Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for bringing this very, very important amendment forward. I think the

most important thing that we can do for those who serve in the military is show them our support in every conceivable way, and especially when they come home from service. Iraq and Afghanistan have been very, very difficult fights. The men and women in our military have fought bravely and amazingly. Every time I meet one of them, I am just in awe of how great our military is, how brave they are, and what a tremendous job they have done for us; but it is really important that we don't forget that here at home.

A statistic that I have heard over and over again is that it is really only 1 percent of the population in the United States who is actually participating in this war. It is critically important that the rest of us remember it, support those who fought in every way possible. I can think of no better way to help make sure that happens than the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas, to give them a day when we all think about it and we all remember what they have done. It is critical that we do that every single day. This will help in that process.

I thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment, and I urge support.

I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank Mr. Runyan for bringing this to our attention. He has explained it very well, and I think this body should support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. I have no opposition. I support it, and I appreciate his bringing it to our attention on the committee. I urge the body to pass the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I do oppose the amendment, and I will yield to my colleagues to explain our side.

I will begin by yielding 1 minute to the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I have only been yielding 1 minute at a time. I had 5; I yielded 4. How do I get down to 45 seconds?

I didn't make an opening statement.

I disagree with that but I'll live with it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern amendment, because I believe it puts us on the best path to successfully completing our mission in Afghanistan. I think it is very reasoned and very well thought out.

One of the keys to successfully completing this mission is to hand over responsibility to the Afghan people for their security and for their government. The McGovern amendment does not say pull all the troops out now at the end of the month or at the end of the year. It says we must begin, we must put in place a plan for drawing down so we can shift that responsibility.

I also agree with some of my colleagues who oppose the amendment. I think our men and women in the Armed Forces in the last 6 months to a year have made enormous progress in Afghanistan. The surge of troops that President Obama called for has made a big difference and has put us in a better position to be successful in Afghanistan. But the genius of the McGovern amendment is to recognize that there is also a trap in that, because if we stay too long, the Afghan Government becomes dependent upon us in a way that stops them from being independent.

Our goal, our mission in Afghanistan, is clear, despite many who say it isn't. We want a government in Afghanistan that can stand so that the Taliban and al Qaeda are not able to come back into that country. That is our goal, we're making progress towards it, but we will not complete that mission until the responsibility for that is turned over to the Afghan people. To do that, we need a plan and we need to recognize that that is the goal.

That is why the McGovern amendment calls for that plan, calls for us to step up negotiations with folks on the other side, between the Afghan Government and some of the Taliban leaders, which have been bearing fruit of late, so that we can begin that transition and bring our troops home and recognize the success that they've had.

A permanent or even lengthy occupation of a Muslim nation with U.S. troops is not going to work. We need a plan to properly disengage. That is how we will achieve what I think we all agree is the mission in Afghanistan.

I urge support for the McGovern amendment, and I thank him for bringing it. I think we need a plan for making that transition so we can have the success that we all want in Afghanistan.

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

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I believe, if I am correct, this is the last amendment in the process.

I just want to thank Chairman McKeon, his staff, for their outstanding leadership. As has been said many times but cannot be emphasized enough, this committee prides itself on being bipartisan, and Mr. McKeon and his staff have more than upheld that tradition. We appreciate that.

We have worked together on a large number of issues, also worked together with Members of the Congress not just on the committee, as we have seen with many of the amendments processed. We have been able to include the ideas from a great many Members, both Republican and Democrat, from across this House. And I feel we have produced an outstanding product as a result.

I also want to take a moment to recognize this is the last markup or last House Defense bill we will be sending with Secretary Gates as our Secretary of Defense. And I want to honor him for his service. He has served seven, maybe eight Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, has done an outstanding job for this country in all of those roles, and in particular as Secretary of Defense for the last 5 years. His leadership has been outstanding for this country. I will also note that he is retiring to the State of Washington. So that, too, shows great judgment on his part. We appreciate it's been great working with him. He will be missed.

We are excited to start working with the new Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta, as soon as he gets confirmed and moves into that role.

