I have two amendments. One deals with outreach on 
behalf of small and minority businesses for defense contracts, and I 
truly believe it is enormously important for the vast number of those 
businesses; but I really rise today to talk about triple negative 
breast cancer, which has killed so many women.
  I am very, very pleased to say that my amendment, with the Office of 
Health within the Department of Defense, will identify specific genetic 
and molecular targets and biomarkers for triple negative breast cancer, 
provide information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and 
clinical trial design that will enable both triple negative breast 
cancer patients to be identified in the progression of the disease and 
also to provide for therapies.
  I do this in the loving memory of Yolanda Williams, whose funeral I 
spoke at last year. She was the daughter of Dr. Lois Moore and the wife 
of Mr. Williams, and she had two beautiful daughters. This wonderful, 
caring woman died so quickly because of triple negative breast cancer. 
Also, in the loving memory of Betty Sommer's daughter, Stacey Michelle 
Gaecke, she shares her story that she also died from triple negative 
breast cancer.
  I ask for the support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment # 91 to H.R. 4310 
``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would direct the 
Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with 
the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and 
molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer, 
TNBC. In addition, my amendment is intended to result in information 
useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials 
design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in 
the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted 
therapies for the disease.
  Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer 
for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer 
Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive 
subtype associated with lower survival rates.''
  I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort DOD 
and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast 
cancer strain.
  Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as 
hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the 
triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted 
treatment.
  Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women 
in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among 
African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 
2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with 
breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.
  Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39% higher 
death rate from breast cancer than other groups.
  African American women are also 12% less likely to survive five years 
after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that 
African American women are disproportionally affected by triple 
negative breast cancer.
  More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African Americans are 
of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to 
this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.


                     The Story of Yolanda Williams

  Mr. Chair, last year, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one 
of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda 
died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many 
other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not 
respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was 
only 44 years old.
  This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also 
harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because 
triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often 
metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. 70% of women 
with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not

[[Page 7340]]

live more than five years after being diagnosed.
  Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on 
this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston, 
Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working 
tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative 
breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to 
follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple 
negative strain.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation 
from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment.

                              (Fast Facts)

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


               Letter From Betty Sommer Causes for a Cure

       It is with loving memory of my beautiful, loving, vivacious 
     daughter, Stacey Michelle Gaecke, that I share her story. It 
     is with great hope and fervent prayer that somehow, somewhere 
     we will discover the unknown factors to be able to treat 
     those unfortunate to be diagnosed with triple negative breast 
     cancer.
       I remember her sweet voice when she called to tell me that 
     she had found a lump in her right breast, had made an 
     appointment with her gynecologist, but was sure it wasn't 
     anything and that I didn't need to come back to town to go 
     with her as she would be fine. Of course, I was with her when 
     her gynecologist acknowledged the mass in her breast, but 
     indicated that because we had no history of breast cancer in 
     our family and because of her tender young age, she truly 
     felt that there was no reason for concern. Because my 
     daughter-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 28, 
     we knew that age and family history didn't mean there was no 
     reason for concern. The doctor also agreed that next steps 
     would be diagnostics.
       On February 13, 2009 as she laid on the cold, hard table in 
     the breast center, they told us, even before pathology, that 
     they were relatively certain that it was breast cancer and 
     that there was also lymph node involvement. I remember 
     telling Stacey everything would be okay and with tears 
     running down her cheeks, she said, ``I don't think so Mom.''
       As anyone who has walked the cancer journey, the next weeks 
     are a whirlwind of tests of all kinds, blood and lab tests 
     and one doctor visit after another. When the path report came 
     back and we were told that she had triple negative breast 
     cancer, we knew it wasn't the best type to be diagnosed with, 
     but had no idea how aggressive and deadly this sub-set of 
     breast cancer is.
       She had both a great oncologist and breast surgeon, but 
     with the standard care of treatment currently administered; 
     unfortunately, after weeks and weeks of chemo, this 
     aggressive cancer began to grow again right before her 
     bilateral mastectomy. After what appeared to be a successful 
     surgery, although 9 of 13 lymph nodes showed involvement, she 
     began with radiation that literally fried her skin and tissue 
     to the point it looked like raw meat.
       In October, 2009 her PET scan indicated that there was no 
     cancer detected. We quickly learned not to use the words 
     ``cancer free.'' In light of this great news, we took a 
     family and friend cruise in November to celebrate her 
     victory. It was a special time and even with the good news, I 
     noticed that she was having trouble walking and complained of 
     pain in her hips and legs. These symptoms continued, but none 
     of the diagnostic testing showed any signs of cancer.
       On Christmas Eve, 2009, Stacey ended up in the emergency 
     room with a bad gallbladder and it was then doctors 
     discovered that her breast cancer had metastasized to her 
     lungs and her liver. When her surgeon showed our family 
     pictures of her liver, it was unbelievable that in 2 short 
     months her liver was close to 50% compromised. Triple 
     negative breast cancer is extremely aggressive, fast 
     spreading and seems to know how to dodge the chemicals and 
     treatments that are currently given.
       We took her home for Christmas knowing we would be lucky to 
     have her with us for the next Holiday season. The following 
     weeks revealed that there was also metastasis to the bones, 
     which was what had been causing her pain even in November. 
     From the time she came home at Christmas, she lived in 
     constant pain and had to be sedated heavily to the point that 
     she slept most of the time.
       She started on a clinical trial about the third week of 
     January and with any success and with great hope, we could 
     have our sweet girl with us for an anticipated 6 to 9 months. 
     Because this cancer is so aggressive and so deadly, we left 
     for a regular treatment on Friday, February 5th and within 
     hours she was having unusual symptoms that sent us for 
     testing, then to the hospital and on Monday, February 8th at 
     8:30 am, she took her last breath. We buried her on Saturday, 
     February 13, 2010 . . . exactly one year from her diagnosis 
     at age 39, leaving behind a husband and two sons, ages 10 and 
     12.
       Within a year from her passing, we had another close 
     friend, a beautiful young mom nearly the same age who left 
     behind 3 beautiful children who will grow up without their 
     mother. Young women and mothers are dying because, at this 
     time, we are still treating with standard care of treatment. 
     The same treatment for every type of breast cancer isn't 
     going to stop the deaths of these young women. Triple 
     negative resists this standard care of treatment and research 
     is needed to identify specific genetic and molecular targets 
     and biomarkers.
       It is a mother's plea that we continue to find innovative 
     research to put an end to, not only triple negative breast 
     cancer, but to hopefully eradicate cancer within our 
     lifetime.
                                  ____


            Race/Ethnicity and Triple Negative Breast Cancer

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

  Mr. Chair, I rise to support my amendment #130 to H.R. 4310 
``National Defense Authorization Act,'' would require the Secretary of 
Defense prior to the awarding of defense contract to private 
contractors, to conduct an assessment to determine whether or not the 
Department of Defense has carried out sufficient outreach programs to 
include minority and women-owned small business.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that 
promotes diversity. I stand proudly before you today to call for 
renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective policies that 
will make the United States the most talented, diverse, effective, and 
powerful workforce in an increasingly globalized economy.
  This amendment will require the Department of Defense to consider the 
impact that

[[Page 7341]]

changes to outsourcing guidelines will have on small minority and women 
owned business by requiring them to engage with these businesses.
  Promoting diversity is more than just an idea it requires an 
understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure 
the inclusion of minorities and women in all areas of American life.
  Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they 
represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent 
of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and 
provide three out of four new jobs in this country.
  Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to 
keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to 
loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their 
businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services.
  The Small Business Administration, SBA, a federal organization that 
aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key 
provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program 
accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in 
America.
  I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize 
their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development 
programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's 
Business Center programs.
  These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, 
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
  My amendment would require the Department of Defense to assess 
whether their outreach programs are sufficient prior to awarding 
contracts. The Department of Defense should investigate what impact 
their regulations have on minority and women owned small businesses.
  Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of our Members to support 
the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for accepting my amendment as part of this en bloc package.
  In the last months of the Bush Administration, a change was made 
authorizing veterans and active-duty military not in uniform to render 
the military-style hand salute during the playing of the national 
anthem. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake said at the 
time, ``The military salute is a unique gesture of respect that marks 
those who have served in our nation's armed forces. This provision 
allows the application of that honor in all events involving our 
nation's flag.''
  This change, authorizing hand-salutes during the national anthem by 
veterans and out-of-uniform military personnel, was included in the 
Defense Authorization Act of 2009 and improved upon a little known 
change that was contained in the previous National Defense 
Authorization Act which authorized veterans to render the military-
style hand salute during the raising, lowering or passing of the flag, 
but it did not address salutes during the national anthem.
  These were important changes; however, they should have been 
broadened even further to authorize veterans and active-duty military 
not in uniform to render the military-style hand salute during the 
reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Current Flag Code states that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 
``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and 
to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, 
with liberty and justice for all,'' should be rendered by standing at 
attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not 
in uniform, men should remove their headdress with their right hand and 
hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in 
uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military 
salute. (Sec.  4. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery)
  My amendment is an idea brought to us by our local VFW that simply 
seeks to create parity for veterans in and out of uniform who are 
reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Veterans of this great nation take 
deep pride in being able to express honor in the way only veterans can, 
each time they reaffirm their pledge of allegiance to our great nation 
and its colors.
  I thank Chairman McKeon for his support of this amendment allowing 
vets to render a hand salute.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair I want to thank Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking 
Member Adam Smith for their efforts.
  I also want to thank Reps. Gary Miller, David Dreier, and Ken 
Calvert--and Senator Diane Feinstein for their support of this 
bipartisan amendment.
  My amendment directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a 
study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in California.
   The USGS study would look at perchlorate contamination in the area's 
groundwater.
   Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that impairs thyroid function 
in humans--and has been found to be harmful to women and children.
   This contamination is the direct result of the area having been 
acquired by the U.S. Army in 1942--to develop an inspection, 
consolidation, and storage facility for weapons bound for the Port of 
Los Angeles.
  Having lived in Rialto for decades, I am very aware of the 
perchlorate problem we have in our drinking water.
  Currently the EPA is undertaking a $25 million dollar effort to clean 
up the contamination.
  But for the efforts of the EPA to be successful, we must first know 
the full scope of the problem.
  We can only gain this crucial information by conducting an extensive 
study--and my amendment would make this study a top priority for the 
USGS to expedite.
  This study is critical to the health and well-being of my 
constituents.
  The contamination at the Rialto site was measured at more than one 
thousand times the drinking-water standard for perchlorate, according 
to the EPA.
  My constituents deserve to have clean drinking water for themselves, 
their families, and our future generations.
  According to the USGS, groundwater makes up 79 percent of the 
available drinking water supply in the Inland Empire.
   How much of this supply is polluted--we don't know; and we won't 
know unless the USGS does a comprehensive study!
   I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing relief to the people of 
the Inland Empire--and to support my amendment.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the 
Baca amendment and I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 
Smith for their work on the underlying bill.
  This amendment directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a 
study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in California.
   The USGS study would look at perchlorate contamination in the area's 
groundwater.
   Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that impairs thyroid function 
in humans--and has been found to be most harmful to women and children.
   This contamination is the direct result of the area having been 
acquired by the United States Army in 1942 to develop an inspection, 
consolidation, and storage facility for weapons bound for the Port of 
Los Angeles.
  Having lived near Rialto for decades, I am very aware of the 
perchlorate problem we have in our drinking water.
  Currently the EPA is undertaking a $25 million dollar effort to clean 
up the perchlorate contamination.
  In order for cleanup efforts to be successful, we must first know the 
full scope of the problem.
   We can only gain this crucial information by conducting an extensive 
study.
  The contamination at the Rialto site was measured at more than 1,000 
times the drinking-water standard for perchlorate, according to the 
EPA.
  Constituents of Southern California deserve to have clean drinking 
water for themselves, their families, and our future generations.
  According to the USGS, groundwater makes up 79 percent of the 
available drinking water supply in the Inland Empire.
   How much of this supply is polluted, we don't know; and we won't 
know unless the USGS does a comprehensive study!
  I urge this body to join me in bringing relief to the people of the 
Inland Empire by supporting this amendment.
  Again, I thank Representative Baca for putting forward this common 
sense amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Baca Amendment 
to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment would provide 
needed funds for the U.S. Geological Survey to complete a comprehensive 
study of perchlorate contamination in the Rialto-Colton Basin in 
California.
  This perchlorate contamination is a direct result of U.S. Army 
activities in the region beginning in 1942 for the inspection, 
consolidation, and storage of ordnance bound for the Port of Los 
Angeles and the use of perchlorate salts and solvents in these 
activities. Perchlorate is a known toxin that impairs thyroid function 
and can cause a broad array of adverse health conditions.

[[Page 7342]]

  Contamination in the ground water has been measured at 1,000 times 
the EPA drinking-water standard for perchlorate. And the EPA is 
currently involved in a massive $25 million dollar effort to clean up 
the contamination. However, an in depth analysis of the perchlorate 
plume in the basin has not yet been conducted. For the efforts of the 
EPA and other agencies to be ultimately successful, we must know the 
full scope of the problem.
  The study supported by this amendment will provide much needed data 
regarding the extent of groundwater contamination in the Rialto-Colton 
Basin. This information is invaluable to providing a safe reliable 
water supply to the residents of the Inland Empire and to cleaning up 
environmental contamination 70 years in the making.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the 
Granger Amendment #44 to H.R. 4310 that was included in the En Bloc 
Amendment #3. As one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Taiwan 
Caucus, I believe this amendment embodies the spirit of the Taiwan 
Relations Act of 1979 in providing assistance to Taiwan for its own 
defense.
  Through the TRA, we are able to conduct arms sales to Taipei. Over 
the past 30 years, we have done this time and time again. 
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to proceed on 
Taiwan's top request--the F-16 C/D aircraft. Taiwan has an aging fixed 
wing aircraft fleet, and with the growing military gap across the 
Taiwan Strait, it is critical that we sell them this aircraft. The 
Granger Amendment does just that by requiring the President to move 
forward on the sale of no fewer than 66 F-16 C/Ds.
  Mr. Chair, the Taiwan Caucus sent letters in 2010 and 2011 urging the 
White House to move forward on this matter. In 2010, 136 bipartisan 
Members signed that letter, and in 2011, 181 Members joined in the 
effort. Unfortunately, those letters were received with mostly silence. 
However, the White House cannot ignore this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to uphold our commitment to Taiwan and support 
the Granger Amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I offer this bi-partisan amendment with 
Congressman Jeff Landry to increase transparency surrounding the 
issuance of waivers allowing foreign vessels to carry cargo between 
points in the United States. I thank Congressman Landry for his 
leadership on this issue.
  A report recently released by PriceWaterhouseCoopers found that in 
2006, the most recent year for which data were available, the Jones Act 
fleet supported nearly 74,000 direct jobs in the U.S. shipbuilding and 
domestic waterborne transportation industries.
  These jobs, in turn, supported more than $36 billion in economic 
output in 2009 and provided $6.5 billion in labor compensation.
  Among other provisions, the Jones Act requires that a vessel cannot 
carry cargo between two U.S. points unless the vessel has been built in 
the United States, and is owned and crewed by Americans.
  The Jones Act can be waived in the interest of national defense. 
However, the Maritime Administration (MARAD) must first assess whether 
Jones Act-qualified vessels are available to carry the cargo under 
consideration.
  Following the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 
2011, the Department of Homeland Security waived the Jones Act dozens 
of times despite the availability of Jones Act-qualified vessels.
  According to documents provided by the Department of Transportation, 
waivers were issued at the request of firms such as Shell Oil Company, 
ConocoPhillips Company, and BP Products North America.
  As a result, the American oil released from the American Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve was then carried by vessels flagged in such countries 
as Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Singapore, the Bahamas, and Panama.
  The amendment I offer with Congressman Landry is a simple one. Let me 
be clear: though I think waivers should be issued only in the rarest of 
circumstances, this amendment does not prohibit the issuance of any 
waivers.
  Instead, it would require the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to 
include in its assessments of the availability of Jones Act-compliant 
vessels information on the actions that could be taken to enable Jones 
Act-qualified vessels to carry the cargo for which a waiver is sought.
  MARAD would also be required to publish its assessments on its 
website and provide notification to Congress when a waiver is requested 
or issued.
  Adoption of these provisions will significantly enhance the 
transparency surrounding the issuance of Jones Act waivers so that we 
can assess whether every possible opportunity to utilize Jones Act-
compliant vessels in the coastwise trade has been utilized.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support our bi-partisan 
amendment to ensure that every available step is taken to utilize 
American mariners to carry American cargoes on American ships between 
American ports.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which would express a sense of Congress that fighter wings performing 
the 24-hour Aerospace Control Alert missions provide an essential 
service in defending the sovereign airspace of the United States in the 
aftermath of 9/11.
  Mr. Chair, the tragic events of 9/11 exposed holes in our nation's 
air security and reinforced the need for the U.S. military to take the 
steps necessary to significantly increase our ability to intercept 
hostile aircraft. Today, there are fighter jets placed at strategic 
points all across the United States, charged with the mission to 
provide air defense through the detection, deterrence, and if 
necessary, defeat of hostile air attacks. These sites, known as 
Aerospace Control Alert sites, have fully armed aircraft and trained 
personnel on 24-hour alert, 365 days a year.
  One such Aerospace Control Alert site resides in my district. The 
148th Fighter Wing of the Minnesota Air National Guard, also known as 
the ``Bulldogs,'' operates out of Duluth, Minnesota, and provides force 
protection of our country's northern border between Madison, Wisconsin, 
and Portland, Oregon. The Bulldogs have been performing the ACA mission 
successfully for years and were selected for the Raytheon trophy, which 
is awarded for outstanding performance to an Air Force or Air National 
Guard fighter unit with a mission in air defense. In fact, I am proud 
to say that the Director of the Air National Guard, Air Force Lt. Gen. 
Harry M. Wyatt III announced just this month that the 148th Fighter 
Wing was selected as the 2012 Air Force Association Outstanding Air 
National Guard Flying Unit.
  Given the importance of the 24-hour Aerospace Control Alert mission 
to our national security, I was greatly concerned when I learned a few 
months ago of NORAD's proposed reduction of the 24-hour alert mission 
requirement at two Aerospace Control Alert (ACA) sites in the 
Continental United States. It is my understanding that this proposal 
was submitted in line with the President's budget request for FY 2013 
and the U.S. Air Force's decision to make force structure changes.
  My concern grew when I learned of a January 2012 GAO report that 
reviewed NORAD's 2010 analysis on whether it could change the number 
and location of its fighter sites without affecting the military's 
ability to defend the country against airborne attack. GAO's conclusion 
was that this NORAD analysis did not adequately balance risk with 
targeted budget reductions.
  I recognize that our country's current fiscal reality necessitates 
the Department of Defense to tighten its belt and look for ways to do 
more with less.
  However, I think it is imperative that decisions that directly affect 
our nation's ability to defend itself should be made on the basis of 
risk-management principles that balance risk and costs.
  Therefore, I also rise today in support of Section 352 in the 
underlying bill, which would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
maintain our nation's existing eighteen ACA sites until the Secretary 
submits a report that shows the cost-benefit analysis and risk-based 
assessment of how future ACA changes would affect the DOD budget and 
force structure.
  I would like to thank Congressman LoBiondo for adding this important 
provision to the bill, and I urge the adoption of my amendment in 
recognition of a critical asset in our nation's defense system.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


           Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

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

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

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

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States and allied forces are currently 
     capable of responding to aggression by the Democratic 
     People's Republic of Korea (``North Korea'').

[[Page 7343]]

       (2) The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to the 
     Republic of Korea (``South Korea'') would destabilize the 
     areas of responsibility of the United States Pacific Command 
     and United States Forces Korea.
       (3) Such deployment would not be in the national security 
     interests of the United States.

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

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

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

                              {time}  2240

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say first and foremost that the true 
destabilizing force in the Western Pacific today is nuclear weapons in 
the hands of North Korea. There have been many efforts to try to pursue 
solutions in that regard: six-party talks and many different things. It 
is time that the United States have some additional options. The 
language in the NDAA that we have merely says that we need a report to 
be conducted regarding the efficacy of additional nuclear or 
conventional weapons in the Western Pacific region. It technically 
doesn't even mention South Korea. It is true that the South Korean 
people and some of the South Korean leaders have debated and some of 
them are arguing for the redeployment of the tactical nuclear weapons 
on the peninsula because they see North Korea's nuclear forces as the 
most destabilizing aspect.
  This amendment that the gentleman puts forward simply says that it 
would not be in the national security interests of the United States, 
and I think that that's not in evidence at this point. I believe that 
having this language in our defense bill actually strengthens the 
administration's hand to promote some sort of a more just solution here 
and takes the country and the world in a safer direction.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that I believe this amendment should 
be opposed, and the language in the NDAA should be preserved.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the good 
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes an 
enormous amount of sense. There is no question North Korea is a threat, 
but there are two very salient points. First of all, as Mr. Johnson 
stated, we have a number of troops in South Korea. We have a number of 
options, including nuclear submarines and bombers in the region. We 
have on the table what we need to deal with that threat militarily.
  Yes, Mr. Franks had an amendment in the committee that asked us to 
look at ways to expand that, including the possibility of deploying 
tactical nuclear weapons to the region, which I think is very dangerous 
to talk about. But specifically, it would be very dangerous to deploy 
those tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea. That's why this 
amendment is limited to saying that that would be a bad idea.
  We all remember the Cuban missile crisis, how people are likely to 
react to nuclear weapons being deployed close by them. And North Korea 
is hardly a predictable actor. I can say with quite a great deal of 
confidence that if we were to put tactical nuclear weapons in South 
Korea, it would be an incredibly dangerous thing to do in terms of 
predicting how North Korea would react.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. This amendment simply states what I think is 
the obvious: It would be a bad idea to put tactical nuclear weapons 
into South Korea. To some degree, it makes more--rational perhaps is 
too strong a word--user friendly Mr. Franks' amendment in the 
committee, by at least making it clear that this very bad option for 
our national security interests is not going to be contemplated.
  This amendment says that we should not put tactical nuclear weapons 
into South Korea. I think that is clearly the right policy, and I urge 
adoption.
  Mr. McKEON. May I inquire if the gentleman has any more speakers?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I have no speakers, and I'm prepared to 
close.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to 
close.
  Mr. McKEON. Then I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Congressman Franks 
from Arizona, cited the fact that he believes that this language that I 
seek to remove from the NDAA actually strengthens the administration's 
hand. I would submit that what it does is imposes on the 
administration--insofar as delicate negotiations and diplomacy are 
being invoked--to try to convince the North Koreans that it's in their 
best interest to abandon their nuclear aspirations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend 
and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman McKeon.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment.
  The Johnson amendment strikes from this bill the call for a study. A 
study is just the obtaining of knowledge. It strikes in this bill a 
study on what our options need to be in response to an increasing 
threat from North Korea. This study is necessary for us to understand 
what our options are.
  What has changed? Why are we concerned about North Korea? Why do we 
need to pursue these options? One, we know that they most recently have 
unveiled a road-mobile missile launcher that Secretary Gates has said 
is an ICBM that puts the United States mainland directly at risk. 
Secondly,

[[Page 7344]]

Secretary Panetta testified in front of our committee that there 
appears to be a link between China and the road-mobile missile 
launchers that we've seen and perhaps the missile technology, and we 
know that North Korea has been pursuing nuclear capabilities.
  Our normal response to this has been our missile defense capability, 
where we've tried to bolster our missile-defense capability as North 
Korea gets increasingly dangerous in its quest to reach the United 
States with ICBMs and again a nuclear-capable North Korea. But we have 
grave concerns as to whether or not our missile-defense system would be 
there in order to be able to protect us. That's why we need to pursue 
additional options, because we continue to have from the other side of 
the aisle amendments to reduce our missile defense.
  At the same time we know that the President most recently was caught 
in an open-mic discussion with the President of Russia, President 
Medvedev, indicating that after the election had occurred in the United 
States, when he would have, as he described it, more flexibility, that 
he would address the issue of missile defense. So we know that the 
President in his discussions with Russia has a secret deal that's 
supposed to be unveiled after the election that can't see the light of 
day during this election, holding the American people hostage to what 
its terms are. As this secret deal proceeds, this President could 
continue to weaken our missile-defense system as we have the rise of 
North Korea.
  Mr. Franks in his amendment in our committee merely asks for 
information and for a study. What should our response be as we see 
North Korea reaching for capability to reach the United States? We know 
of their nuclear capability. We've seen them unveil their road-mobile 
missile launchers, and we know that this President, in his secret deals 
with the Russians, has said, I'm looking for greater flexibility in 
missile defense.
  Our only defense currently for North Korea and its quest for missile 
technology that can reach the United States--this is important that we 
rise to the issue of asking the question, as Mr. Franks has, what do we 
need to do, especially in light of the President's secret deal with the 
Russians.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of an 
amendment offered by Representative Johnson of Georgia that would 
include a finding that states the deployment of tactical weapons to 
South Korea would destabilize the Western Pacific region and would not 
be in the national security interests of the United States.
  Due to increased provocative actions taken by North Korea, I feel 
there is a thought that the placement of tactical nuclear weapons on 
the Korean Peninsula would act as a deterrent against North Korea's 
continued desire to build nuclear weapons. I disagree.
  Our military's extended nuclear deterrent capabilities are already 
sufficient to deal with the North Korean threat. The Kim Jung-un regime 
is aware that with our advanced submarine launch capabilities, our 
sophisticated stealth bombers, and our ICBM missiles, the United States 
military has the ability to cause devastating harm to North Korea.
  Instead of acting as a deterrent to North Korea, placing tactical 
nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula will only embolden the Kim 
Jung-un regime to develop their nuclear capabilities faster, increasing 
the risk of development or testing mistakes that could harm innocent 
North Koreans in the process.
  Placing tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula without the 
support of the South Korean, Japanese, or Chinese governments could 
severely hamper the progress made during the six-party talks. The 
United States should not unilaterally decide to take a destabilizing 
action in this region of the world without close consultation with our 
allies in the region.
  For these reasons I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
Johnson amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

                              {time}  2250

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct the 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense to report to 
Congress regarding the impact on national security of reducing our 
nuclear weapons stockpiles, as required by the New START Treaty.
  For strong supporters of New START, such as myself, it's self-evident 
that reducing our stockpiles when we already have the capacity to 
destroy the Earth many times over is clearly in our national security 
interest. But I understand that there is some doubt amongst my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I respect those views, and 
we should address them.
  So this amendment offers a simple solution, that is, let's require 
our senior military leadership to give us their views. I believe that 
my view, which is that cutting our nuclear stockpiles is perfectly 
consistent with our security interests, would be validated. But in the 
national interest, it seems not only prudent but essential to put that 
question to our senior military leadership. And I'm willing to do that, 
even if it risks me getting back the wrong answer, or an answer that I 
don't want to hear.
  I'm, frankly, surprised this amendment is controversial because it's 
just common sense. I would ask any colleague who opposes this amendment 
why they wouldn't want to hear the views of our military leadership, 
why would we not want to hear from our senior commanders on this issue? 
Is there any valid reason? Let's ask our military leadership and get 
the expert opinions we need to move forward with a clear understanding 
of the policy's implications.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Ohio 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to redundant 
reporting and requests on items that are already available. Section 
1045 of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, condition nine of 
the Senate's resolution of ratification for the New START Treaty, 
already requires almost exactly the same report as this amendment would 
require. But the President--not the Secretary of Defense or the 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--is required to provide this 
report forward.
  The report is required to be submitted whenever there is a shortfall 
in funding from the section 1251 plan levels. Because the FY12 omnibus 
appropriations resulted in a 5 percent shortfall, the reporting 
requirement was triggered, and the report was due in February. Congress 
has yet to receive

[[Page 7345]]

the report. So perhaps one of the things that we need to do is to just 
have the administration file the reports that are already being 
requested instead of requiring an additional report.
  This amendment is duplicative of an existing reporting requirement. 
We think that we should work together to ensure that the administration 
provides us with the reports that are already due.
  We too have very serious concerns as to how this administration is 
moving forward with its New START implementation. Part of the concerns 
that we have, obviously, is that the preamble to the New START 
agreement includes a statement that the Russians state that our missile 
defense system is part of the overall effect of the balance between the 
two nations. The administration says that the preamble, referring to 
missile defense, does not apply. But yet we see the President in an 
open-mic discussion with Medvedev saying, After the election, I will 
have greater flexibility on missile defense.
  So there is some confusion as to whether or not this administration 
believes that missile defense and New START are tied together. We 
certainly are going to look for a greater illumination by this 
President of what his secret deal is and whether or not it involves New 
START.
  Part of the discussion that we have in the reports that are due is 
holding this administration accountable to answer the questions that 
are already on the table, file the section 1045 report that was due in 
February and answer the question, What's the secret deal?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that 
the voluminous report that my colleague on the other side just referred 
to, that was included in last year's NDAA and has not been submitted. 
I'm just asking for a simple report.
  I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Washington.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am just asking for a simple 
yes or no answer instead of a long report. Is this in the national 
security interest or isn't it? I think that's a worthy thing to get a 
straightforward answer to.
  But I want to talk one last time about the alleged secret deal that's 
been spoken of. And I must compliment Mr. Turner. He obviously went to 
an excellent propaganda school. If you keep saying something over and 
over again, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it, 
eventually people will believe that there might actually be something 
there, even though it is a complete fabrication.
  There is no secret deal. The President would like to negotiate with 
Russia in a way to better protect our national security over missile 
defense. That is what he said. Yet they keep saying ``secret deal,'' as 
if something exists when there is not a shred of evidence that it does. 
And it is absolutely clear-cut that all the President was saying was 
that during an election year, an issue like this would be subject to 
demagoguery precisely like this, and it would be difficult to do.
  Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and others will probably 
oppose whatever agreement the President might be able to reach in the 
future with the Russians. And that's fine. We can have a robust debate 
about it.
  But to continue to stand up here on the floor and talk about a secret 
deal Mr. Turner knows doesn't exist is very disingenuous and not 
helpful to the larger debate. We can have the debate about what we 
should be negotiating with the Russians and shouldn't be.
  Some long for the days of the Cold War, wish we could go back to a 
full-blown confrontation with Russia. I don't, and the President 
doesn't. He would like to find a way where we can work together to 
create a more peaceful world. I would like to give him the opportunity.
  But no deal exists, secret or otherwise. There is not a shred of 
evidence for that. Yet we keep hearing that said, and we know why we 
keep hearing it said, so it can be demagogued, so people can begin to 
believe something exists when there is absolutely not a shred of 
evidence that it does.
  I urge support for the gentleman from Georgia's amendment and for 
people to try to break through all of that and understand that just 
because the words ``secret deal'' keep being said doesn't change the 
fact that there is no such thing.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 45 seconds. The 
gentleman from California has 3 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself 1 minute.
  We have had this back-and-forth about the President's comments. But 
enough of us heard it--in fact, I think we heard it over and over and 
over from the media, with the President on an open mic saying--and I 
don't think there's any dispute about this--Please take back to Mr. 
Putin that I will have greater flexibility after the election.
  You know, we could debate whether or not there's a secret deal, but I 
don't think there's any debate to the fact that the President said 
that, not wanting the general public to realize that he said that, but 
he did say it. So that leaves a question in America's mind of what he 
was talking about.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  You have to be a little concerned, a little nervous if he's that 
interested in sending a message to Mr. Putin that after the election, I 
will have a little more leeway. I think it's very important. Why not 
lay it out for the American people? What did he mean when he said he 
would have more leeway? What does he plan to do with that additional 
leeway? I would like to see the President go to the American people and 
say that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what did he say? Well, it 
doesn't matter because whatever he said, please know that treaties have 
to be confirmed or ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds majority.
  Mr. Chairman, let's ask our military leadership whether the New START 
military reductions are in our security interests, whether it 
vindicates supporters of arms control, like myself, or vindicates those 
who believe we need to build more. Let's get that answer from the 
people who are in the best position to answer the question. And those 
people are our leaders in the military and in the Defense Department.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. We certainly share our concern with the other 
side of the aisle as to how New START will be implemented and its 
effect on our missile defense system.
  The issue of President's secret deal with the Russians is not really 
one that's open to interpretation. This is not some speculation. This 
is not an issue of my opinion that there's a secret deal. You can go to 
YouTube and type in ``President Obama, Medvedev,'' and you will see 
them sitting with an open mic.

