Right to Habeas Corpus Act

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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.

I rise to claim time in opposition.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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.

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).

I want to thank Chairman Forbes for his commitment and support for the Air National Guard and also thank Chairman McKeon.

This amendment is not about the National Guard or the Air National Guard or even: How are we going to support our Guard? This amendment is about cutting missile defense. If you look at the amendment, it looks to take money from our national security, specifically in the area of our missile defense. Now, this is one amendment of a series of amendments that are coming across from the other side of the aisle that are attempting to cut missile defense.

This occurs at a time when Iran and North Korea continue to increase as a threat to our country. Secretary Gates even said, as he was departing, that North Korea is rising to the level of being a threat to the mainland of the United States--missile defense becoming that much more important.

Coincidentally, as we know, this also comes on the heels of the President's having what people know as an open-mic event when the President was caught surprised that his mic was open so that the American people could hear a conversation that he was having with President Medvedev in which he said that after the election--his last election--that he would have greater flexibility to deal with the issue of missile defense.

Now, the President, in his secret deal with the Russians has not yet told us what it is that he would lessen in our missile defense; but I know, as we look to these amendments, they are consistent with the issue of: Do we have a strong missile defense? Do we not have a strong missile defense? Do we follow the President's lead of a weakening of our national defense and our missile defense?

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.

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.

Thank you, Chairman McKeon.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment.

The Johnson amendment strikes from this bill the call for a study. A study is just the obtaining of knowledge. It strikes in this bill a study on what our options need to be in response to an increasing threat from North Korea. This study is necessary for us to understand what our options are.

What has changed? Why are we concerned about North Korea? Why do we need to pursue these options? One, we know that they most recently have unveiled a road-mobile missile launcher that Secretary Gates has said is an ICBM that puts the United States mainland directly at risk. Secondly, Secretary Panetta testified in front of our committee that there appears to be a link between China and the road-mobile missile launchers that we've seen and perhaps the missile technology, and we know that North Korea has been pursuing nuclear capabilities.

Our normal response to this has been our missile defense capability, where we've tried to bolster our missile-defense capability as North Korea gets increasingly dangerous in its quest to reach the United States with ICBMs and again a nuclear-capable North Korea. But we have grave concerns as to whether or not our missile-defense system would be there in order to be able to protect us. That's why we need to pursue additional options, because we continue to have from the other side of the aisle amendments to reduce our missile defense.

At the same time we know that the President most recently was caught in an open-mic discussion with the President of Russia, President Medvedev, indicating that after the election had occurred in the United States, when he would have, as he described it, more flexibility, that he would address the issue of missile defense. So we know that the President in his discussions with Russia has a secret deal that's supposed to be unveiled after the election that can't see the light of day during this election, holding the American people hostage to what its terms are. As this secret deal proceeds, this President could continue to weaken our missile-defense system as we have the rise of North Korea.

Mr. Franks in his amendment in our committee merely asks for information and for a study. What should our response be as we see North Korea reaching for capability to reach the United States? We know of their nuclear capability. We've seen them unveil their road-mobile missile launchers, and we know that this President, in his secret deals with the Russians, has said, I'm looking for greater flexibility in missile defense.

Our only defense currently for North Korea and its quest for missile technology that can reach the United States--this is important that we rise to the issue of asking the question, as Mr. Franks has, what do we need to do, especially in light of the President's secret deal with the Russians.

Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to redundant reporting and requests on items that are already available. Section 1045 of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, condition nine of the Senate's resolution of ratification for the New START Treaty, already requires almost exactly the same report as this amendment would require. But the President--not the Secretary of Defense or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--is required to provide this report forward.

The report is required to be submitted whenever there is a shortfall in funding from the section 1251 plan levels. Because the FY12 omnibus appropriations resulted in a 5 percent shortfall, the reporting requirement was triggered, and the report was due in February. Congress has yet to receive the report. So perhaps one of the things that we need to do is to just have the administration file the reports that are already being requested instead of requiring an additional report.

This amendment is duplicative of an existing reporting requirement. We think that we should work together to ensure that the administration provides us with the reports that are already due.

We too have very serious concerns as to how this administration is moving forward with its New START implementation. Part of the concerns that we have, obviously, is that the preamble to the New START agreement includes a statement that the Russians state that our missile defense system is part of the overall effect of the balance between the two nations. The administration says that the preamble, referring to missile defense, does not apply. But yet we see the President in an open-mic discussion with Medvedev saying, After the election, I will have greater flexibility on missile defense.

So there is some confusion as to whether or not this administration believes that missile defense and New START are tied together. We certainly are going to look for a greater illumination by this President of what his secret deal is and whether or not it involves New

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.

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

So we can say, Well, what does Vladimir know? Well, we know that Putin said in a March 2, 2012, interview with RIA Novosti about the President and his negotiations on missile events:

They made some proposals to us which we virtually agreed to

and asked them to get them down on paper. They made a

proposal to us just during the talks, they told us: We would

offer you this, this, and that. We did not expect this, but I

said, we agree.

This is Putin saying this--We agree.

Now that's a deal. When the other side says, we agree, that's a deal.

Do we know what the terms are? No. That's a secret. So a secret deal on missile defense is something we know is happening. You can go to YouTube and see the President talking to Medvedev. You can see him saying, I'm going to go tell Vladimir. You can look up Mr. Putin's interview on March 2, 2012, when he says his response was, we agree.

And what's the President's response when we ask, What are the terms of this deal, Mr. President--the terms that you won't let the Republican see? He says, Nothing.

I want to thank Mr. Price.

Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what he has just said about the importance of this amendment. This amendment merely says that the President shall not unilaterally do these reductions without it being pursuant to a treaty or a statute passed by Congress, just that Congress has to be involved.

This provision parallels a provision in the new START Implementation Act. It recognizes the concern that Congress has from the information that is coming out of the administration. The Associated Press just reported that the Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons following just on new START, which has additional reductions, coupled with the President's open-mic statements that he wants greater flexibility on missile defense in a secret deal with the Russians. You have to come to a point where Congress has to be concerned that they be in the loop, that the President not take unilateral actions to both reduce our nuclear weapons at the same time that he's negotiating to diminish our missile defense system with the Russians as part of his secret deal.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 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.

I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment.

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment if he has any more speakers?

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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.

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

Secondly, as written, some provisions are open to very wide interpretation. For example, there is a provision that provides a 12- month protection from foreclosure to those who are separated or retired because of a disability and rated by VA as permanently and totally disabled.

Since it's very rare that a servicemember would actually leave the military with a 100 percent rating from the VA and the VA adjudication process, as most of us know, can take months, if not years in some cases, how would this provision be implemented? That is left unclear in this amendment. For example, would a bank be required to give back a foreclosed home if the veteran was found several years later to be rated as totally and permanently disabled?

The amendment also contains a significant increase in penalties for violating SCRA provisions. And again, while I don't necessarily oppose the change, I think we need to hear from the legal community on these provisions.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.