So I thank the chairman. And I guess I want to conclude by thanking my staff. This is my first time as the ranking member on this committee. It is a great honor that the caucus gave me, and I absolutely could not have gotten it done without the help of the staff that we have on the Armed Services Committee, both minority and majority for that matter. So I thank them for their help and their assistance.

I urge support for the bill, and I again thank the chairman. It has been great working with him on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I support the amendment being offered.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition.

I do rise to oppose this amendment. I am very sympathetic to the direction that the sponsor is headed--the notion that we need to make sure that if people see something that is a threat to them, or the service, or to our national interests at all, they should feel free reporting it.

The problem I have with this amendment is current law protects that. We have current statute with whistleblower protection that very clearly says that if you have any reason to believe that something is going on that is counterproductive or detrimental to the United States' interests or security, you are free to report that to the appropriate superiors. That law is there and is protected.

Now I will agree with the sponsor that people nonetheless are reluctant to come forward and provide that information. But what we need to do is we need to educate people about that protection being there in the current law.

What this amendment does is broadens that to the point where it's going to sweep a lot of stuff up that we don't want to hear about. It isn't necessarily going to make it any more likely that what we want to hear about is going to be reported by saying ``ideologically based threats or actions.'' That is beyond broad, it almost is beyond definition. It is the freedom to say anything about anyone any time with this protection, which I don't think we want, which I think would undermine the broader mission.

So the current law makes it clear. If you are a servicemember who sees a threat or perceives a threat for any reason, ideologically based or otherwise, frankly I don't see why it makes any difference whether or not it's ideologically based; we want it reported.

So that is current law, it's protected. We need to make sure that everyone, not just servicemembers, but everyone in society feels free to report such threats to the appropriate authorities.

This amendment is overly broad and would cause more trouble than it would solve. So, therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge the body to do so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Chair, just to close, I agree with the gentleman's remarks.

Let me just say if I thought that there was the tiniest little bit possibility that this amendment would prevent the type of tragedy that happened at Fort Hood, I would support it unquestionably, but I don't believe it will. The concerns, the back and forth about whether or not to report something that is concerning, they exist, they need to be dealt with. They will exist whether or not this amendment is passed.

We need to work to educate people to report threats, but making it ideologically based, I think, opens up more problems and shifts the focus away from what we need. And what we need is whether the threat is ideological or whatever the cause, we need to encourage people to go to their superiors, report it, and make sure that they are better safe than sorry. I would encourage that, but I don't think this amendment does that. Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of reasons. First of all, I'm curious about the ``we're not actually going to fund it out of DOD, we will fund the money somewhere else in conference'' argument because it's funded out of DOD right now. Unless this is now being offered as a sense of Congress with no money attached to it, in a minute I would be curious to hear exactly how that works.

But beyond that, this is not what is in the best interests of the children of our servicemembers. To give them a $7,500 voucher to go get special needs education is a license for them not to get the education they need. As everyone in this body knows, the costs of

special needs children can sometimes be as much as $100,000 a year to our public schools. There are some children out there who have some very, very strong needs.

Fortunately, because of the IDEA, the public schools in this country are 100 percent obligated to meet that need. Talk to any school superintendent who has to deal with this, it's an enormous cost, but it's also an enormous benefit to these children. They have to meet those needs, and if they don't, it is precisely the parent who has the law on his or her side to say the public school must meet that requirement.

If you give them a $7,500 voucher and send them off to whatever private school is out there, they are not subject to those same requirements. They do not have to meet that same dollar value. What you are doing is you are undermining the education for these special needs children in a way that could be very detrimental to our families.

Now, we had a very long debate on this in the Armed Services Committee. This amendment was defeated on a bipartisan basis in committee for a variety of different reasons. I want to make it clear, it was stated throughout, how can you not care about the children of our servicemembers, and more than one Member on our side said, we do. This is not what this is about. We absolutly care about the children of our servicemembers. We want them to get the best education possible. But taking special needs families, giving them a $7,500 voucher and sending them out into the public and private school world and saying, good luck, is not what is in the best interests of parents with special needs children. It simply isn't. They are not getting the type of protections that they have under the law if they go out in that situation.