                              {time}  2300

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

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

  This is Putin saying this--We agree.
  Now that's a deal. When the other side says, we agree, that's a deal.
  Do we know what the terms are? No. That's a secret. So a secret deal 
on

[[Page 7346]]

missile defense is something we know is happening. You can go to 
YouTube and see the President talking to Medvedev. You can see him 
saying, I'm going to go tell Vladimir. You can look up Mr. Putin's 
interview on March 2, 2012, when he says his response was, we agree.
  And what's the President's response when we ask, What are the terms 
of this deal, Mr. President--the terms that you won't let the 
Republican see? He says, Nothing.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as we have been hearing all 
night, earlier this year in a conversation between President Obama and 
the Russian President the microphone was left open inadvertently and 
the President pleaded for ``space'' and promised ``flexibility'' on the 
issue of missile defense after his reelection. And though this 
conversation was not intended for public consumption, the President's 
comments were clearly deliberate.
  The President believes in a world without nuclear weapons. That would 
indeed be wonderful. He also apparently believes that unilateral 
reduction of our capabilities will be met by others following suit and 
reducing their arsenals if only the U.S. gives up its nuclear weapons 
first. That's not reality, Mr. Chairman.
  Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has eliminated over 
80 percent of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Yet instead of others 
following our lead, new nuclear weapon players, such as North Korea, 
have emerged. India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons in the 
1990s.
  Following the ratification of the new START treaty with Russia, 
Moscow started the most extensive nuclear weapon modernization program 
since the end of the Cold War. President George W. Bush offered to 
cooperate with Russia on missile defense, believing there was a 
collective interest in defending against emerging threats from nations 
like Iran and North Korea. Such cooperation, however, has proven 
elusive, with Russia being less interested in cooperating against Iran 
than in degrading our missile defense capability.
  Clearly, countries have their own motives and security interests that 
are not necessarily derived from the United States' actions. President 
Obama seems resolved to push forward regardless, even if that means 
compromising our own missile defense capabilities. This is reckless and 
dangerous in today's world. Iran is getting ever closer to developing a 
nuclear weapon and consistently threatens Israel, openly calling for 
that Nation's destruction. In the wake of Kim Jong Il's death, North 
Korea continues to move forward with its latest test firing of a long-
range missile.
  This amendment would ensure that without a treaty approved by the 
Senate or an authorization by an act of Congress, the President may not 
reduce our nuclear arsenal. Please join me in limiting the ``space'' 
and the ``flexibility'' that this President desires, further putting 
our Nation's security at risk.
  I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. We have over 5,100 nuclear warheads. Now I 
have seen it cited at one point that that gives us the power to destroy 
the Earth 23 times. I will confess that I have not done an extensive 
fact check on that estimate. So let's just say it's only 10 times. That 
we have the nuclear capability to destroy the Earth 10 times--less than 
half of what some of the estimates have been.
  That strikes me and I think every other rational observer as a more 
than sufficient deterrent. This is not a matter of saying that we're 
going to get rid of all of our nuclear weapons and hope that everybody 
else does. It's a matter of recognizing the expense of maintaining that 
stockpile versus some other choices that could be involved in 
protecting our national security.
  And I know a number of Members on both sides of the aisle in this 
committee can look at shipbuilding, at planes, at support for our 
troops, and imagine a number of different ways that we could spend that 
money more effectively on national defense, not to mention the deficit.
  It's a very simple opposition to this argument. If this President or 
any President determines that it's in our best interest to reduce that 
stockpile, he should be able to propose it. Now it's a budget item. It 
has to come through Congress. It has to be debated.
  But the larger point is, again, we have over 5,100 nuclear warheads. 
Now it's true that we used to have even more than that. We used to have 
the capability to destroy the war beyond what I think we could even 
imagine. But we have more than a sufficient deterrent capability right 
now. So to close off the option of making reductions there that make 
national security sense, I believe is unwise, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I find it curious that it would be unwise to require that the Senate 
concur in a reduction of the nuclear weapons arsenal or that an act of 
Congress be approved prior to that occurring.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I want to thank Mr. Price.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what he has just said about the 
importance of this amendment. This amendment merely says that the 
President shall not unilaterally do these reductions without it being 
pursuant to a treaty or a statute passed by Congress, just that 
Congress has to be involved.
  This provision parallels a provision in the new START Implementation

[[Page 7347]]

Act. It recognizes the concern that Congress has from the information 
that is coming out of the administration. The Associated Press just 
reported that the Obama administration is weighing options for sharp 
new cuts to the nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 
percent in the number of deployed weapons following just on new START, 
which has additional reductions, coupled with the President's open-mic 
statements that he wants greater flexibility on missile defense in a 
secret deal with the Russians. You have to come to a point where 
Congress has to be concerned that they be in the loop, that the 
President not take unilateral actions to both reduce our nuclear 
weapons at the same time that he's negotiating to diminish our missile 
defense system with the Russians as part of his secret deal.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. One 
thing we know, that under this administration's watch we will see, if 
we don't change it, up to a trillion dollars of cuts to national 
defense coming down the pike. What does that mean? We have seen the Air 
Force say that they're on the ragged edge. We've seen this 
administration propose to take seven cruisers and dismantle those 
cruisers. What that would mean is doing away with twice the surface 
capability of the entire British Navy.
  We've seen the possibility of as many as 150,000 pink slips that 
could then be coming down to our men and women in uniform and the loss 
of as many as 1.5 million jobs. And I don't know whether or not there's 
a secret deal or what that secret deal is with the Russians, but one 
thing we know is we are moving dangerously close to the point where we 
will no longer be able to guarantee the security of the United States 
and U.S. interests, and that's why it's important that we support this 
amendment, and I hope we'll do that.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I think there are some legitimate questions about our national 
security. Certainly, if we saw that level of cut of a trillion 
dollars--and a number of issues the gentleman raised are worthy of 
concern. This amendment talks about a very narrow area of interest, and 
that's our nuclear weapons stockpile, which as I indicated, is more 
than sufficient.
  Just one final word on the secret deal. Whatever agreement the 
President may come up with--and he certainly doesn't have one at the 
moment--as Mr. Johnson indicated earlier, it requires a two-thirds vote 
of the Senate. So I think we can all relax about what exists there.

                              {time}  2310

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


                 Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Rigell

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

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

     SEC. __. CONDITIONAL REPLACEMENT FOR FY 2013 SEQUESTER.

       (a) Contingent Effective Date.--This section and the 
     amendments made by it shall take effect upon the enactment 
     of--
       (1) the Act contemplated in section 201 of H. Con. Res. 112 
     (112th Congress) that achieves at least the deficit reduction 
     called for in such section for such periods; or
       (2) similar legislation that at least offsets the outlay 
     reductions flowing from the budget authority reductions 
     mandated by section 251A(7)(A) and 251A(8) as it applies to 
     direct spending in the defense function for fiscal year 2013 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as in force immediately before the date of enactment of 
     this Act, combined with the outlay reductions flowing from 
     the amendment to section 251A(7)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 made by subsection 
     (c), within five years of enactment.
       (b) Revised 2013 Discretionary Spending Limit.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013, for the 
     discretionary category, $1,047,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;''.
       (c) Discretionary Savings.--Section 251A(7)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Fiscal year 2013.--
       ``(i) Fiscal year 2013 adjustment.--On January 2, 2013, the 
     discretionary category set forth in section 251(c)(2) shall 
     be decreased by $19,104,000,000 in budget authority.
       ``(ii) Supplemental sequestration order.--On January 15, 
     2013, OMB shall issue a supplemental sequestration report for 
     fiscal year 2013 and take the form of a final sequestration 
     report as set forth in section 254(f)(2) and using the 
     procedures set forth in section 253(f), to eliminate any 
     discretionary spending breach of the spending limit set forth 
     in section 251(c)(2) as adjusted by clause (i), and the 
     President shall order a sequestration, if any, as required by 
     such report.''.
       (d) Elimination of the Fiscal Year 2013 Sequestration for 
     Defense Direct Spending.--Any sequestration order issued by 
     the President under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 to carry out reductions to direct 
     spending for the defense function (050) for fiscal year 2013 
     pursuant to section 251A of such Act shall have no force or 
     effect.
       (e) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than August 15, 2012, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate a 
     detailed report on the impact of the sequestration of funds 
     authorized and appropriated for Fiscal Year 2013 for the 
     Department of Defense, if automatically triggered on January 
     2, 2013, as required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a), as 
     in effect immediately before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Contents of report.--The report required by this 
     section shall include--
       (A) an assessment of the potential impact of sequestration 
     on the readiness of the Armed Forces, including impacts to 
     steaming hours, flying hours, full spectrum training miles, 
     and all other readiness metrics;
       (B) an assessment of the impact on ability of the 
     Department of Defense to carry out the National Military 
     Strategy of the United States and any changes to the most 
     recent Chairman's Risk Assessment required by section 153 of 
     title 10, United States Code;
       (C) a listing of the programs, projects, and activities 
     across the military departments and components that would be 
     reduced or terminated as a result of automatically triggered 
     cuts;
       (D) an estimate of the number and value of all contracts 
     that will be terminated, restructured, or rescoped due to 
     sequestration, including an estimate of potential termination 
     costs and increased contracts costs due to renegotiation and 
     reinstatement of the contract; and
       (E) an estimate of the number of civilian, contract, and 
     uniformed personnel whose employment would be terminated due 
     to sequestration, including the estimated cost to the 
     Department of executing such a drawdown.

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

[[Page 7348]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that our duty to our country and our men and 
women in uniform requires us to do everything in our power to prevent 
sequestration. Sequestration is not a rational course correction, but 
instead it is a violent, sudden, and severe budget cut, the adverse 
consequences of which cannot be overstated. Sequestration creates 
undeniable havoc in production, personnel, and in contract 
administration. If allowed to become reality, only two groups will 
benefit: our Nation's enemies and the legions of lawyers who will be 
engaged in endless litigation against the Federal Government.
  To be clear, these are not the cuts often debated in reference to the 
President's budget. Sequestration cuts to defense are in addition to 
those cuts, the sum of the two, totaling nearly $1 trillion over 10 
years. Now, even if one holds the view that defense spending must come 
down, this is not the method in any respect to accomplish that 
objective.
  My amendment allows us to avert sequestration. Specifically, the 2013 
sequester is eliminated consistent with the House-passed budget, 
provided one of two events happen: first, reconciliation legislation 
required by the budget resolution is enacted; or, two, legislation 
offsetting, within 5 years, the cost of the fiscal year 2013 
discretionary sequester and the fiscal year 2013 sequester of defense 
mandatory programs is enacted.
  It also requires a report on the impact of sequestration prior to it 
taking effect, which is crucial.
  This amendment is critical to preventing sequestration, which must be 
done if we are to meet our obligation to defend this great country; and 
the men and women who are truly defending this country are the men and 
women in uniform. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  There are two big problems with this. First of all, it's a 1-year 
solution. It would eliminate sequestration for fiscal year 2013 alone. 
And as we have seen this year already, the constant every year 
wondering whether or not something this large is going to happen is 
enormously disruptive to our economy and enormously disruptive to our 
defense industry and all the other places that suffer sequestration. 
This sets us up for another 1 year after 1 year after 1 year, as we 
have seen with expiring tax cuts, with expiring proposed cuts to 
Medicare.
  This every year trying to figure out whether or not we are going to 
deal with it is almost as damaging as the cuts themselves. So whatever 
we do here, we're going to have to come up with a 10-year solution. 
We're going to have to come up with the $1.2 trillion in deficit 
reductions that are necessary to avoid sequestration.
  And I agree with my colleagues--coming up with that money and 
avoiding sequestration is enormously important, but simply doing it 1 
year at a time really doesn't help.
  The second problem with this is the way it is structured. It takes 
defense out of the possibility of facing sequestration and dumps it all 
on the rest of the discretionary budget. And what happens here 
basically is the Republican proposal on this is defense should not be 
touched, and there should be no revenue, and we have to deal with an 
over trillion-dollar deficit. It's going to be well over $8 trillion, 
$9 trillion over the course of the next 10 years.
  What that means is you're going to have to have a devastating level 
of cuts in every other Federal program--Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, all other discretionary spending, transportation, education. 
Now, I am a strong defender of the defense budget and of national 
security, but I am also a strong defender of our infrastructure, a 
strong defender of Medicare and Medicaid. This simply shifts defense 
out from under and puts the entire burden on everything else.
  Just to do a little quick math for you, we had a $1.3 trillion 
deficit last year, roughly 40 percent of the budget, almost, in 
deficit. So if you decide no revenue, we're not going to bring in any 
more money, and we're not going to cut anything from defense, which is 
20 percent of the budget, so now you're down to 80 percent of the 
budget. And I can't do this math off the top of my head, but if you 
have to cut 40 percent from 100 percent, if you go down to 80, you'll 
probably have to cut pretty close to 50. So, look at everything else in 
the Federal Government and imagine a 50 percent cut. I don't think 
that's realistic.
  You know, I have no great love for taxes, but if the alternative is 
devastating all other spending programs, we have to at least consider 
revenue as part of the solution. This amendment, as with all Republican 
budget proposals, precludes that option and puts everything on the back 
of every other piece of spending, save defense, and raises no revenue. 
I don't believe that is a responsible approach.
  I also agree with Secretary Panetta who said proposing this, 
something that the President will not support, something that the 
Senate will not support, stops us dead in our tracks from having any 
hope of truly getting to a solution which will prevent sequestration, 
which I agree needs to be done. I don't agree that this amendment puts 
us on a path to do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my 
friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, we passed a budget. We showed 
what we would do to deal with all of these fiscal problems and fiscal 
priorities. We showed defense spending decreases off the defense 
request from last year. We showed a responsible way to get savings from 
the Pentagon budget.
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle, to their credit, they 
brought a budget to the floor that turned off the sequester and showed 
alternative savings as well. The Senate, nothing, no budget for 3 
years. The President, he tells us he doesn't want the sequester to kick 
in, that it's a bad thing to happen, but he's not doing anything to 
show how he will prevent the sequester from happening.
  Two weeks ago, we passed a reconciliation bill. That bill said 
specifically how we will cut spending in other areas of government to 
prevent the sequester from occurring next year, 1 year.
  The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, authored 
an amendment to do the same thing, other savings to pay for 1 year of 
the sequester set aside. So both the House Republicans and the 
Democrats in the House proposed the same kind of solution, 1 year set 
aside.
  Let's just look at what people are saying about what the sequester 
will do to our national defense:
  The President, in his own budget, said that the sequester would 
inflict great damage to the country's national security;
  The Secretary of Defense says it would hollow out our defense;
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that sequestration 
would pose unacceptable risks to the Nation's security;
  The Chief of Naval Operations says that the sequester would have a 
severe and irreversible impact on the Navy's future;
  The Chief of Staff of the Army says that he is definitely afraid of 
what would happen to our military if this takes place.
  All this amendment does is it gives us one more avenue and 
opportunity to take the spending cuts we have already articulated and 
to put them in place to prevent the sequester from happening, from 
seeing all these bad things take place. It gives another opportunity 
within this conference report, when that arrives, to prevent the 
sequester

[[Page 7349]]

from happening by swapping those cuts out with other savings elsewhere 
in the budget.
  Our government is projected to spend about $45 trillion over the next 
10 years.

