Floor Statements

I am going to have to be quick because, first of all, I want to address the issue about the so-called ``open mic incident.''

I do thank Mr. Turner for accurately describing what happened, but he is wrong on one thing, which is that the President did, in fact, respond as to what he meant. He sent a letter to Mr. Turner on April 13, explaining what he meant.

I don't have any time. I'm sorry. I don't have any time. I can't yield.

I read the letter.

What it says is basically what is obvious to everybody, which is that the President has a different opinion. The President believes that Russia can be a partner to reduce the missile threat and that he can possibly work with them to develop missile defense systems that they don't feel threatened by. It's no big secret. It's what the President has said.

Generally, the other side doesn't want to have anything to do with Russia--okay, fine--but they are a factor. The President wants to figure out some way in which we can work with someone who is no longer our enemy to reduce this threat. There is no great mystery here. That's what he is talking about.

I want to support Mr. Polis' amendment as well and say that the problem is that we are going to need the ground-based missile system. It's funded in the President's budget to a certain amount of money, but because it has been missing so often, there was a limited amount of money that you can spend testing this. It's not ready. They're spending money testing it. They just don't need this additional money.

So we're not saying that we don't need missile defense. We're spending money on it. We're spending a lot of money on it, and we're going to develop that.

Then the point on Russia is very simple and straightforward in that the President would like to negotiate an understanding with Russia so that we are not in conflict with one another. There are many who don't want us to have that conversation, and I believe Mr. Turner is in that camp. The President would like to have that conversation. That's all he meant, and he explained it in this letter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I wanted to take this moment while we have a little extra time on this one to talk about Afghanistan and to express our opinions since we weren't able to get our amendment ruled in order.

It's important for all the Members on the floor to understand that the base bill has language on Afghanistan, and the base bill calls for us keeping 68,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 and then makes unspecified requests to make sure that we have sufficient troops to accomplish a series of missions after 2014. It very aggressively calls for a large troop presence in Afghanistan for an extended period of time.

I, and many Members on this side of the aisle as well as some on the other, oppose that. We do not think that keeping that many troops in Afghanistan for that long is in the best interest of our national security or our country, and the bulk of the country agrees with us on that. Unfortunately, we weren't offered the opportunity to offer our amendment that offers what I think is a better approach.

I am also going to reluctantly oppose Representative Lee's amendment, the only alternative we were given, which is to pull us out as fast as we safely and responsibly can. Representative Lee's amendment does not allow us to maintain any sort of counterterrorism mission, which I do think is critically important. The amendment we wanted to offer was to put us on a more aggressive, quicker drawdown pace to speed up the transition to the Afghan forces for security while enabling us, with a relatively small number of troops, to maintain that counterterrorism issue.

We have trained over 350 Afghan national security forces. They have taken over responsibility for an increasing number of provinces and districts

throughout the country and for an increasing number of security responsibilities. It is time to make that transition.

My objection to the base bill is it doesn't give us the opportunity to make that transition because it mistakenly believes that the key to Afghan stability is keeping as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan for as long as possible. Having that large of a foreign military force--as we have seen, there's been a huge increase in attacks by Afghan forces on U.S. forces. We had the Koran burning incident. We had the horrible incident of a soldier going off and allegedly killing 16 or 17 civilians in Afghanistan.

Our presence at this point, in and of itself, is destabilizing. And what we want is a responsible drawdown of that force. We don't want to do it hastily in a way that jeopardizes the mission or jeopardizes Afghanistan. That was the purpose of the amendment that I, along with Congressman McGovern and others, authored. And it is unfortunate that for reasons I cannot understand, the majority refused to allow us the opportunity to debate that.

Now, as I said earlier, I speculated that part of the reason is because they know that the American people agree with us. It's a debate they don't want to have and a vote they don't want to take. And I respect that. A number of my colleagues have joked with me over the years, The toughest part of this job is voting; that's when people actually see where you stand.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

There have been many times where I wished I didn't have to do that, but it comes with the job and particularly on something as important as Afghanistan.