I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I find that last argument interesting to say that they move around a lot. I think that is very true. I think they do, and that is a challenge. And they don't have time to make all of these decisions. But they do have time to take a $7,500 voucher and search across all the different schools to see which private schools are going to take it. Because keep in mind, that's another critical aspect of this. Private schools do not have to accept a single solitary student. They don't. You show up with a $7,500 voucher and they say, we're sorry, your child is going to cost more than that. They just say no and move on.

Public schools do have to accept these children and do have to fund it. I really do believe that this will be a step in the wrong direction. The cost is also going to be an issue. We are going to have to find the money for this somewhere. It's not going to improve the education or the lives of our servicemembers and their families, and it is going to wind up costing money.

Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote;

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

I have no speakers at this time; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I'm happy to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this may not be the best way to get at this problem, but this is a problem. There is nothing wrong with competition, but what's happening right now with a lot of DOD contracts is not competition. The DOD has gone in, in a very arbitrary way, picked large contractors from a long ways away, and not even allowed, in many instances, local contractors to compete for that work.

This is a very real problem. It's a bipartisan problem. We had a Republican Member testify before the Armed Services Committee about his concerns about this. They are driving work away from local contractors and away from local workers, not allowing them to compete for that work by showing a bias in favor of a large, one-size-fits-all contractor. Not good for the Department of Defense.

Also, with all of our bases, the local community is a critical support structure for that base. Once you take that out, once you take local workers, local contractors out of the equation, it makes it that much more difficult to get the local community to give the base the support that it deserves. This is not competition as it's currently constructed. I applaud the gentleman for offering his amendment. I urge support, and I urge that this committee look more closely at this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is a very reasonable request. I think making sure that minority-and women-owned businesses are protected is an important part of building a strong economy and a strong country, and it is reflected in many different aspects of Federal law, to try and make sure that opportunities are made available for women- and minority- owned businesses.

I will also add that this amendment does not presume that outsourcing is harmful to women and minority-owned businesses; it simply wants to gauge the effect. It is quite possible the effect is positive, and it is going to create an opportunity for them that would not

otherwise be created. But in making those decisions, the impact on women- and minority-owned businesses is an important part of that decision, and I believe should be reflected.

So this amendment is not meant in any way to restrict outsourcing. There are a lot of different decisions that have to be made in doing that. It just says that when you do that, keep this important consideration in mind.

I urge support for the amendment. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for bringing it to the committee's attention.

I claim the time in opposition.

I will begin by yielding 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 myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition for a very simple reason.

As the gentleman said in his opening remarks in favor of the amendment, he does not wish to micromanage what goes on in the field. I think there can be no more blatant micromanaging than this. Having Congress insert itself into the debate about what the rules of engagement should be in the field of operations for the military is micromanaging in the absolute worst way. We should trust our commanders in the field to make those decisions, and those decisions are and always will be controversial, both ways, in terms of what the rules of engagement should be.

I will simply make the very clear statement that I want our trained commanders in the field to make the decision on what the rules of engagement should be in any given environment, not the United States Congress. This is not a debate that we should insert ourselves into, and I believe that we should defeat this amendment and leave the authority with the commanders, where it belongs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

I just want to express my support for the amendment.

Certainly, border security continues to be a challenge and a priority. The National Guard troops are helping. Now, in a bipartisan way, there is agreement on that, so I support Mr. Flake's amendment, and I urge the body to support it as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment has to do with whether or not to try anyone in Guantanamo or any non-U.S. citizen captured abroad going forward in Article 3 courts in the United States. The underlying legislation prohibits anyone currently at Guantanamo or anyone who would be brought there in the future and, for that matter, any non-U.S. citizen captured abroad from being tried in Article 3 courts.