                              {time}  2320

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


           Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in House Report 112-485.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
     shall not be infringed.
       (2) Approximately 40,000 servicemen and women across all 
     branches of the Armed Forces either live in or are stationed 
     on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. 
     Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a 
     law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of 
     Columbia's onerous and highly restrictive laws on the 
     possession of firearms.
       (3) Military personnel, despite being extensively trained 
     in the proper and safe use of firearms, are therefore 
     deprived by the laws of the District of Columbia of handguns, 
     rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding 
     persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for 
     lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and 
     families.
       (4) The District of Columbia has one of the highest per 
     capita murder rates in the Nation, which may be attributed in 
     part to previous local laws prohibiting possession of 
     firearms by law-abiding persons who would have otherwise been 
     able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own 
     homes and businesses.
       (5) The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms 
     Owners' Protection Act, and the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act, provide comprehensive Federal regulations 
     applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In 
     addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish 
     possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals 
     and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws 
     that only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
       (6) On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United 
     States in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller held 
     that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to 
     possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus 
     ruled that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and 
     requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept 
     unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to 
     be unconstitutional.
       (7) On July 16, 2008, the District of Columbia enacted the 
     Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Act 
     17-422; 55 DCR 8237), which places onerous restrictions on 
     the ability of law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms, 
     thus violating the spirit by which the Supreme Court of the 
     United States ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller.
       (8) On February 26, 2009, the United States Senate adopted 
     an amendment on a bipartisan vote of 62-36 by Senator John 
     Ensign to S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting 
     Rights Act of 2009, which would fully restore Second 
     Amendment rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     active duty military personnel who are stationed or residing 
     in the District of Columbia should be permitted to exercise 
     fully their rights under the Second Amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States and therefore should be 
     exempt from the District of Columbia's restrictions on the 
     possession of firearms.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to urge my 
colleagues to support my nonbinding amendment, No. 39, which would 
express the sense of Congress that active duty military personnel who 
live in or are stationed in Washington, D.C. should be exempt from 
existing District of Columbia firearm restrictions.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the District of Columbia has 
historically had some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in 
the Nation. In fact, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court--in the 
District of Columbia v. Heller case--ruled that the District's handgun 
ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept 
unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock is 
unconstitutional. In that decision it also said that the Second 
Amendment is applicable to an individual, not just a militia.

[[Page 7350]]

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

                              {time}  2330

  In McDonald, the Court said that the Second Amendment does not confer 
``the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner 
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''
  This amendment represents the third attack by this Congress on the 
District's gun safety laws. Although the amendment is nonbinding, we 
will fight every attack on our rights as a local government, 
particularly when we are singled out for unequal treatment.
  This amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for 
actual inroads into the District's new gun safety laws. Republicans 
have been trying, this week, to use the District of Columbia to move 
issues they dare not propose for the Nation at large, instead of 
focusing on jobs. And our allies, our city, and I have spent the week 
fighting back equally hard.
  The majority can expect a fierce fight from us whenever a bill 
degrades our citizens and treats them in any way as second-class 
citizens, as this bill proposes to do this very evening.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia that, first and foremost, this is a sense of 
Congress resolution, nonbinding resolution. It's not to be, in my 
opinion, Mr. Chairman, confused with any other ban or amendment that 
she referenced. It's certainly not to be confused with H.R. 645, a bill 
that would eliminate D.C.'s gun safety laws, which she was so concerned 
about in the last couple of years.
  This is just simply saying, very clearly, Mr. Chairman, and 
especially to the governing body, the City Council and Mayor of the 
District of Columbia, look, we want to help you. We are recommending 
that you take this action. We're not forcing you to do this.
  This is, again, as I say, a nonbinding resolution. It is just the 
sense of Congress, which, after all, has jurisdiction over the District 
of Columbia. We want to say to the governing body, we think it's a darn 
good idea for you to enact this waiver for these military men and 
women, 40,000 of them, as I say, stationed either in D.C., at the 
Pentagon, at Fort Myer in Virginia or Maryland, that have the ability 
and the training, the necessary judgment and mentality to actually help 
the 500,000 residents of the District of Columbia.
  I don't think that my colleague and any colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who might be in opposition to this, I think that 
opposition is misguided. They're missing an opportunity to support 
something that would be good, indeed, good for the safety of the people 
of the District of Columbia.
  If we criminalize the possession of firearms, then it might be a 
trite and hackneyed expression, but only criminals then would have the 
right to bear arms.
  Now, this bill that the District of Columbia passed in the aftermath 
of the Supreme Court decision, Heller v. District of Columbia, that 
upheld the Second Amendment rights for individuals and said that what 
law existed in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional.
  So they come up with some arcane, very difficult, almost impossible 
rules and regulations in regard to the possession of firearms so that 
they, de facto, make it impossible. So I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, support this amendment, sense of Congress, 
nonbinding.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 45 seconds remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, if this is such a benign amendment for the 
good of the District of Columbia, I can't imagine why the gentleman 
hasn't offered it for the Nation at large. Why help us when we haven't 
asked for your help? Why not help everybody?
  Why not help people in Virginia? More of the Members of our Armed 
Services pass through Virginia than pass through the District of 
Columbia.
  You don't want to help us. Nobody on that side has helped us this 
year. If you want to help us, come ask me first, and I'll tell you what 
kind of help we need.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 41 will 
not be offered.

[[Page 7351]]




           Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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

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

     SEC. 1084. REDUCTION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

                              {time}  2340

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

[[Page 7352]]

ceding the power of the purse from the legislative branch to the 
executive branch--which is clearly not in our interest as guardians of 
the elected branch, the legislative branch of Congress.
  Ms. LEE of California. First of all, sometimes we respectfully 
disagree with the President.
  I think that this $8 billion in cuts to bring us back to the Budget 
Control Act of 2011 is reasonable given the very difficult times we are 
faced with now and the fact that, of all the government agencies, the 
Pentagon has benefited the most from generous funding. We've got plenty 
of outdated and unnecessary Cold War-era weapons systems that can and 
should be canceled. I think this is a reasonable amendment.
  I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Barely 10 months ago, we passed a bipartisan Budget 
Control Act to forestall a sovereign debt crisis. On Tuesday, our total 
national debt increased to over $15.7 trillion. Clearly, the problem we 
passed the BCA to address is getting worse, not better.
  As our own military leaders have acknowledged again and again, our 
debt and deficits are the largest national security threat that our 
Nation actually faces. Backpedaling on the Budget Control Act, as 
suggested here, is irresponsible.
  We need to be building on the fiscal foundations in order to provide 
for our children's futures and for the future of the military. We spend 
a lot of hours here talking about how much we can't afford to cut back 
military spending and not nearly enough time talking about how to 
prepare for the military of the future.
  In my opinion, the smart military budget of the future emphasizes our 
National Guard. It has proven more than a ready reserve in the sands of 
Iraq and in the mountains of Afghanistan. The National Guard is an 
affordable strategic asset of a unique capability. The rising cost to 
our military is probably personnel. The National Guard will help reduce 
that cost 4 1.
  Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 15 seconds remaining.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me yield the 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. In 15 seconds, I will simply say that this amendment is 
the least we can do. We should go with the Budget Control Act. The 
other side of the aisle says we haven't passed a budget. This is the 
effective budget. The fact of the matter is that we have doubled 
military spending, exclusive of Afghanistan and Iraq, in 10 years. We 
ought to start reducing it now.
  Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute and 15 seconds.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish we were wrong, and I would hope that they are 
right in that we could continue to cut defense--cut it to the bone, cut 
it to the marrow--and that we could just live one big, happy, 
paradisiacal life, but history shows that that isn't the way things 
work.
  As Reagan said, it is important to have peace through strength. You 
will remember before he was elected, when President Carter tried to 
deal with the hostage situation in Iran, that our helicopters couldn't 
even fly across the desert. We'd cut back the military so far that we 
had a hollow military.
  There is a lot of talk about General Eisenhower and about President 
Eisenhower, and the thing he said, ``Beware of the military-industrial 
complex.'' He also said we have to have a very strong military because, 
if we don't, someone will take advantage of us. We have to be so strong 
that they're afraid to attack us for fear of annihilation.
  I was talking to one of our leading military leaders just a few 
months ago. Mr. Smith was in the meeting also. At the end of the 
meeting, he looked at me, and he said, In my 37 years, I've never seen 
a time more dangerous.
  If we are right and if we go through with all of these cuts and 
hollow out our military, we are talking about cutting $100 billion a 
year for the next 10 years.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I continue to be disappointed at how 
Republicans are approaching deficit reduction. Every day, we hear 
Republicans talking about the need for painful cuts to get our deficits 
in order. However, time and again, Republicans appear unwilling to 
exercise fiscal discipline when it affects something they like.
  First, the sequester is set to impose difficult and arbitrary 
spending cuts across both defense and domestic programs unless we 
replace its deficit savings before the end of the year. Yet, 
Republicans seek to find these savings only by cutting domestic 
programs like Social Service Block Grants, food stamps, and preventive 
health care services. And second, we reached an agreement last August 
on spending levels, which Republicans have now broken.
  This Republican defense bill authorizes $8 billion more than the 
agreed-upon level. At the same time, Republicans are drastically 
cutting domestic programs.
  This amendment returns defense spending to the level agreed upon in 
the Budget Control Act. It does so without weakening our military or 
denying our troops the tools they need to succeed in their mission. 
This should be something Republicans and Democrats ought to see eye to 
eye on, because we previously agreed to it in August.
  Democrats want to provide our troops with every tool they need to 
carry out their mission and keep Americans safe. The arbitrary cuts of 
the sequester will make doing so much more difficult.
  That's why we need a solution that balances defense and non-defense 
spending cuts and includes revenues--a big, bold, and balanced 
approach.
  This, Mr. Chair, is the opposite of a balanced approach, and I urge 
my colleagues to adopt this amendment and send a strong message that we 
must approach deficit reduction with the seriousness it deserves.
  I commend Representative Barbara Lee, Financial Services Ranking 
Member Barney Frank, Representative Lynn Woolsey, and Representative 
Earl Blumenauer for their work on this amendment and for standing up 
for the agreement the parties reached last August.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chair, today, I voted in favor of Representatives 
Barbara Lee's and Barney Frank's Amendment that would limit Defense 
spending in the coming fiscal year to the amount authorized in the 
Budget Control Act of 2011.
  I am opposed to House Republican efforts to rewrite last summer's 
budget agreement, unfairly shifting the burden for deficit reduction to 
domestic programs while threatening yet another calamitous downgrade in 
the our Nation's credit rating.
  A balanced approach is essential to achieving deficit reduction. I 
remain optimistic that the Congress can find savings in both domestic 
and defense programs. Certainly, I will continue fighting to ensure 
that cuts are not imposed that would harm our active-duty troops, 
military retirees, and veterans who have already sacrificed so much for 
our Nation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2350


                Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

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

       Page 366, line 16, strike ``HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS'' and 
     insert ``RIGHTS UNAFFECTED''.
       Page 366, line 17, strike ``Nothing'' and insert ``(a) Rule 
     of Construction.--Nothing''.
       Page 366, line 21, insert ``or to deny any Constitutional 
     rights'' after ``habeas corpus''.
       Page 366, line 23, strike ``person who is detained in the 
     United States'' and insert ``person who is lawfully in the 
     United States when detained''.

[[Page 7353]]

       Page 366, line 25, insert ``and who is otherwise entitled 
     to the availability of such writ or such rights'' before the 
     period.
       Page 366, after line 25, insert the following:
       (b) Notification of Detention of Persons Under 
     Authorization for Use of Military Force.--Not later than 48 
     hours after the date on which a person who is lawfully in the 
     United States is detained pursuant to the Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 
     note), the President shall notify Congress of the detention 
     of such person.
       (c) Habeas Applications.--A person who is lawfully in the 
     United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 
     note) shall be allowed to file an application for habeas 
     corpus relief in an appropriate district court not later than 
     30 days after the date on which such person is placed in 
     military custody.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
  Mr. RIGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong 
support of the amendment and thank my colleagues--Mr. Landry, Mr. 
Gohmert, and Mr. Goodlatte--for their hard work and their strong 
leadership on this important issue. I also want to thank the chairman 
for incorporating the Rigell-Landry bill in the underlying bill, the 
Right to Habeas Corpus Act.
  The amendment before us this evening provides absolute clarity that 
every American has full protection under, and access to, the Great Writ 
of Habeas Corpus. Specifically, it requires that a detained person has 
the ability to file an application for habeas corpus relief in an 
appropriate district court no later than 30 days after the date on 
which the person was placed in military custody.
  Further, it requires that the administration--current and those to 
follow--that Congress is notified within 48 hours of a person having 
been detained under the AUMF in the United States.
  The 30-day access to habeas corpus and the 48-hour reporting 
requirement strengthen the underlying bill. They strengthen liberty.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
  Three quick points:
  First of all, habeas has already been guaranteed by the Constitution. 
There were those who accused last year's defense bill of having 
stripped habeas, but it didn't, so guaranteeing habeas does nothing to 
further protect the rights of individuals. That's first of all.
  Second of all, the bill itself, the way it is worded, which is to 
say: Nothing shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of 
habeas corpus or deny any constitutional rights in a court ordained or 
established by or under article III of the Constitution for any person 
who is lawfully in the United States when detained.
  It has been ruled constitutional to place people in military custody, 
to hold them indefinitely. This amendment does not eliminate the right 
to hold people indefinitely or place them in military custody. It does 
not do what the next amendment--my amendment--actually does, which is 
protects those rights.
  Third, I find it interesting that the authors of this amendment think 
that it does. They think that basically this will protect from 
indefinite detention and from military custody any person lawfully in 
the United States. At the same time, they are arguing that our 
amendment that clearly does that for everybody is giving rights to 
terrorists. What they are doing here, by their own admission--and I 
disagree with that argument. By their own argument, they are perfectly 
okay with giving rights to terrorists as long as they're lawfully in 
the United States. If they are not, that's a big problem.
  I will expand upon that argument later.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would yield 1 minute to my 
friend from Louisiana, also a cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Landry.
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a proud member of the Tea Party. 
I opposed the debt ceiling. I opposed some of the CRs. I opposed our 
involvement in Libya. I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the 
Constitution. When I joined this body, I raised my hand to God and 
swore to uphold the Constitution and protect it from all threats both 
foreign and domestic. I am a veteran.
  With this oath, my duty to protect our citizens' liberties is matched 
by my duty to protect their lives. That is exactly what the text of 
this bill, when combined with this amendment, does. It ensures that 
every American has access to our courts and ensures that they will not 
be indefinitely detained.
  Equally important, our amendment does not harm our Armed Forces' 
ability to protect this Nation. Unfortunately, some in this body choose 
to believe that our soil here is not a battlefield in a war on terror. 
They want to treat the al Qaeda cell in Seattle differently or better 
than the al Qaeda cell in Yemen.
  To yield to these Members to adopt their view does nothing to protect 
the liberties of our citizens. It only harms their safety. For that 
reason, I urge them to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would just again point out that he wants 
to protect the al Qaeda cell here as long as they are lawfully in the 
U.S. It doesn't make any sense.
  I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Amash).
  Mr. AMASH. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues, 
Mr. Gohmert and Mr. Landry and Mr. Rigell. I think their amendment is 
very well intentioned, and they care very deeply about this issue. I've 
had many conversations with them about it.
  But the first part of the amendment does nothing. It says the AUMF 
does not deny habeas corpus or any constitutional rights for any person 
who is detained in the United States who is otherwise entitled to the 
availability of habeas corpus or such constitutional rights. In other 
words, if you have constitutional rights, you have constitutional 
rights.
  The second part of the amendment might be harmful. It says:

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

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

[[Page 7354]]