I don't think anyone would dispute that the most important thing about this bill, the Armed Services Committee bill, this year is what's going on in Afghanistan. The single most important issue, and we're denied the opportunity to have a vote on what I think is a much better plan, rather, leaving in place in the base bill a call for having 68,000 troops in Afghanistan until the end of 2014.

It is very simple: the majority is in favor of a larger troop presence for a longer period of time. We are in favor of a smaller troop presence for a shorter period of time. I believe it's the better policy. I regret that we will not have the opportunity to vote on it; but as we go into conference, I will strenuously argue this point. It is a major flaw, I believe, in an otherwise very strong bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just say that no part of the President's plan calls for having at least 68,000 troops through December 31, 2014. If you had struck that out of the bill, that would change things. But having that number in there makes an enormous difference.

And with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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).

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the balance of our time.

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.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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.

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).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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).

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).

Can I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the committee members, and the staff who, once again, did an outstanding bipartisan job in putting together this bill.

One of the paramount duties of our Congress is to provide for the common defense and, most importantly, make sure that our men and women who serve us in uniform have all the support they need to fulfill the missions that we ask them to do. I believe this bill meets that standard.

I thank the chairman for his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion with me and my staff. I believe we have upheld the tradition of this committee and have shown that Congress can, in fact, work together to get things done, and I always appreciate that opportunity.

Most importantly, this bill prioritizes supporting the warfighter. We still have around 70,000 U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting the war. We need to make sure they have the equipment and support they need to do that. I believe this bill meets that mission.

This bill also recognizes the threats we face and adequately funds the need to meet those threats, most importantly, the threat from terrorist and nonstate actors like al Qaeda and their affiliates. We have strong support for the Special Operations Command as well as for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to make sure that we can continue to defeat the terrorist networks that would threaten us. Those are the top priorities.

We also make sure that our troops get the 1.7 percent pay raise they need and get the support for both the individual troops and for their families that are necessary to continue to serve us. We must always remember that we have an all-volunteer military. We are dependent upon the willingness of people to volunteer. We must make sure that we honor that service. We have done that, and we have done it quite well, to the point where we have the finest military the world has ever seen, and the support from this Congress is critical to maintaining that.

While there is much in this bill that I think is excellent and that I support, I will note just one caution as we go forward: Our bill is $8 billion over the Budget Control Act. It is over what the Senate is going to mark up. At some point, we are going to have to rationalize that and figure out how to make our national security strategy and our defense budget work in an era where our budgets are coming down.

We have a sizable deficit, and I believe it's critical that we put together a strategic plan and plan for the future. It's not enough to go year by year. We don't want to wake up 2 or 3 years from now and find out that we've funded more programs than we can afford to complete. We need a strategic vision, and we're going to have to work to get to that number and get to that cooperation with the Senate.

I also want to emphasize the importance of an amendment that I plan to offer that would change how we handle indefinite detention in military custody. I do not believe the executive branch should have that power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people captured or arrested here in the U.S. I believe the United States Constitution and our due process system provides plenty of protections. We have arrested and convicted over 400 terrorists using that system. We have not used the indefinite detention in military custody power given to the President, and we have been able to protect ourselves. It's important that we protect the Constitution and that amendment is ruled in order, so I would hope that the full House would pass it.

I am very pleased with the bill. Again, I thank the chairman for his outstanding work in making sure that this bill supports the men and women in uniform who so bravely serve us. I believe it meets that objective. And I appreciate working with Mr. McKeon, all of his staff, and all of the members of the committee.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis) ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, can you give us an update on the time left on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is the ranking member on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

There are no additional rights contained in this amendment. We have the rights that are in the Constitution that are the due process. The gentleman's comment that additional rights are being granted by this is patently false. The Constitution is clear. It provides all persons in the United States the same rights. All we are doing is going back to the Constitution and repealing the authority of the President to circumvent those rights and reduce them. That's a very critical point that we will talk further about tomorrow.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

We do not have further speakers at this point, and I believe we're prepared to close.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, I want to again thank the chairman and thank the folks who worked on this bill. As you see from the debate, there are a lot of controversial issues that wound up in this bill, issues of enormous importance, from our policy towards countries like Afghanistan and Iran, to civil liberties and on. It takes a great deal of work on behalf of the staff and a great deal of commitment to a bipartisan spirit to work through that, have fair debates, have the votes, carry on, and always remember that underlying it all is

making sure that we fund the defense of this country, and we fund the troops who are tasked with protecting it. I think our committee and our staff do an outstanding job of dealing with those challenges.