This really grew out of the larger debate over whether or not to close Guantanamo Bay. But one thing I want to make clear, you can support my amendment even if you believe that Guantanamo Bay should remain open. Now, I don't. I believe that we should close it, that we should handle those terrorists, whether we handle them by military commission, by Article 3 court, or by indefinite detention, that they should not be held at Guantanamo. But you can still hold Guantanamo Bay open and support my amendment.

What my amendment says is we want to make sure that Article 3 courts are still a possibility for trying these terrorists. The main problem I have with the underlying bill is it takes that possibility off the table and requires either a military commission or indefinite detention, and I think that is a bad and dangerous policy.

Now, we have to understand that we have already tried and convicted over 400 international terrorists in our Federal courts, in our Article 3 courts. As we sit here right now, or as I stand here right now, we have over 300 convicted terrorists being held in prisons in the United States. There is no question that we can do this, no question that we can do it safely. By going in this bill and taking off the table the option of Article 3 courts, all we are doing is we are tying the hands of our Department of Justice and our President as they seek ways to bring terrorists to justice and take them off the battlefield.

Right now we have over 170 inmates at Guantanamo Bay. We don't know what to do with a fair number of them for a variety of different reasons. That undermines our ability to fight the terrorism threat that we are trying to confront. It doesn't help it. So I ask simply that we give the President all the tools in his toolbox.

I support military commissions. I support indefinite detention. In certain instances that's going to be necessary, but I also support our Article 3 courts that have over 200 years of history, that are some of the most respected courts in the world for their ability to bring swift and fair justice to all criminals.

We should not undermine our President's ability to make use of those courts in prosecuting our fight against

the terrorists and, therefore, I urge you to support this amendment.

I will add one thing, actually. In my amendment, if the President is going to bring people from Guantanamo Bay to be tried here in Article 3 courts, he does have to notify Congress. He does have to establish that he feels that can be done in that particular case safely and fairly. It does require that. But I think more than anything it gives the President the option of Article 3 courts, which he needs in order to properly prosecute the war against terrorism.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

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

Mr. Chair, 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman from Virginia is right, it would be easier to try them under military commissions. In fact, it would be easier not to try them at all. It would be easier just to hold them forever. Why bother with the trials. Why bother with the trials: because in over 200 years of history in this country, we do have a fair justice system and that does matter.

Military generals will tell you that Guantanamo Bay has been a major, major problem for them in the field, a major recruiting tool for our enemies because it undermines our values. Having a justice system that we can depend on matters. I trust everyone on that side would agree on that, that it is not just a matter of what is easiest to hold them. If that was the case, we wouldn't have courts at all; we wouldn't have military tribunals; we wouldn't have anything. We would just hold them. So it does matter.

I will also point out that, yes, the gentleman was acquitted of a whole bunch of charges. He was also convicted and sentenced to life in our Article III courts. So the system worked in that case. We have over 200 years of history with our Article III courts; and they have worked.

By the way, the Constitution, as ruled by the court, applies in Guantanamo Bay. Habeas corpus was attached. It does apply there. They don't suddenly get constitutional rights coming here that they didn't have before.

I will agree on one point: the scare campaign from last year certainly worked. People are afraid of the notion of bringing Guantanamo Bay inmates to this country. But they shouldn't be. As has been pointed out, over 300 of them, including Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the first attack on the World Trade Centers, is held here in the United States of America safely and without incident.

We are tossing aside 200 years of constitutional and judicial history for no good reason. That is not a good idea. Let's give the President the option he needs to bring terrorists to justice within our system of values. The thing about our system of values, it works. We need to stop implying that somehow our Constitution doesn't work to protect us. It absolutely does. And it has for over 200 years. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I oppose this for many of the same reasons I support the previous amendment. This is simply expanding a bad idea.

I will point out that while it is true that it was contained in last year's National Defense Authorization Act, it is something that I, and a majority of Members on this side, never supported. So last year's law is not something that we wanted to see happen. There was a lot of other things in the National Defense Authorization Act which we did support, so we were forced to accept this not because we liked it, but because that is the way the system works occasionally.