That is granted by the Constitution. The problem is what you can assert 
once you get into court. It says nothing about that. It says nothing 
about the circumstances in which individuals might actually be subject 
to military detention when arrested within the territory of the United 
States.
  It's actually dangerous. It narrows constitutional rights because it 
narrows the scope of the statutory habeas corpus protection to 
individuals lawfully in the United States when detained as opposed to 
those detained in the United States. Someone with questionable 
immigration status might not have any habeas rights under this 
amendment.
  Secondly, as Mr. Amash pointed out, by saying that you can file it 
not later than 30 days, it could be read to say that, unlike current 
law where you can file habeas the moment you're detained, you have to 
wait 30 days, or you might not be able to file after 30 days.
  So it's an affirmatively dangerous amendment. It narrows the right to 
habeas corpus, and it doesn't do anything to protect the real problem 
here, which is not habeas. That was never the problem.
  The real problem is the right of detention, when you get into court 
through habeas and the court says, You have no rights, because 
indefinite detention is permitted. That's the problem we ought to be 
dealing with. This amendment doesn't deal with it, and it makes the 
habeas arguably more difficult and more narrow.
  If we value due process and if we value liberty, this amendment 
should be defeated.
  Mr. GOHMERT. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  I do have the right to close; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has the right to 
close.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the 
balance of our time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. This amendment is pure and simply a 
smokescreen. The proponents of this amendment believe that the 
President of the United States should have the power to indefinitely 
detain people in the U.S. They believe that these people should be 
placed in military custody. I wish we could have that debate, and we 
will to some extent on the next amendment.
  This was offered as a smokescreen to give people who want to claim 
that civil liberties are their top priority someplace to hide. It 
doesn't protect any rights whatsoever. It was pure and simply offered 
as a smokescreen.
  Let's have the debate on the next amendment about whether or not the 
President of the United States should have this extraordinary amount of 
power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody or military 
tribunals people captured or detained within the United States. I, as I 
will explain in the next amendment, don't believe that that 
extraordinary amount of power is necessary to keep us safe. I think it 
is an amazing amount of power to give a President over the individual 
freedom, to give the government the power to take away someone's 
individual freedom without the due process rights that have been 
developed in our Constitution and our court system.
  This amendment doesn't change that. Vote it down. Let's have a real 
debate on the next amendment.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chair, the issue here is, do you want to fix the 
possible problems with the Authorization for Use of Military Force back 
in 2001 when all of the cosponsors were not even here and possibly the 
NDAA? Or do you want to extend new rights that are not constitutionally 
required? Because those of us that have sponsored this amendment want 
to fix the possible problem of inappropriate detention. That's why this 
amendment was offered.
  I take a particular affront because I do not question the motivation 
of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith). I know the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Amash). We've stood alone on too many bills together. I 
know their intent is good.
  This is not a smokescreen. This is intended to fix a problem. In the 
underlying bill that came before the floor, it has a fix for habeas 
corpus in paragraph A. I added the provision that gets us to where we 
were before the AUMF. That's what I wanted to fix, not as a 
smokescreen. But what this does is say, if you had these constitutional 
rights before the AUMF, you've still got them now. And nothing in the 
AUMF, nothing in the former NDAA, nothing in the new NDAA can change 
that. You have those rights.
  I understand we don't have CARE supporting this amendment as they do 
the following proposed amendment. But listen, what this would do if the 
subsequent amendment wins instead of this one, you are giving rights to 
people illegally in this country, for example, to people who are 
foreign terrorists, who sneak their way in here and kill people, rights 
that immigrants who are undocumented don't have.
  People say, Gee, we have a right to an article III court. This 
Congress has the right to never create an article III court. No one in 
America has the right to an article III court. This Congress has a 
right under article I, section 8 to create or not create inferior 
courts.
  I'm glad we created them. I would say we should if we didn't. But the 
right is to go back to where we were before the AUMF. That's what this 
amendment does, and we appreciate the support of Heritage and The Wall 
Street Journal in saying that the subsequent amendment is not the way 
to go, extending additional rights. Let's fix the problem, and this 
amendment does that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of 
amendment #45, offered by Mr. Gohmert. This amendment clarifies that 
the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not deny the writ of 
habeas corpus--or any Constitutional rights--to those detained in the 
United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is necessary because while the intent in 
the FY '12 NDAA was not to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. 
citizens without access to legal representation, some have misconstrued 
it as such. Simply put, this misunderstanding must end today. I support 
this amendment because I believe that providing for the safety and 
security of United States citizens is the paramount responsibility of 
the federal government. As we continue to fight the Global War on 
Terror, we must provide the President, the intelligence community, and 
our troops with all of the tools necessary to carry out this duty. 
Clearly, we must do this within the framework of our Constitution, and 
make certain that the Constitutional rights provided for our citizens 
are not violated.
  Mr. Chair, in order to guarantee our citizens' Constitutional rights, 
I am further pleased that the text of H.R. 4388, the Right to Habeas 
Corpus Act--which was authored by Mr. Rigell of Virginia and of which I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor--was included in the FY '13 NDAA. 
Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states `The Privilege of the 
Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of 
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' This 
legislation affirms that and goes on to state that ``Nothing in the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 
1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of 
the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or 
under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in 
the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force.''
  Mr. Chair, with the adoption of Mr. Gohmert's amendment and inclusion 
of Mr. Rigell's legislation, we are taking the steps necessary to 
ensure the protection of our citizens' rights, while at the same time 
denying terrorists the same privileges.
  Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Mike Mukasey--as well as other 
high ranking national security officials from both the Reagan and Bush 
Administrations--requested in a May 9 letter to the Chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee that ``As the House begins consideration 
of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts 
to exploit misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming 
U.S. national security.'' Clearly they are referencing

[[Page 7355]]

the misunderstanding stemming from the FY '12 NDAA. They further wrote 
that ``the FY '12 NDAA included an affirmation of the detention 
authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force 
(AUMF). Given the President's plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from 
Afghanistan and the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in 
the Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in 
reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat terror.''
  As it relates to the other end of the spectrum--providing terrorists 
the same rights as would be conferred to U.S. citizens, as would be the 
case if the amendment authored by Mr. Smith and Mr. Amash were to be 
adopted--their letter states that ``. . . rewarding terrorists with 
greater rights for making it to the United States would actually 
incentivize them to come to our shores, or to recruit from within the 
United States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American 
people. Such a result is perverse.''
  Mr. Chair, I am glad that because of our actions today, we are making 
clear the distinction between the rights provided our citizens and 
those provided to terrorists, while stating unequivocally that U.S. 
citizens will not be stripped of their habeas privileges.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Gohmert's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


          Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 
printed in House Report 112-485.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, the previous amendment doesn't say anything about pre-
2001. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash) correctly stated, it 
says, If you have constitutional rights, you have them. It doesn't say 
anything about restoring them prior to 2001. It doesn't address the 
issue, and I apologize. I do not question Mr. Gohmert's motives. I 
suspect that's what he wanted to do. That's not what his amendment 
does.
  If you want to protect the rights of people in this country, then you 
need to support this amendment, the Smith amendment. And this is a very 
important debate.
  Back in 2001, we passed the authorization for the use of military 
force. Post-9/11, it made sense, I think, to be careful, to give the 
President the power he needed to protect us. But what we've learned in 
the last 10 years is one power that he does not need is the power to 
indefinitely detain or place in military custody people here in the 
United States. Our justice system works. The Department of Justice 
works. The FBI works. They have arrested, convicted, and locked up over 
400 terrorists and have gotten all kinds of actionable intelligence out 
of them.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will yield myself an additional 15 
seconds.
  This is an extraordinary amount of power to give to the President, to 
give the government the power to take away an individual's rights and 
lock them up with nothing more than one quick court hearing, without 
the due process rights protection in our Constitution. It's not needed. 
This is our opportunity to repeal it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment turns the global fight on 
terror into a CSI investigation.
  On its face, the supporters will say exactly, but let's see the 
results. The mission of those who fight the war on terror, now it's how 
do we prevent acts of terror from inflicting billions of dollars of 
damages to save lives?
  You see, our law enforcement and prosecutorial system in this country 
is, by nature, an after-the-fact determination, meaning, we rarely have 
the ability to arrest a potential murderer until after he commits the 
crime. The deterrent is the length of the sentence for the murder that 
deters people from trying to harm or kill another.
  That's not the case in terrorism. We set the punishment level to the 
severity of the crime. But the level under terrorism, there's no known 
level. What deters a person from flying a plane into a building? So how 
does passing this amendment protect the furtherance of that crime or 
would we simply be satisfied with investigating after the fact?
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I would point out that our Justice 
Department has arrested countless terrorists before they act by 
discovering their plots and stopping them. That is what they're 
designed to do, and it's what they've done quite effectively.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
  Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, the frightening thing here is that the 
government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan Authorization 
for Use of Military Force as a justification for entering American 
homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them, and not give them a 
charge in a trial. That's the frightening thing. That's the thing that 
the Smith-Amash amendment fixes. It's the only amendment that does it.

[[Page 7356]]

  I sometimes hear this strange argument that the Constitution applies 
only to citizens, not persons. If you read the Fifth and 14th 
Amendments, it applies to persons. Those are the amendments that 
provide for due process. James Madison said the Constitution applies to 
persons. And logic dictates that the Constitution applies to persons. 
It applies to noncitizens.
  Is the government allowed to make noncitizens worship a State 
religion? Is the government allowed to take noncitizens' property 
without compensation? Can the government quarter troops in noncitizens' 
homes? Can the government conduct unreasonable searches and seizures on 
noncitizens' homes? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Everybody here 
understands that's ridiculous. No one disputes that all persons in the 
U.S. are covered by the Constitution.
  HASC claims to protect persons. The House Armed Services Committee in 
the NDAA claims to protect persons with respect to habeas. The Gohmert 
amendment claims to protect persons, not citizens. And the Smith-Amash 
amendment protects persons. It's a phony argument.
  The Smith-Amash amendment is the only amendment that will protect 
citizens.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. AMASH. We have a very clear choice here. A Federal court has 
ruled section 1021 in the NDAA unconstitutional. There is one amendment 
that fixes it. Will you do it? And if you don't, how will you explain 
it to your constituents?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. West), a distinguished member of the committee.

                              {time}  0010

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

           Retired JAGs Speak Out Against NDAA Misinformation

                 (For Immediate Release: May 17, 2012)

       Washington, DC--In response to comments from members of 
     Congress suggesting that the Smith-Amash Amendment to the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for the 2013 Fiscal Year 
     would give suspected terrorists more rights than members of 
     the U.S. armed forces, Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (ret.) and 
     Donald Guter, former Judge Advocate Generals of the Navy, and 
     Thomas Romig, former Judge Advocate General of the Army, 
     issued the following statement:
       ``It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of our military 
     justice system to suggest that by providing terrorism 
     suspects with Article III civilian court trials, they would 
     be getting `better rights' than our own military. Our courts-
     martial system under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
     (UCMJ) has a special, constitutionally recognized role in 
     maintaining good order and discipline in the military. It is 
     not designed anyone other than members of the U.S. armed 
     forces or those accompanying them in the field. The Smith-
     Amash amendment is a modest, bi-partisan approach to 
     protecting constitutional values that ought to draw support 
     from all members of Congress, including those who support our 
     military justice system.''

  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. Ladies and gentlemen, the problem is that 
folks want to always talk about the terrorists, and absolutely we all 
should be concerned about the terrorists. But how about the citizens of 
the United States who have to worry about now being arrested when they 
don't know what it is they've done wrong?
  In the court case that set aside 1021 just yesterday, the court 
points out that, they ask: Can you tell me what it means to 
substantially support associated forces? The representative of the 
government says: I'm not in a position to give specific examples. The 
court says: Give me one. And the gentleman, the representative of the 
government, says: I'm not in a position to give one specific example.
  The problem is that we have citizens who may be caught up 
unintentionally by this bill or by 1021. We must protect the citizens 
of the United States from an overreaching bill that has been ruled 
unconstitutional.

[[Page 7357]]

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

                                                      May 9, 2012.
     Hon. Howard P. McKeon,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McKeon: As former government officials with 
     significant national security experience, we write to you in 
     support of provisions that were included in the National 
     Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 
     relating to the detention of enemy combatants. As the House 
     will soon begin consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 
     2013, we also write to address misconceptions about the FY12 
     provisions and efforts by others to exploit those 
     misconceptions.
       Importantly, the FY12 NDAA included an affirmation of the 
     detention authority provided by the 2001 Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force (AUMF). Given the President's plan to 
     withdraw U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan and the 
     continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda in the 
     Arabian Peninsula, this affirmation was a critical step in 
     reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat 
     terror.
       Some have argued that the FY 12 NDAA's affirmation of 
     detention authority altered the status quo, and is an 
     ``expansion'' of the power of the federal government. This is 
     false.
       The FY12 NDAA explicitly states that ``nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to affect existing law or 
     authorities relating to the detention of United States 
     citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any 
     persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites States.''
       As the Heritage Foundation recently wrote, ``The NDAA has 
     not impacted the conditions under which a U.S. citizen may 
     (or may not) be detained . . . The law regarding how U.S. 
     citizens are handled, including the right to habeas corpus, 
     is the same today as it was the day before it [the NDAA] was 
     passed.'' The detainee provisions of the NDAA merely codified 
     existing case law related to detainees, period.
       On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the AUMF, which 
     authorizes the President to ``use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or 
     aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
     2001, or harbored such organizations or persons . . .''
       As you are well aware, the law of armed conflict, also 
     called the law of war, allows for a country engaged in armed 
     conflict to detain the enemy for the duration of hostilities. 
     That age old principle existed well before September 11, 2011 
     and is a right that all countries must retain during a time 
     of war. Furthermore, the law of armed conflict does not 
     discriminate between enemy combatants who are citizens of the 
     United States and those that are not. Any citizen who joins 
     al Qaeda or its affiliates is properly classified as an 
     unlawful enemy combatant and may be treated as such. We find 
     the notion propagated by some, that a citizen who has nothing 
     to do with al Qaeda could be picked up off an American street 
     and detained by the military, to be ridiculous.
       In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Hamdi v. 
     Rumsfeld that the United States had the legal authority to 
     detain a U.S. citizen captured fighting alongside the Taliban 
     in Afghanistan who was later detained in the United States 
     pursuant to the AUMF. However, the Supreme Court made it 
     clear that such detainees must have the right to challenge 
     the legality of their detention before a federal judge. The 
     Court noted that ``[a]bsent suspension, the writ of habeas 
     corpus remains available to every individual detained within 
     the United States.''
       As you know, several members of Congress have introduced 
     legislation relating to the detainee provisions in the FY12 
     NDAA. Representative Scott Rigell recently introduced H.R. 
     4388, the ``Right to Habeas Corpus Act,'' which would affirm 
     the right of any person detained in the United States 
     pursuant to the AUMF to challenge the legality of their 
     detention in an Article III court. Representative Rigell's 
     bill is entirely consistent both with the FY12 NDAA and 
     existing case law.
       Unfortunately, other members of Congress have introduced 
     proposed legislation that would instead erode the authorities 
     provided by the AUMF and limit the military's ability to 
     pursue terrorists. For instance, Representative Adam Smith 
     and Senator Mark Udall have introduced legislation that would 
     prevent the President from ever detaining anyone, including 
     foreign terrorists, in the United States pursuant to the 
     AUMF. Representative John Garamendi and Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein have introduced similar legislation that would 
     leave it up to Congress to decide when the President has the 
     authority to detain U.S. citizens who have joined the enemy.
       It is highly questionable whether either of these proposed 
     pieces of legislation would be constitutional as they would 
     deprive any president of lawful options that he may need in 
     order to fulfill his constitutional duties as commander in 
     chief to defend the United States and protect American 
     citizens. Rewarding terrorists with greater rights for making 
     it to the United States would actually incentivize them to 
     come to our shores, or to recruit from within the United 
     States, where they pose the greatest risk to the American 
     people. Such a result is perverse.
       Although we believe the FY12 NDAA detainee provisions, read 
     along with the AUMF and pertinent case law is clear, we 
     understand the urge to affirm the availability of habeas 
     corpus rights of any terrorist captured in the United States. 
     Should that affirmation be necessary to erase doubts, we 
     would respectfully encourage you to consider incorporating 
     the language from Representative Rigell's ``Right to Habeas 
     Corpus Act'' in the FY13 NDAA to address misconceptions and 
     to defend against these other attempts to undermine the 
     critical wartime authorities provided by the AUMF.
       As the House begins consideration of the NDAA for Fiscal 
     Year 2013, we urge you to ensure that attempts to exploit 
     misconceptions about the NDAA are not successful in harming 
     U.S. national security.
           Sincerely,
         Edwin Meese III, Former U.S. Attorney General; Michael B. 
           Mukasey, Former U.S. Attorney General and Former U.S. 
           District Judge; Michael Chertoff, Former Secretary of 
           Homeland Security; Steven G. Bradbury, Former Acting 
           Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy AAG, 
           Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; 
           Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Former Principal Deputy General 
           Counsel, Department of Defense; David Rivkin, Former 
           Deputy Director, Office of Policy Development, U.S. 
           Department of Justice; Charles D. Stimson, Former 
           Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense For Detainee 
           Affairs and Former Assistant

[[Page 7358]]