I want to talk again about the indefinite-detention issue. The gentleman who spoke a couple of minutes ago raised some concerns, and I think it gives us a pretty good preview of what some of the opposition to that amendment is going to be tomorrow. I just want to counter those arguments.

The first notion that ``additional rights'' are being granted as a result of this is quite simply absurd. What this says is: the due process that's in the Constitution is what you get if you are arrested. What we have done in this body is empowered the President to get rid of those rights in certain cases and indefinitely detain people without charge in many instances and without trial. What we're saying is that it is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and it is not necessary. President Bush did not use that authority for the last 5 years he was in the administration, President Obama has not used it, and yet we have protected this country. To give away that basic due- process right, if you are arrested--that you have the basic rights in the Constitution--is no small thing, and it is not necessary.

Lastly, I want to talk about this argument that somehow this will incentivize terrorists to come to the U.S. I've heard a lot of arguments. That has got to be the dumbest one I've ever heard. First of all, it is sad to say there are many terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda who are trying very hard to come here and inflict harm on us right now. That's why we have all kinds of efforts in this bill and in Homeland Security to stop them. They are not going to become any less incentivized to do that whether this bill passes or not. Sadly, we must deal with that.

Second of all, they are certainly not going to want to come here and operate as opposed to operating in someplace outside of the U.S. where we don't have as much reach. That argument has nothing to do with this amendment. This is a very straightforward argument I think we should have. Is this a power that the President needs to have to keep us safe? It is not. It is undeniably an enormous amount of power to go outside of the Constitution, to go outside of due process, and empower the executive branch to indefinitely detain somebody without the due process that we've developed over the course of 230 years. That is an enormous step for this Congress to take.

We have to ask ourselves the question: Is it necessary? It clearly is not. We have arrested, prosecuted, and stopped countless terrorist attacks over the course of the last 8 years. Over 400 terrorists were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in this country, such as Abjulmutallab, who was the underwear bomber in Detroit in December of 2008. He was stopped, arrested, interrogated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison.

We have a justice system and a law enforcement system in this country that is more than adequate to meet the threat. We do not have to undermine the Constitution to do that. That will be the core of the argument. I look forward to those who are opposed to it arguing why that doesn't keep us safe. I think it will be a great debate, and I'll urge people to vote for it. But I hope we'll have that public debate on the floor tomorrow. It is an incredibly important issue no matter which side of it you're on. It is an important issue that is worthy of this full House having a full and robust debate, and I look forward to doing that tomorrow.

Again, I recognize all of the important things that are in this bill. I'm confident when we come to the amendment process, we will have a bill worthy of support of this House, and I will then urge Members to support it so we can fund the defense of this country and fund the brave men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces, and make sure they have all the support they need to do what we ask them to do in defending this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate Shana Chandler and Brandon West on the birth of their son, Hudson Scott West. Hudson Scott was born this morning, March 29, 2012, at 1:32 a.m., in Washington, DC.

Weighing eight pounds and ten ounces, Hudson Scott measured twenty- one and one-quarter inches long. I understand that both he and his mother are doing very well.

I am excited by this blessing, and I am extremely happy for Shana, Brandon, and the West and Chandler families. I wish them all the very best.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 27, 2012, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 73 (on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 347).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Paul Bascomb for being named a recipient of the 2011 FBI Director's Community Leadership Award in recognition of his work on crime prevention.