           US Attorney, District of Columbia; Paul Butler, Former 
           Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, SOLIC 
           and Former Assistant US Attorney, SDNY; Steven A. 
           Engel, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office 
           of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice; Paul 
           Rosenzweig, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
           Policy and Acting Assistant Secretary for International 
           Affairs, Department of Homeland Security.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair I rise in support of amendment 
No. 46 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' NDAA, 
offered by Ranking Member Adam Smith and Rep. Justin Amash. It would 
strike section 1022 of the FY2012 NDAA and amends Section 1021 of same 
Act to eliminate indefinite military detention of any person detained 
under AUMF authority in U.S., territories or possessions by providing 
immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established 
under Article III of the Constitution of the United States or by an 
appropriate State court.
  This amendment would bar any President or any other government 
official from ordering the military to put anyone in the United States, 
or its territories or possessions, into indefinite detention without 
charge or trial, or to put anyone in the United States on trial before 
a military commission.
  Federal criminal courts are open, operating, experienced, and 
secure--and are the appropriate venue for any proceedings here in the 
United States itself.
  The Bill of Rights applies to all persons within the United States 
and its territories, this amendment is consistent with 232 years of 
constitutional precedent as it does not pick and choose between which 
persons on located on U.S. soil will receive constitutional 
protections.
  Further, the amendment bars the transfer of anyone in the United 
States to the military for indefinite detention without charge or 
trial. This provision is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, and 
would provide an additional protection against any misuse of civilian 
law enforcement as a way to put suspects into military detention 
without charge or trial.
  It is fully consistent with the Constitution, with the Posse 
Comitatus Act of 1878, and with the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It will 
reinforce the protections that most Americans assume apply--and do 
apply--within the United States.
  Since 2001, this executive power has only been utilized 3 times which 
makes it clear that it is not necessary to protect our national 
security; however, creates a gap in our civil liberties.
  This amendment would repeal section 1022 of last year's NDAA. Section 
1022 requires the military to put some civilian suspects into military 
detention.
  The current Administration has waived application of section 1022 to 
many groups of potential suspects, it has not foreclosed the 
possibility of section 1022 being applied to all categories of 
civilians, including even within the United States itself. To ensure 
this provision will not be used against those living in the United 
States under section 1022 of last year's NDAA is to repeal it.
  Our military is designed to fight our battles overseas and to protect 
our borders they are not designed to enforce domestic laws.
  The military has not been required to enforce domestic laws since the 
Civil War. We have a Department of Justice, State and Federal 
Prosecutors, and local law enforcement that have been successful for 
hundreds of years.
  The amendment reaffirms the importance and availability of due 
process protections for all persons within the United States. It 
prohibits the NDAA detention provisions from providing any authority 
for the military to detain persons under any claim of authority under 
the NDAA or the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting civil liberties and 
upholding the constitution by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 that granted 
unprecedented powers to the president, including ability to 
indefinitely detain without trial American citizens suspected of 
terrorism. I strongly opposed this provision and voted against passage 
of the entire Act.
  On December 15, 2011, after the bill had passed, I spoke on the House 
floor condemning these dangerous and unnecessary measures. I was 
concerned that our civil liberties would erode if we leave the 
interpretation of the law to the commander-in-chief. As we continue our 
counter-terrorism efforts at home and abroad, we are leaving enormous 
leeway to the current president, the next president, and the president 
after that to gather intelligence and detain individuals without charge 
or trial.
  Today, government surveillance is more intrusive than ever. Congress, 
which once seemed poised to shut Guantanamo Bay, has instead passed 
bipartisan law after law ensuring its indefinite operations. In my 
district, the Seattle Police Department recently acquired surveillance 
drones, but no policies have yet been drafted to guide their use. It is 
not clear whether these drones will be used only to collect evidence on 
specific crimes or become an invasive, all-encompassing surveillance 
operation without proper oversight.
  This week, we're voting on the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, and the 
House had an opportunity to challenge some of these far-reaching 
provisions in current law.
  Earlier this morning, I voted for the Smith-Amash amendment to the 
FY13 NDAA, which would strike Section 1022 of the FY12 NDAA and amend 
Section 1021 to eliminate indefinite military detention of those 
detained in the United States. In short, this amendment would 
explicitly ban any president or government official from ordering the 
military to place anyone in the country into indefinite detention 
without charge or trial. It also reaffirms due process protections for 
all persons within the United States.
  I am deeply disappointed that this bipartisan amendment did not get 
enough votes to be adopted into the FY13 NDAA.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
will be postponed.


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

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

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

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

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

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

                              {time}  0020

  It threatens U.S. sovereignty under part XV by subjecting U.S. 
companies to mandatory dispute settlements and costly lawsuits by 
creating an unaccountable International Seabed Authority, ISA, to make 
rules that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea members must 
follow. In addition, these rules may be changed by the ISA over the 
objection of any signatory nation.
  It threatens U.S. military priorities because the U.S. Navy could 
find itself subject to international dispute resolution for its 
military activities in a nation-state's exclusive economic zones

[[Page 7359]]

because article 288 does not define ``military activity.'' An example 
here might be the restriction, not the enhancement, of the free 
movement of United States Navy vessels in areas such as the South China 
Sea where we see China attempting to extend its territorial waters into 
areas such as the Spratly Islands.
  You talk about redistribution of the wealth, it threatens U.S. 
foreign policy objectives because article 82 requires the revenue given 
to the ISA be distributed to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea 
members. No transparency exists--as it doesn't in most U.N. policies--
but no transparency exists on how countries use the funds, and nothing 
prevents the ISA from redistributing U.S. revenue to state sponsors of 
terrorism or undemocratic regimes with human rights abuses.
  It threatens the U.S. economic interests. The U.N. Convention on the 
Law of the Sea provides for international revenue sharing from the 
exploitation of resources taken from the deep seabed--nickel, copper, 
cobalt are just some of the few, as well as oil and gas taken from the 
extended continental shelf. Now, this brings into question offshore and 
deep sea energy production and the question of whether we really want 
to turn over regulatory authority of these potential assets to the 
United Nations.
  In addition, the Law of the Sea treaty could also potentially subject 
United States rivers and lakes to international jurisdiction where U.S. 
waterways meet international waters.
  The Law of the Sea treaty would, in essence, turn the United States 
Navy into a policing arm of the United Nations, since we have the 
largest and most capable Navy in the world.
  My amendment would protect the United States Navy, the United States 
military chain of command, authority of the Secretary of the Navy, 
Secretary of Defense, Commander in Chief, the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, and the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Congress. My 
amendment limits American tax dollars to any institution or 
organization established by the U.N.'s Convention on the Law of the 
Sea, and I encourage the Members' support, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I'll be very brief.
  For the last 20 years, every single chief of Naval operations, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and other military officers have 
supported this treaty because they recognize that it gives us greater 
protections in an increasingly complicated world.
  So I would urge opposition to this amendment that would undermine 
that Law of the Sea. It does not turn over the power to the United 
Nations. It creates a treaty that gives us a framework for dealing with 
what is an increasingly difficult set of issues.
  China, absent this treaty, could, in fact, make greater claims in the 
South China Sea and elsewhere, and we would not have the same amount of 
power to oppose them. So please oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
Duncan Amendment to prevent appropriations from being used to implement 
the Convention on the Law of the Sea. As Ranking Member of the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee and as a member of the 
House Armed Services Committee, I know the importance of this treaty 
for both the Coast Guard and the Navy. Signing the Convention would 
allow both military services to prevent potential conflicts at sea with 
other nations. It would also lock in critical navigational rights that 
will ensure the timeliness and operational readiness of the services. 
This is a bipartisan issue, and I regret this amendment attempts to 
make it a partisan one.
  Both the Navy and Coast Guard are enthusiastic and supportive of the 
potential that the Convention on the Law of the Sea holds. In fact, 
earlier this month Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert Papp gave a 
speech in which he said the Convention would ``better enable the Coast 
Guard to protect Americans from the sea, protect Americans from threats 
delivered by sea, and protect the sea itself.''
  This amendment is the wrong policy given the many benefits that we 
stand to gain by joining the Convention. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48 
printed in House Report 112-485.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Coffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, maintaining four brigade combat teams in 
Europe is an example of the kind of wasteful spending that should be 
cut from the Federal Government.
  This is the fourth time I've offered an amendment to reduce U.S. 
troop levels in Europe, and it has received more support on the floor 
of the House each time. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado (Mr. 
Coffman) for his leadership efforts in offering this amendment with me 
this year. I'm hopeful this amendment's clear logic, obvious nature, 
and bipartisan support will lead the House to adopt it.
  This amendment, very simply, will bring troops home from Europe. 
Basing these forces in the U.S. rather than Europe will cost 10 to 20 
percent less and maintain the flexibility and infrastructure for global 
operations necessary in today's world. The amendment would also 
authorize the Pentagon to close bases across Europe that are no longer 
necessary.
  In the wake of World War II and the Cold War, stationing troops in 
Europe made sense. We were holding the line against the Soviet Union 
and Warsaw Pact and meeting our obligations to NATO. But the Soviet 
Union ceased to exist 20 years ago. If we didn't have

[[Page 7360]]

these bases in Europe, we'd have to ask ourselves: Would we be setting 
bases up in Europe today to combat the global war on terrorism?
  Our troop commitment in Europe needs to be reexamined. Our European 
allies are some of the richest countries in the world, so why are we 
subsidizing their defense? The average American spends over $2,500 on 
defense; the average European, about $500.
  With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across 
the world to meet our NATO commitments and other operational 
necessities. We can rely on our capacity for rapid deployment to send 
troops and assets to all regions when needed.
  Our amendment would call for rotational forces to be deployed in 
Europe so they can fulfill our NATO obligations. There's cheaper and 
less controversial ways of proving to our allies the strength of our 
commitment to defense than permanently stationing and maintaining over 
80,000 troops in their countries.
  Donald Rumsfeld even thinks it's time for a change to our policy. In 
his recent book he wrote:

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

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

                              {time}  0030

  The only reason that we would do this move is--there are two reasons. 
One would be because it makes strategic sense to do so, and the United 
States Army says it does not make strategic sense to do so. The second 
one is because of cost. And the United States Army would point out that 
the cost savings we have would be minimal because the rotational units 
are very expensive and much less effective than forward-base forces.
  Mr. Chairman, it's been said here that we don't want to be defending 
our allies, and indeed we don't, not necessarily. But what we're doing 
with this is not just defending our allies but joining with our allies 
to make sure we're defending the United States and U.S. interests.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that the Army has moved already very 
strongly by removing two of these combat brigades from Europe. They've 
reduced by 50 percent the number of personnel we have in Europe since 
2003. I think we should listen to the Army and make sure that we're 
allowing them to do what they think at this particular point in time is 
strategically and from a cost-effective basis in the best interest of 
the United States.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  I'm anxious to hear about the secret deal to remove troops from 
Europe.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Well, I must say that we certainly have to be 
concerned about troop reductions in light of the possible secret deal 
between the Russians and the President.
  I stand in opposition to this amendment because, first off, here you 
have Congress looking to withdraw troops that of course strategically 
our Department of Defense says that we need, and that intuitively we 
understand why they are there. We don't have troops there standing 
guard and defending Europe. We have troops there that are part of the 
alliance that are working in concert for the defense of the United 
States and our allies in issues of the war on terror, issues of 
training, issues of jointness, issues of logistics. I mean, Europe is 
not just a place where our troops are standing to oppose invasions of 
Europe; they're not there for that anymore. They're there for logistics 
of things such as the pirates that we have off of Africa, that people 
are abusing our resources to try to make certain that commerce can 
continue; the issues in Afghanistan, to make certain that we have the 
logistics for our troops and what they need; ensuring that our allies 
have jointness in training, working together and being present so that 
we can ensure that NATO works together in concert.
  This provision would also lead to an incredibly negative perception 
among our NATO allies and partners that the U.S. is not committed to 
its NATO Article V responsibilities. You will recall, the NATO Article 
V, the only time it's been invoked was in favor of the United States 
after we were attacked and went into Afghanistan after 9/11.
  These troops are present as part of the overall security of the 
United States. They're not there as a stake in the ground to protect 
Europe. To not look to our military for their strategy, for their 
determination as to where we need troops, for their use of deployment 
is for us to say that this Congress constitutes itself as the experts 
in military deployment, and we're not. This is not where the debate 
should occur.
  We should oppose this amendment.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, unlike my two colleagues, and 
God bless them for their experience, but they've not served in our 
military, and they've not served in the United States Army in Europe as 
I have. So I can challenge the assumptions of the United States Army 
here.
  The Cold War has been over with since 1989. We're spending 4.7 
percent of our GDP on defense and our European allies, most of them, 
are spending less than 2 percent. There's an overreliance on the United 
States, and that's different from being allies. These are not

[[Page 7361]]

expeditionary forces. These are really, truly relics of the Cold War 
with no border to defend. So it is time that we take them back.
  Where is the savings? Well, the savings is in part because there is 
already an agreement that we are going to draw down the end-strength of 
our active duty forces. So that certainly fits within that criteria 
that's already been agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 49 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

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

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

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

     SEC. _1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. _2. FINDINGS.

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

     SEC. _3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       It should be the policy of the United States--
       (1) to prevent Iran from pursuing or acquiring a nuclear 
     weapon and to resolve the concerns of the United States and 
     of the international community about Iran's nuclear program 
     and Iran's human rights obligations under international and 
     Iranian law;
       (2) to ensure inspection of cargo to or from Iran, as well 
     as the seizure and disposal of prohibited items, as 
     authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 
     (June 9, 2010);
       (3) to pursue sustained, direct, bilateral negotiations 
     with the Government of Iran without preconditions in order to 
     reduce tensions, prevent war, prevent nuclear proliferation, 
     support human rights, and seek resolutions to issues that 
     concern the United States and the international community;
       (4) to utilize all diplomatic tools, including direct 
     talks, targeted sanctions, Track II diplomacy, creating a 
     special envoy described in section 4, and enlisting the 
     support of all interested parties, for the purpose of 
     establishing an agreement with Iran to put in place a program 
     that includes international safeguards, guarantees, and 
     robust transparency measures that provide for full IAEA 
     oversight of Iran's nuclear program, including rigorous, 
     ongoing inspections, in order to verify that Iran's nuclear 
     program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and that Iran is 
     not engaged in nuclear weapons work;
       (5) to pursue opportunities to build mutual trust and to 
     foster sustained negotiations in good faith with Iran, 
     including pursuing a fuel swap deal to remove quantities of 
     low enriched uranium from Iran and to refuel the Tehran 
     Research Reactor, similar to the structure of the deal that 
     the IAEA, the United States, China, Russia, France, the 
     United Kingdom, and Germany first proposed in October 2009;
       (6) to explore areas of mutual benefit to both Iran and the 
     United States, such as regional security, the long-term 
     stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan, the establishment of a 
     framework for peaceful nuclear energy production, other 
     peaceful energy modernization programs, and counter-narcotics 
     efforts; and
       (7) that no funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     to any executive agency of the Government of the United 
     States may be used to carry out any military operation or 
     activity against Iran unless the President determines that a 
     military operation or activity is warranted and seeks express 
     prior authorization by Congress, as required under article I, 
     section 8, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which 
     grants Congress the sole authority to declare war, except 
     that this requirement shall not apply to a military operation 
     or activity--
       (A) to directly repel an offensive military action launched 
     from within the territory of Iran against the United States 
     or any ally with whom the United States has a mutual defense 
     assistance agreement;
       (B) in hot pursuit of forces that engage in an offensive 
     military action outside the territory of Iran against United 
     States forces or an ally with whom the United States has a 
     mutual defense assistance agreement and then enter into the 
     territory of Iran; or
       (C) to directly thwart an imminent offensive military 
     action to be launched from within the territory of Iran 
     against United States forces or an ally with whom the United 
     States has a mutual defense assistance agreement.