Since 1990, the FBI has honored local leaders and organizations with the Director's Community Leadership Award. Honorees are recognized for their efforts in making extraordinary strides in the areas of crime prevention, violence prevention, and education in their communities. Every year, each FBI field office selects one individual or organization to receive this prominent award.

As the chair of the African-American Community Advisory Council to the Seattle Police Department and a board member for the East Precinct Crime Prevention Coalition, Mr. Bascomb has been a leader for cooperation between the African-American community and local law enforcement. Through open and considerate conversation, Mr. Bascomb and the African-American Community Advisory Council work with the Seattle Police Department to give diverse communities access to the police department and promote cultural competency training for officers.

Mr. Bascomb served as a correctional officer for more than 16 years in the Washington State juvenile justice system. In 2011, he completed the rigorous Citizen's Academy Program, which gives community leaders an overview of the FBI. This in-depth study includes practical exercises, discussion of case studies and legal issues, and presentations from specialized units.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I recognize the accomplishments of Mr. Paul Bascomb. His dedication to improving the relationship between law enforcement and local African-American communities sets a positive example for everyone who works for crime prevention.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Mt. View Edgewood Water Company, of Edgewood, Washington and its General Manager, Marc Marcantonio, for winning the gold medal at the National Great American Water Taste Test and being judged the best tasting water in the United States.

Each year, the National Rural Water Association sponsors the Great American Water Taste Test to honor small community drinking water supplies from across the United States who provide the public with safe, clean, and affordable water. The goal of the competition is to judge great tasting water that comes directly from the tap.

Prior to the national contest, water providers participate in state events. The Mt. View Edgewood Water Company competed against 19 other water samples from all over the State of Washington to be named the Washington State winner at the Evergreen Rural Water of Washington Fall Conference and Tradeshow. The company was honored for the water's clarity, bouquet, and taste.

The Mt. View Edgewood Water Company has now earned itself the honor of winning the gold medal at the National competition against 40 other water companies. Judges tasted unidentified samples of water and ranked the samples based on clarity, bouquet, and taste before naming the Mt. View Edgewood Water Company the 2012 Winner of the Great American Water Taste Test.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I recognize the Mt. View Edgewood Water Company and Marc Marcantonio for winning this national competition and providing customers with the best tasting water in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 6, 2012, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 34 (on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 537) and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 35 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1162, as amended).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Melanie Dressel, President and

C.E.O. of the Tacoma, Washington-based Columbia Bank, for being named a Community Banker of the Year by American Banker magazine.

Melanie joined Columbia Bank in 1993 and ten years later was named its Chief Executive Officer. Under Melanie's leadership, Columbia Bank acquired five other banks, increasing the bank's assets by fifty percent. These actions have helped Dressel transform Columbia Bank into a regional power.

Despite the bank's growth, Melanie has remained close to traditional community banking practices. Columbia Bank is committed to giving individuals and businesses in the Pacific Northwest a safe, secure, and customer-focused banking option.

Throughout her tenure, Columbia Bank has consistently been honored as one of the region's best places to work. The bank is regularly featured on the Puget Sound Business Journal's ``Washington's Best Workplaces'' list and listed as ``One of Washington's 100 Best Companies to Work For'' by Seattle Magazine. Even during challenging economic times, it is encouraging to see Columbia Bank going the extra mile to ensure employee satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Melanie Dressel. Her dedication to community banking has helped grow Columbia Bank to provide exemplary service its customers, employees, and our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Wendy Freitag for being named a Champion of Change in recognition of her work to prepare Washington communities for unexpected events and developing innovative and creative approaches to emergency preparedness and response.

As the External Affairs Manager for the Washington State Military Department's Emergency Management Division, Wendy Freitag oversees statewide emergency management outreach programs. These programs focus on disaster preparedness public education, private-public partnerships and public information programs. She encourages all residents of Washington State to take preparedness steps in their households and communities before a disaster strikes.