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

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

     SEC. _5. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

       (a) Elimination of ``No Contact'' Policy.--Not later than 
     30 days after the date of

[[Page 7362]]

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

     SEC. _6. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. _7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

                              {time}  0040

  If talk and negotiations could de-nuclearize Iran, we wouldn't have 
to worry about them anymore. But the reality is you can't take the 
crazy out of radical Islamic fundamentalists, which are the people that 
run Iran.
  And this amendment does, contrary to what the gentlelady from 
California says, this amendment does, in fact, take the military option 
off the table because it would prevent the President from taking 
action, even if the U.S. were directly threatened and immediately 
threatened unless Congress authorized it first. The President would 
have to call this body back into session, from wherever we were at, and 
then ask us for permission, on C-SPAN, to go ahead and act against an 
immediate Iranian threat.
  This amendment does not acknowledge the six U.N. Security Council 
resolutions to address Iran's nuclear program. It does not acknowledge 
that France, Germany, and the U.K. offered Iran several proposals to 
resolve nuclear issues during negotiations in 2004 and 2005. It does 
not acknowledge that the diplomatic initiatives to resolve the Iranian 
nuclear issue have produced absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.
  What this amendment does is appease and appease and appease and stall 
and while we talk, while we stand here in this body, right now, 
discussing this, Iran's getting closer and closer to a nuclear weapon. 
And Iran's not North Korea. North Korea is sane compared to Iran. As 
soon as they get enriched uranium that can be used as a weapon, it will 
end up on our shores. And it probably won't be by the Iranians. It 
probably won't be launched from Iran. It'll cross our border or come 
into an American port, and it will kill Americans.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I would urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. I'd like to yield now 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Woolsey.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, after 8 long and deadly years, we finally 
ended the war in Iraq. Hopefully, the war in Afghanistan is drawing to 
a close, but not nearly as quickly as I'd like.
  The last thing we can afford is to enter another military conflict 
that kills Americans, drains our Treasury, and undermines our national 
reputation and our national security. That's why I support this 
amendment.
  By sending a special envoy to Iran, we can take definitive steps to 
avoid war, giving diplomacy the best chance to succeed, and giving 
ourselves the best chance to keep Iran from developing a nuclear 
weapon.
  This is consistent with my SMART Security Platform, which demands 
that we explore every possible alternative to war, that we use peaceful 
conflict resolution whenever and wherever possible, that we make a 
renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.
  So let's do the smart thing. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Prevent 
war.

[[Page 7363]]


  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I actually oppose this amendment 
for reasons completely opposite of what the previous opposition speaker 
opposed them for. I believe that part of the solution to stopping Iran 
from developing a nuclear weapon is to negotiate with them. The 
President is currently doing that as part of the Six Party Talks.
  Now, none of that's going to work without very, very aggressive 
economic sanctions. I'm very pleased in last year's bill we were able 
to put in aggressive economic sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. We 
need those sanctions. Those sanctions are what has driven these talks.
  Unfortunately, I support just about everything in this amendment 
except for the part that requires bilateral negotiations. It would 
basically require us at this point to set up a separate set of 
negotiations apart from the Six Party Talks and would actually 
undermine the very negotiations that are going on right now.
  I think it's very well intentioned. I agree that negotiations have to 
be part of that. It's just, given the negotiations that are going on, 
requiring bilateral negotiations at this point would undermine that 
very effort. And, therefore, for very different reasons I oppose the 
amendment.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say I respectfully disagree that 
this would undermine the current Six Party Talks. I think it would 
strengthen the Six Party Talks. We need bilateral and multilateral 
negotiations if we're going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear 
weapon.
  This bill is very clear in terms of the military option, in response 
to my colleague on the other side. The underlying bill says it shall be 
the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, 
including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from 
threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a 
nuclear weapon.
  In no way does this amendment appease the Iranians. What it does is 
bring some semblance of balance and another strategy, another layer to 
strengthen the negotiations that are currently taking place so that we 
can keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and prevent an all-out 
war.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Hearing the word ``undermined'' brings to mind the fact 
that they are way underground building this nuclear facility. It kind 
of stretches the credibility thinking that they're doing that just to 
build a power plant.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, we've debated some important issues here 
tonight. Some of them we've had some fun with. Some of them we have 
debated very, very strenuously.
  But make no mistake about it, the greatest threat to world peace 
today is Iran and the possibility that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. 
There is no other country in the world that has specifically stated its 
purpose to use that weapon will be to destroy one of our allies, which 
would be Israel.
  And one of the most important things we can have is to make sure that 
we have no lack of clarity when we come to dealing with Iran.
  Our good friend, Ike Skelton, used to always admonish us, read the 
bill. In this bill we are looking to take power away from the Secretary 
of State. We say we want to have diplomacy, and yet we are pulling away 
the Secretary of State's options to do that.
  We're looking at taking away powers of the President, because, if 
nothing else, we're mucking up the War Powers Act and making it unclear 
what the President can do and what he can't do. And when it comes to 
Iran, that's the least important thing we can do.
  The most important thing we can do is to make sure that we continue 
to give the President the options that he needs to keep everything on 
the table in dealing with Iran. And when we tell him he can't use 
military force until he's done all diplomatic avenues, nobody in here 
understands what that means exactly.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will not go down this path, because 
I can assure you the destination may be one that we wish we had never 
arrived at. And I hope we'll defeat this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7364]]



                              {time}  0050

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


                Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Carnahan

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

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

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

     SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 1702. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, 
     Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, 
     Foreign Relations, and Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate.
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the United States Office for Contingency Operations.
       (3) Functions.--The term ``functions'' includes 
     authorities, powers, rights, privileges, immunities, 
     programs, projects, activities, duties, and responsibilities.
       (4) Imminent stabilization and reconstruction operation.--
     The term ``imminent stabilization and reconstruction 
     operation'' is a condition in a foreign country which the 
     Director believes may require in the immediate future a 
     response from the United States and with respect to which 
     preparation for a stabilization and reconstruction operation 
     is necessary.
       (5) Intelligence community.--The term ``intelligence 
     community'' has the meaning given that term in section 3(4) 
     of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
       (6) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the United States 
     Office for Contingency Operations.
       (7) Personnel.--The term ``personnel'' means officers and 
     employees of an Executive agency, except that the term does 
     not include members of the Armed Forces.
       (8) Potential stabilization and reconstruction operation.--
     The term ``potential stabilization and reconstruction 
     operation'' is a possible condition in a foreign country 
     which in the determination of the Director may require in the 
     immediate future a response from the United States and with 
     respect to which preparation for a stabilization and 
     reconstruction operation is advisable.
       (9) Stabilization and reconstruction emergency.--The term 
     ``stabilization and reconstruction emergency'' is a 
     stabilization and reconstruction operation which is the 
     subject of a Presidential declaration pursuant to section 
     1713.
       (10) Stabilization and reconstruction operation.--The term 
     ``stabilization and reconstruction operation''--
       (A) means a circumstance in which a combination of 
     security, reconstruction, relief, and development services, 
     including assistance for the development of military and 
     security forces and the provision of infrastructure and 
     essential services (including services that might be provided 
     under the authority of chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.; relating to 
     the Economic Support Fund)), should, in the national interest 
     of the United States, be provided on the territory of an 
     unstable foreign country;
       (B) does not include a circumstance in which such services 
     should be provided primarily due to a natural disaster (other 
     than a natural disaster of cataclysmic proportions); and
       (C) does not include intelligence activities.
       (11) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used 
     in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United 
     States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 1703. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Responsibilities for overseas stability and 
     reconstruction operations are divided among several agencies. 
     As a result, lines of responsibility and accountability are 
     not well-defined.
       (2) Despite the establishment of the Office of the 
     Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization within the 
     Department of State, the reaffirmation of the Coordinator's 
     mandate by the National Security Presidential Directive 44, 
     its codification with title XVI of the Duncan Hunter National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, and the 
     issuance of the Department of Defense Directive 3000.05, 
     serious imbalances and insufficient interagency coordination 
     remain.
       (3) The United States Government has not effectively or 
     efficiently managed stabilization and reconstruction 
     operations during recent decades.

[[Page 7365]]

       (4) Based on trends, the United States will likely continue 
     to find its involvement necessary in stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations in foreign countries in the wake of 
     violence or cataclysmic disaster.
       (5) The United States has not adequately learned the 
     lessons of its recent experiences in stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations, and despite efforts to improve its 
     performance is not yet organized institutionally to respond 
     appropriately to the need to perform stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations in foreign countries.
       (6) The failure to learn the lessons of past stabilization 
     and reconstruction operations will lead to further 
     inefficiencies, resulting in greater human and financial 
     costs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) advance the national interest of the United States by 
     providing an effective means to plan for and execute 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations in foreign 
     countries;
       (2) provide for unity of command, and thus achieve unity of 
     effort, in the planning and execution of stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations;
       (3) provide accountability for resources dedicated to 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations;
       (4) maximize the efficient use of resources, which may lead 
     to budget savings, eliminated redundancy in functions, and 
     improvement in the management of stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations; and
       (5) establish an entity to plan for stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations and, when directed by the 
     President, coordinate and execute such operations, eventually 
     returning responsibility for such operations to other 
     agencies of the United States Government as the situation 
     becomes normalized.

     SEC. 1704. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

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

     SEC. 1705. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Director.--
       (1) In general.--The Office shall be headed by a Director, 
     who shall be--
       (A) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate; and
       (B) compensated at the rate of basic pay for level II of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Supervision.--
       (A) In general.--The Director shall report directly to, and 
     be under the general supervision of, the Secretary of State 
     and the Secretary of Defense. Such supervision may not be 
     delegated.
       (B) Information sharing.--The Director shall keep the 
     National Security Advisor fully and continually informed of 
     the activities of the Office.
       (3) Functions.--The functions of the Director shall include 
     the following:
       (A) Monitoring, in coordination with relevant offices and 
     bureaus of the Department of Defense, the Department of 
     State, and the United States Agency for International 
     Development, political and economic instability worldwide in 
     order to anticipate the need for mobilizing United States and 
     international assistance for the stabilization and 
     reconstruction of a country or region that is at risk of, in, 
     or in transition from, conflict or civil strife.
       (B) Assessing the various types of stabilization and 
     reconstruction crises that could occur and cataloging and 
     monitoring the military and non-military resources, 
     capabilities, and functions of agencies that are available to 
     address such crises.
       (C) Planning to address requirements, such as 
     demobilization, disarmament, capacity building, rebuilding of 
     civil society, policing and security sector reform, and 
     monitoring and strengthening respect for human rights that 
     commonly arise in stabilization and reconstruction crises.
       (D) Developing, in coordination with all relevant agencies, 
     contingency plans and procedures to mobilize and deploy 
     civilian and military personnel to conduct stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations.
       (E) Coordinating with counterparts in foreign governments 
     and international and nongovernmental organizations on 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations to improve 
     effectiveness and avoid duplication.
       (F) Building the operational readiness of the Civilian 
     Response Corps and strengthening personnel requirements to 
     enhance its essential interagency quality.
       (G) Aiding the President, as the President may request, in 
     preparing such rules and regulations as the President 
     prescribes, for the planning, coordination, and execution of 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations.
       (H) Advising the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Defense, as the Secretary of

[[Page 7366]]

     State or the Secretary of Defense may request, on any matters 
     pertaining to the planning, coordination, and execution of 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations.
       (I) Planning and conducting, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, the Secretary of 
     Defense, and commanders of unified combatant commands or 
     specified combatant commands, a series of exercises to test 
     and evaluate doctrine relating to stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations and procedures to be used in such 
     operations.
       (J) Executing, administering, and enforcing laws, rules, 
     and regulations relating to the preparation, coordination, 
     and execution of stabilization and reconstruction operations.
       (K) Administering such funds as may be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the preparation, coordination 
     and execution of stabilization and reconstruction operations.
       (L) Planning for the use of contractors who will be 
     involved in stabilization and reconstruction operations, 
     including coordinating with the Secretary of State and the 
     Secretary of Defense to ensure coordination of the work of 
     such contractors with the work of contractors supporting--
       (i) the Secretary of State; and
       (ii) military operations and members of the Armed Forces.
       (M) Prescribing standards and policies for project and 
     financial reporting for all agencies involved in 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations under the 
     direction of the Office to ensure that all activities 
     undertaken by such agencies are appropriately tracked and 
     accounted for.
       (N) Establishing an interagency training, preparation, and 
     evaluation framework for all personnel deployed, or who may 
     be deployed, in support of stabilization and reconstruction 
     operations. Such training and preparation shall be developed 
     and administered in partnership with such universities, 
     colleges, or other institutions (whether public, private, or 
     governmental) as the Director may determine and which agree 
     to participate.
       (4) Responsibilities of director for monitoring and 
     evaluation requirements.--
       (A) Evaluations.--The Director shall plan and conduct 
     evaluations of the impact of stabilization and reconstruction 
     operations carried out by the Office.
       (B) Reports.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the end of 
     each fiscal-year quarter, the Director shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report summarizing all 
     stabilization and reconstruction operations that are taking 
     place under the supervision of the Director during the period 
     of each such quarter and, to the extent possible, the period 
     from the end of each such quarter to the time of the 
     submission of each such report. Each such report shall 
     include, for the period covered by each such report, a 
     detailed statement of all obligations, expenditures, and 
     revenues associated with such stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations, including the following:

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

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

     SEC. 1714. PERSONNEL SYSTEM.

       (a) Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--The Director may select, appoint, and 
     employ such personnel as may be necessary for carrying out 
     the duties of the Office, subject to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, governing appointments in the excepted 
     service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III 
     of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classification and 
     General Schedule pay rates, and may exercise the authorities 
     of subsections (b) through (i) of section 3161 of title 5, 
     United States Code (to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as those authorities may be exercised by an organization 
     described in subsection (a) of such section). In exercising 
     the employment authorities under subsection (b) of such 
     section 3161, paragraph (2) of such subsection (relating to 
     periods of appointments) shall not apply.
       (2) Subdivisions of office; delegation of functions.--The 
     Director may establish bureaus, offices, divisions, and other 
     units within the Office. The Director may from time to time 
     make provision for the performance of any function of the 
     Director by any officer or employee, or office, division, or 
     other unit of the Office.
       (3) Reemployment authorities.--The provisions of section 
     9902(g) of title 5, United States Code, shall apply with 
     respect to the Office. For purposes of the preceding 
     sentence, such provisions shall be applied--
       (A) by substituting ``the United States Office for 
     Contingency Operations'' for ``the Department of Defense'' 
     each place it appears;
       (B) by substituting ``the Stabilization and Reconstruction 
     Operations Interagency Enhancement Act of 2012'' for ``the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
     (Public Law 108-136)'' in paragraph (2)(A) thereof; and
       (C) by substituting ``the Director of the United States 
     Office for Contingency Operations'' for ``the Secretary'' in 
     paragraph (4) thereof.
       (b) Interim Officers.--
       (1) In general.--The President may authorize any persons 
     who, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act, 
     held positions in the Executive Branch of the Government, to 
     act as Director, Deputy Director, Associate Director, and 
     Inspector General of the Office until such positions are for 
     the first time filled in accordance with the provisions of 
     this Act or by recess appointment, as the case may be.
       (2) Compensation.--The President may authorize any such 
     person described in paragraph (1) to receive the compensation 
     attached to the Office in respect of which such person so 
     serves, in lieu of other compensation from the United States.
       (c) Contracting Services.--
       (1) In general.--The Director may obtain services of 
     experts and consultants as authorized by section 3109 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Assistance.--To the extent and in such amounts as may 
     be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, the Inspector 
     General may enter into contracts and other arrangements for 
     audits, studies, analyses, and

[[Page 7367]]

     other services with public agencies and with private persons, 
     and make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the 
     duties of the Inspector General.
       (d) Incentivizing Expertise in Personnel Tasked for 
     Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations.--
       (1) Study.--The Director shall commission a study to 
     measure the effectiveness of personnel in stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations. The study shall seek to identify 
     the most appropriate qualifications for personnel and 
     incentive strategies for agencies to effectively recruit and 
     deploy employees to support stabilization and reconstruction 
     operations.
       (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in the selection and appointment of any individual for a 
     position both within the Office and other agencies in support 
     of stabilization and reconstruction operations, due 
     consideration should be given to such individual's expertise 
     in such operations and interagency experience and 
     qualifications.

   Subtitle B--Preparing and Executing Stability and Reconstruction 
                               Operations

     SEC. 1721. SOLE CONTROL.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 1724. CONTINGENCY FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.