Wendy and her team continue to work on designs for outreach campaigns and programs to empower individuals and organizations to proactively prepare for disasters. They know that in order to effectively respond and recover from disasters, work must be done at the community level. Her team uses a combination of reason and emotion to engage and inspire all community members to become more disaster resilient.

Wendy has tremendous experience in the public and private sectors developing innovative solutions for preparedness. Prior to joining the Emergency Management Division, Wendy worked for a decade on physical security, national crisis management and business continuity projects and teams at Microsoft and the former Washington Mutual Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in recognizing the dedication of Wendy Freitag to helping all Washington residents be better prepared for disasters.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 23, 2012, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 5 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3117, as amended) and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 6 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1141).

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 13, 2011, I was detained in a meeting and was unable to be present for a vote in a series of recorded votes. I request the record show that had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 917 (on the question of consideration of H. Res. 491).

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 20, 2011, I was unable to be present for a series of recorded votes. I request the record show that had I been present, I would have voted: ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 947 (on the motion to table H. Res. 504), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 831 (on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3630), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 832 (on agreeing to H. Res. 501).

Mr. Speaker, some have raised concerns about potential ambiguities in section 2207 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act and I wanted to provide clarification on some of these matters. It was asked whether section 2207 restricts the obligation of funds for contract modifications to ongoing projects or awarding minor supporting contracts required to complete projects that have already begun. First, it is not the intent of the bill to restrict the Department of Defense from modifying current contracts or awarding required ancillary contracts in support of active projects because those prior-year funds have already been obligated and therefore are not subject to the restrictions set forth in section 2207. We understand that minor additional obligations may be required to complete those previously authorized projects, and we do not object to such minor obligations as long as they are within the scope of the original authorizations.

Others have asked me, can the Department of Defense use any funding to continue planning and program management activities or begin new studies that will help inform or develop any of the five requirements that are outlined in section 2207 that must be met before further funds are obligated? The language in section 2207 is not indented to restrict the Department of Defense's ability to use prior-year funding to conduct program management activities, planning and further studies or complete ongoing studies that will better inform or allow the Department to complete work on the five requirements that are called out in section 2207 of this bill. This provision is not intended to stop the military buildup, but there are questions that remain outstanding.

I am committed to working with the Gentlelady from Guam to continue to address these issues regarding the stationing of Marine Corps forces on Guam.

No, I am not. I support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I, too, want to thank the chairman, Mr. McKeon. We always say that our committee is the most bipartisan committee in Congress. We strongly believe that. Republicans and Democrats on that committee are committed to doing our job, which is to provide for the troops and make sure that our national security is protected in this country.

Mr. McKeon was an excellent partner to work with. It's a model for what happens when you sit down and try to legislate together, and something that I think could be emulated by many more committees and on many more issues.

So, thank you, Buck. It's been great working with you on this. I think we've produced a good product.

I want to, upfront, address the issue that most people have focused on in the rule and elsewhere, and that is the issue surrounding detainee policy. I have never seen an issue that was more distorted in terms of what people have said is in the bill versus what is actually in the bill. Number one, habeas corpus is protected, not touched in this bill. Pursuant to court rulings, anyone picked up pursuant to the authorization for the use of military force, has habeas corpus rights. That is not touched categorically.

Now I understand that a lot of people have a problem with what is current law, and current law is something we've been debating ever since 9/11. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have taken the position that indefinite detention is an option. In two cases before the Supreme Court, the Hamdi case most notably, a U.S. citizen was briefly subject to indefinite detention. The Fourth Circuit Court upheld that right. That is current law. And I actually share some of the concerns amongst my colleagues about that current law.

But this bill doesn't affect that. We, in fact, make it clear in our category on military detention that it is not meant to apply to U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens. Read the bill. It is in there. Nothing in this section shall apply to U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens.