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

     SEC. 1725. STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (c), there is 
     established in the Treasury of the United States a fund, to 
     be known as the ``Stabilization and Reconstruction Emergency 
     Reserve Fund'', to be administered by the Director at the 
     direction of the President and with the consent of the 
     Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense for the 
     following purposes with respect to a stabilization and 
     reconstruction operation:
       (1) Development of water and sanitation infrastructure.
       (2) Providing food distribution and development of 
     sustained production.
       (3) Supporting relief efforts related to refugees, 
     internally displaced persons, and vulnerable individuals, 
     including assistance for families of innocent civilians who 
     suffer losses as a result of military operations.
       (4) Providing electricity.
       (5) Providing healthcare relief and developing sustained 
     healthcare.
       (6) Development of telecommunications.
       (7) Development of economic and financial policy.
       (8) Development of education.
       (9) Development of transportation infrastructure.
       (10) Establishment and enforcement of rule of law.
       (11) Humanitarian demining.
       (12) Development of agriculture.
       (13) Peace enforcement, peacekeeping, and post-conflict 
     peacebuilding.
       (14) Development of justice and public safety 
     infrastructure.
       (15) Development of security and law enforcement.
       (16) Observation and enforcement of human rights.
       (17) Development of governance, democratization, and 
     building the capacity of government.
       (18) Development of natural resource infrastructure.
       (19) Establishment of environmental protection.
       (20) Protection of vulnerable populations including women, 
     children, the aged, and minorities.
       (21) The operations of the Office.
       (22) Any other purpose which the Director considers 
     essential to address the emergency.
       (b) Congressional Notification.--
       (1) Presidential direction.--At the time the President 
     directs the Director to carry out or support an activity 
     described in subsection (a), the President shall transmit to 
     appropriate congressional committees a written notification 
     of such direction.
       (2) Activities in a country.--Not less than 15 days before 
     carrying out or supporting an activity described in 
     subsection (a), the Director shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees information related to the budget, 
     implementation timeline (including milestones), and 
     transition strategy with respect to such activity and the 
     stabilization or reconstruction operation at issue.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--No funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the fund established in 
     subsection (a) other than pursuant to a law enacted after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act. Any such sums authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) shall be available until expended;
       (2) shall not be made available for obligation or 
     expenditure until the President declares a stabilization and 
     reconstruction emergency pursuant to section 1713; and
       (3) shall be in addition to any other funds made available 
     for such purposes.

         Subtitle C--Responsibilities of the Inspector General

     SEC. 1731. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       (a) In General.--There shall be within the Office an Office 
     of the Inspector General, the

[[Page 7368]]

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

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

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

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

       ``(C) Report coordination.--Each report under this 
     paragraph shall be furnished to the head of the establishment 
     involved not later than 30 days after the submission of the 
     report under subparagraph (A) and shall be transmitted by 
     such head to the appropriate committees of the Congress not 
     later than 30 days after receipt of the report, together with 
     a report by the head of the establishment containing any 
     comments such head determines appropriate, including a 
     classified annex if such head considers it necessary.
       ``(2) Semiannual reports.--The Inspector General of the 
     United States Office for Contingency Operations shall submit 
     to the appropriate committees a semiannual report that 
     includes a summary of the activities of the Office, including 
     activities described in paragraphs (1) through (13) of 
     section 5(a) of this Act. The first such report for a year, 
     covering the first six months of the year, shall be submitted 
     not later than August 30 of that year, and the second such 
     report, covering the second six months of the year, shall be 
     submitted not later than February 28 of the following year.
       ``(3) Waiver.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President may waive any of the 
     requirements to be included in the reports under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) if the President determines that the waiver is 
     justified for national security reasons.
       ``(B) Notice of waiver.--The President shall publish a 
     notice of each waiver made

[[Page 7369]]

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

             Subtitle D--Responsibilities of Other Agencies

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

       The head of any agency under the authority of the Director 
     in support of a stabilization and reconstruction operation 
     pursuant to section 1713 shall submit to the Director--
       (1) on-going evaluations of the impact of such 
     stabilization and reconstruction operation on such agency, 
     including an assessment of interagency coordination in 
     support of such operation;
       (2) any information the Director requests, including 
     reports, evaluations, analyses, or assessments, to permit the 
     Director to satisfy the quarterly reporting requirement under 
     section 1713(a)(4); and

[[Page 7370]]

       (3) an identification, within each such agency, of all 
     current and former employees skilled in crisis response, 
     including employees employed by contract, and information 
     regarding each such agency's authority mechanisms to reassign 
     or reemploy such skilled personnel and mobilize rapidly 
     associated resources in response to such operation.

     SEC. 1742. TRANSITION OF STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 
                   OPERATIONS.

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

     SEC. 1743. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

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

              Subtitle E--Authorization of Appropriations

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

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

     SEC. 1752. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 1753. SUNSET.

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

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


                 Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Petri

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

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

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

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


[[Page 7371]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. I join with my colleague, Representative Hank Johnson, in 
offering this amendment today.
  The budget year 2007 Defense Authorization Act created a statutory 
goal that 25 percent of the energy utilized by the Department of 
Defense facilities come from renewable energy sources by 2025.

                              {time}  0100

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


                Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Bartlett

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Marine Corps has studied the feasibility of 
     acquiring land and developing a training range facility to 
     conduct Marine

[[Page 7372]]

     Expeditionary Brigade level live-fire training on or near the 
     West Coast.
       (2) The Bureau of Land management estimates on national 
     economic impact show $261.5 million in commerce at risk.
       (3) Economic impact on the local community is estimated to 
     be $71.1 Million.
       (b) Limitation of Funds Pending Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Navy may not obligate 
     or expend funds for the transfer of land or development of a 
     new training range on land adjacent to the Marine Corps 
     Ground Air Combat Center Twenty Nine Palms, California until 
     the Secretary of the Navy has provided the Congressional 
     defense committees a report on the Marine Corps' efforts with 
     respect to the proposed training range.
       (2) Elements of report.--The report required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and shall include the 
     following:
       (A) A description of the actual training requirements for 
     the proposed range and where those training requirements are 
     currently being met to support combat deployments.
       (B) Identify the impact on off-road vehicle recreational 
     users of the land, the economic impact on the local economy, 
     the recreation industry, and any other stakeholders.
       (C) Identify any concerns discussed with the Bureau of Land 
     Management regarding their assessments of the impact on other 
     users.
       (D) Identify the impact on the State of California's 1980 
     Desert Conservation plan regarding allocation of the Off 
     Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas.
       (E) The potential to use the same land without transfer, 
     but under specific permits for use provided by the (such as 
     agreements at other locations under permit from the Forest 
     Service and Bureau of Land Management).
       (F) Any potential on other Bureau of Land Management lands 
     proximate to the Marine Corps Ground Air Combat Center Twenty 
     Nine Palms or other locations in the geographic region.
       (3) Secretary of defense waiver.--In the event of urgent 
     national need, the Secretary of Defense may notify the 
     Congressional Committees and waive the requirement for this 
     report.

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

                              {time}  0110

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


           Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 54 
printed in House Report 112-485.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits FY13 NNSA nonproliferation 
activities with Russia until the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation 
with the Secretaries of State and Defense, can certify two things: 
first, that Russia is no longer providing support to the Assad regime's 
efforts to suppress the Syrian people; and, second, that Russia is not 
providing technology or equipment to Iran, North Korea, or Syria that 
contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. Chairman, this NNSA program for years has been an effort on our 
part to assist Russia to secure potential lost nuclear weapons and to 
help them be able to store and deal with some of the nuclear materials 
that they may have difficulty doing. But it's come to a point now where 
we have reached what I consider almost like a schizophrenic 
relationship here where we are funding Russia's own responsibility to 
deal with some of their older nuclear technology while allowing them to 
free up funds to spend on new nuclear technology which they sell to 
some of our enemies.
  Mr. Chairman, that's not keeping faith with the American people. It's 
not keeping faith with the cause of human peace in the world. And, Mr. 
Chairman, we need to send Russia a message that we are committed to 
making sure that we don't arm our enemies and we don't support brutal 
regimes that suppress innocent people trying to fight for freedom in 
the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does have two waivers that allow the 
NNSA to finish current activities due to be completed in fiscal year 
2013 or to allow an activity to continue, if the Secretary of Energy 
believes it's in the national security interest of the United

[[Page 7373]]

States to do so. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, this is something that 
we need to pass, and I would hope that my colleagues would support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. We discussed the nonproliferation programs 
earlier. It is still a critical issue. Former Soviet Union, now Russia 
and various other countries, have a large number of weapons of mass 
destruction. And it has been a very successful program. A bipartisan 
group of I think at least three, if not four Presidents who have worked 
on this program.
  It's important that we continue to cooperate with Russia to try to 
reduce proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It's clearly in 
our interests. It is also in their interests. And it is a program that 
has worked and worked quite effectively. Whatever else Russia may be 
doing that we don't like and agree with, there is near-universal praise 
of the cooperation that we received on nonproliferation. I don't think 
it's wise to cut and eliminate this program.
  When the greatest threat that we face right now, as everyone will 
tell you, comes primarily from terrorist non-state actors, and the 
greatest threat that could happen there is if they got their hands on 
weapons of mass destruction, that's what we all worry most about in 
terms of the threat to the United States. A program that is making it 
more difficult for anyone, particularly terrorist groups, to get access 
to weapons of mass destruction, it's a program we certainly should not 
eliminate.
  I urge opposition to this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that when 
we are working with what was once the Soviet Union--now Russia--to try 
to prevent nonproliferation, and we supplied the money to help them 
prevent proliferation in the world of nuclear weapons while at the same 
time they are taking that exact same technology and giving it or 
selling it at great profit many times to our enemies, it just is an 
example of national cognitive dissonance, and it is something that we 
should change as quickly as we can.
  Russia is one of Syria's main arms suppliers, having supplied an 
estimated $1 billion worth of arms, including surface-to-air missiles 
in 2011. It represents a challenge to peace in the region. And, Mr. 
Chairman, we simply have no business continuing to subsidize them if 
we're suggesting that we are trying to prevent proliferation while 
subsidizing their proliferation.
  I would just urge the passage of this amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time as well.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Pearce

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

       In subtitle E of title XXXI, strike section 3156.

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

                              {time}  0120

  Domestic. And what is this for? This is for our nuclear weapons 
programs. This is not for a truck fleet to take things from one side of 
the country to the other. This is our nuclear weapons program.
  This provision that is asked to be struck says that it is for 
domestic national security-related enrichment technology. That means 
that if you're not doing domestic, you're going to have the United 
States be subject to foreign sources. Again, these are critical 
components of our nuclear weapons infrastructure and our nuclear Navy. 
We do not want to have foreign dependence upon a critical 
infrastructure.
  Tom D'Agostino, director of the NNSA, recently came and briefed 
members of the Armed Services Committee and those who had an interest 
in this amendment. And he said, Conclusion: Domestic uranium enrichment 
capability is required to support national security and meet nuclear 
nonproliferation objectives.
  So we have, one, a critical component of nuclear weapons; two, the 
issue of domestic or foreign; three, whether or not it's necessary and 
we need it. Those answer are all yes, which is why we should oppose 
this amendment.
  The next thing is, what does this amendment actually do? This 
amendment, in striking this section, strikes a critical provision where 
it says that the United States, upon spending these dollars for our 
domestic capability, gets a license to the technology. The United 
States gets delivered to it, the technology of this domestic 
production. If this is struck, the domestic production, which the money 
will be spent anyway, no longer has a license.
  Now the reason why we spend it anyway is because this amendment from 
the gentleman from New Mexico deletes section 3156 but it doesn't 
delete the charts on page 992 from the back of section 4701, which has 
the line item in it. The money gets spent anyway, but we lose the 
license.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. After Congress privatized the United States Enrichment 
Corporation in 1996, we quickly learned that it couldn't survive in the 
private sector without continued and repeated bailouts by the taxpayer 
to

[[Page 7374]]

the tune of billions of dollars. This company should actually be 
renamed the United States Earmark Corporation. The government has given 
it free centrifuge technology. The government has given it free uranium 
that it enriches and then it sells below market prices, undercutting 
its free market competitors. The government has paid to clean up its 
radioactive waste. The government has assumed its liabilities. And what 
has happened to the billions of dollars that it has received from the 
taxpayers?
  Well, the entire company is now worth far less than the $150 million 
that is contained in this bill. It may be delisted from the New York 
Stock Exchange and become a penny stock. And after Tuesday's 
announcement of another gift of free uranium for USEC, Standard & 
Poor's downgraded it to junk bond status. J.P. Morgan is now in charge 
of all of its remaining dwindling cash. And when I asked the Treasury 
Department whether the government's support for the government puts 
taxpayers at risk, it said ``yes'' to me.
  We've been told that this earmark is only about getting the tridium 
we need for our nuclear weapons, but that is not true. The treaty that 
governs uranium enrichment technology does not prevent other companies 
from doing the work, and URENCO is in New Mexico anyway--the 
competitor. And even if it did, there are other alternatives. When DOE 
examined its tridium options, it found that down-blending surplus 
highly enriched uranium would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars less than to use this corporation.
  This is a waste of money. There are better alternatives already in 
the United States. There are better technologies that can be used at 
hundreds of millions of dollars less, and we are continuing to pour 
this earmark money down a rat hole and wasting it. We should be 
spending this money on the defense of our Nation.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. How much time do we have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I need to point out this is not an earmark. It 
has already been determined that this is not an earmark. This is a 
question of whether or not the United States of America is going to 
maintain its superiority as the world leader and protect our ability to 
provide for our nuclear security.
  The company in New Mexico, URENCO, is not an American-owned company. 
My colleague from Colorado has already made the comments very clearly. 
From the National Nuclear Security Administration, from the State 
Department, write on down the line, we are required to purchase these 
types of uranium-enriched products from a domestic, indigenous source. 
That's what this bill is about.
  I would be the first one to agree that everything that we're doing in 
this session of Congress has to do with trying to grow our economy and 
create jobs. This is one area where national security is concerned 
where I believe it takes preeminence.
  With that, I urge us to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We continue to hear different arguments. We hear that USEC is 
necessary for national security purposes. It is absolutely not. The 
U.S. Navy confirms that it has enough highly enriched uranium fuel to 
last until 2050. DOE itself declared that at no time in the foreseeable 
future would more highly enriched weapons-grade uranium be needed for 
defense. In March of 2012, the head of NSA testified to the Senate that 
tridium production would not be affected if USEC failed. We're hearing 
arguments that don't stand up to the facts.
  My colleagues claim that USEC funding will protect U.S. intellectual 
property. It will not. USEC has had decades and billions of dollars of 
taxpayer money to create this technology--and has failed. They have 
created 38 machines. Six of those have failed, one catastrophically. 
There is nothing to be gained.
  Our friends are complaining that this amendment does nothing. In 
fact, in January of 2012, Secretary Chu wrote a letter that DOE does 
not have the authority to shift funds around without the consent of 
Congress. With this amendment we're striking that authority.
  Guess what USEC is? USEC is Solyndra on steroids. It is a taxpayer 
bailout of a failed company. USEC is a company that lost $540 million 
in 2011, and paid their chief executive officer $45 million while doing 
it. It's a company that has been downgraded three times in the last 5 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I request that we vote for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

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

  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. The letter that the gentleman from New Mexico 
just placed in the Record concerned fiscal year 2012. This bill is 
about fiscal 2013. And so it's irrelevant. It's fine to have in the 
Record so people can confirm that.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we should remember as a Nation 
that there was a time when we were the only country on Earth that had 
nuclear weapons capability. But that fell into foreign hands and the 
arms race was born. We should also remember that there was a time when 
we produced almost all of our uranium needs for our nuclear power 
plants. Today, we import over 90 percent of that.
  Mr. Chairman, both in terms of national security and in terms of not 
letting a foreign entity have leverage over our nuclear Navy capability 
and our nuclear arms capability, I believe that we should not pass this 
amendment and change this language, because it's

[[Page 7375]]

important that we maintain both our security and our ability to produce 
our needed uranium fuel and highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at 
home.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. All of the names of the companies that have been 
mentioned in this debate are not in this bill. This bill even requires 
competition. It's somewhat irrelevant to have the discussion on 
specific companies.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of national security. This 
amendment would force the United States to be 100 percent reliant on 
the Russian and European suppliers of enriched uranium, a compound 
critical to America's energy and national security needs. That's just 
unacceptable. I don't have anything against the Russians or Europeans, 
our friends, but it would be a strategic malfeasance to rely on them.
  Do not pass this amendment.

                              {time}  0130

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Chabot) having assumed the chair, Mr. Petri, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4310) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________