Now if you have a problem with indefinite detention, that is a problem with current law. Defeating this bill will not change that, won't change it at all. But I'll tell you what it will do. It will undermine the ability of our troops to do their job, to do what we've asked them to do. If we defeat this bill, we defeat a pay raise for the troops, we defeat MILCON projects for the troops, and we defeat endless support programs that are absolutely vital to their doing their jobs. And I don't think I need to remind this body that 100,000 of those troops are in harm's way in Afghanistan right now facing a determined enemy in the middle of a fight. It is not the time to cut off their support over an issue that isn't going to be fixed by this bill.

And let me emphasize that just one more time. Current law as interpreted by the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the judiciary of this country creates the problems that everybody is talking about, not this bill. We put language in on detention policy because we think it's about time the legislative branch at least said something on the subject. But we are not the ones that created that problem.

I urge support for this bill.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

One issue I want to address is the issue of military construction projects for Guam. There is some limiting language in this bill on that issue based on the fact that the Department of Defense is rethinking their posture in Asia between Okinawa, Guam, and other places. One thing I want to make clear is that Guam is a critically important part of our Asia presence. They have presence of our military there now. The language in the bill is not meant to cut off existing military construction projects or indeed other ones that may not be related to this. I want to make sure that that's clear.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a very important member of the Armed Services Committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield for a point of clarification?

That person----

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Yes. That was a huge priority for me in the conference committee. We worked hard to make sure that that happened, and we absolutely protect those rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

I am also going to reserve until it is time to close. We are down to our last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, let me say we had hearings on this last February and March. We had language in our bill which we passed in May. This issue has been thoroughly debated. Now, I've heard a couple of times that the Judiciary Committee has not heard this issue. This has been going on for 10 years under both Democratic and Republican control. I don't know why the Judiciary Committee has not chosen to have hearings on this issue, but that's hardly our fault. We have. We've had endless discussions on this. It has, in fact, been debated.

And let me also say that I am very concerned about these very issues. On our committee, I have been one of the strongest voices of concern. I support closing Guantanamo. I know a lot of people don't. I think we should have all of the suspects here in the U.S. and that we should try them. I also strongly believe that the criminal justice system has to be part of how we combat al Qaeda. I have heard the argument. People say, this is a war, not a criminal matter. Why are we bothering with things like article III courts? I disagree with that and have spoken out publicly and strongly and in many cases even when popular support has been on the other side of issues like closing of Guantanamo.

I care deeply about this issue; and from the very start, I fought hard to protect precisely the things Mr. Nadler is referencing. I fought hard in the conference committee to make sure they were protected, and they were.

Now the argument is we don't know exactly what it means; so, therefore, we should do nothing. It is very true that law is unsettled. That, again, has nothing to do with this bill. There are court cases ongoing; there are habeas corpus cases continuously happening as a result of Guantanamo; and it's being interpreted by courts and also by the executive branch. I want to make it also clear that the judiciary and the executive branch would always rather that we do nothing. They would always rather forget that we are supposed to be a coequal branch of government, but we are.

After 10 years and after countless hearings, the legislative branch should say something about this. And what we said we said very, very carefully to simply codify what the executive branch and the judiciary have said about the AUMF and to make absolutely clear--and this language is not ambiguous--that military custody in the U.S. does not apply to U.S. citizens and does not apply to lawful resident aliens.

Again, the problems that people have--and I share some of them--are with existing law, not with this bill. Defeat this bill, and it won't change a piece of that existing law that we've heard about and that we should all be concerned about. But defeat this bill, and it will make it very difficult for our troops to get the support they need.

Now, I've been around this process long enough to know that there ain't no guarantee of fixing anything. And if we defeat this bill, our troops will be left to wonder if they're going to get that pay raise, if those military support projects are going to get built, if our troops are going to get the support they need. And I don't know the answer to that question.

So there's a ton of very, very good stuff in this bill that supports our troops, that addresses Members' concerns on issues like sexual assault within the military and a whole host of others. We need to support this bill to support our troops.

And the issues that folks are concerned about on detention, again, that is existing law. Whether this bill passes or not, those controversies will continue.

This is an excellent piece of legislation, well-crafted and worked hard by a lot of folks. It deserves an overwhelming ``yes'' vote.

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