This would simply expand that bad idea and deny an even larger segment of people access to Article 3 courts. And it's arguable whether or not it's constitutional. Because there's a little known fact about the Constitution: It doesn't just apply to U.S. citizens; it applies to persons in the United States. So once somebody from wherever they are is in the United States, the Constitution applies to them. And simply taking them out of the justice system and putting them in what I presume would have to be the military, since they are the ones that run our military commissions, I believe would violate the Constitution in this instance, taking away the rights from a person within the United States.

But beyond all that, it's just a bad idea for the same reasons that I stated earlier. Our United States Constitution works. It convicts criminal after criminal after criminal and puts them away for a very long period of time. Let's not take it off the table.

Even the majority party, as strongly as they feel about this area, did not include this particular provision in the bill that was before the Armed Services Committee. I think there was a good reason for that. I think we should strongly oppose this amendment.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

I just want to restate the points that were made. I think Mr. Nadler and I both made the arguments that need to be made. This does go outside the Constitution. It is unnecessary. And it, again, further ties the hands of the President and the Department of Justice to adequately deal with the very real threat that we face from terrorism. It would tie that process up even worse. And I wish we would defeat this amendment and give the President and the Department of Justice the authority it needs to try people appropriately, convict them, and put them away and take the terrorists off the battlefield.

I oppose this amendment. I urge the body to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) raises the right questions. And definitely, we do need to go after these folks militarily. Clearly, it would also be better if Congress spoke. But where I disagree with him is on the question of whether or not this goes too far and expands that authority. And I do very strongly disagree with the arguments of Mr. West from Florida.

The President does have the authority. He had the authority to do the bin Laden raid, as Mr. Amash just pointed out, within the existing branch of authority. I do want to compliment the chairman of this committee for his hard work in working on this issue. I think it would be an important thing for the Armed Services Committee, for this Congress to speak on what the authorization of use of military force

should be beyond just linking it back to 9/11.

But when you put in associated forces, and when you don't have any end date, it does confer upon the President the potential for a great deal of power over a long period of time. And it is important to point out the President right now, forget the original AUMF, the President under just the interpretation of the Constitution and laws of this country absent of that has a great deal of authority.

Let's remember President Clinton was the first person to take a shot at Osama bin Laden back in 1998, when we launched cruise missiles at a compound where we thought he was in Afghanistan. There was no AUMF at that point. The President has fairly broad authorities conferred by the Constitution and the Court's interpretation of it to prosecute that war in the way that we want it to be done. The question is whether or not this language broadens that authority to the point where we all have to be concerned about the level of power that we are turning over to the Executive. That's really the balance we're trying to strike here.

Yes, Congress should speak. But Congress should also not speak in a way that gives the executive branch too broad authority. I believe the language in the bill goes too far in that direction, and therefore I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to speak on this matter. This is a critically important issue. And I worked with Mr. Thornberry on this when I chaired the terrorism subcommittee and he was the ranking member of the subcommittee that has since been renamed and that he now chairs.

This is not duplicative. This is an area where, frankly, we weren't spending enough time early enough in Iraq or in Afghanistan to understand the people that we were working with and to get ourselves into a better position to turn over responsibility for security and governance in Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. We didn't understand what we were getting into because we didn't have the social and cultural awareness. We need to gain greater understanding in those areas.

And one particularly important aspect of this is as you gather the information, how do you compile it in such a way that's useful. That's what this modeling program is supposed to do. You can gather all kinds of information all over the place, but if nobody knows how to actually use that information, compile it, put it together and pick out what is most important to get the lessons learned out of that, then you're not getting the true benefit of the program, which is a big part of what this does. It uses updated technology and updated software to figure out how to find the patterns that are critical to helping us do our job.

So I would simply agree with the gentleman from Texas and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It is a relatively small program that makes a very, very big difference and hopefully will save us money by keeping us out of conflicts that we would rather not get into and enabling us to do this working through the local populations by having a better understanding of them.

I want to thank the Members who offered this amendment. I too support a drawdown in Afghanistan. I want to see us get to the point where we can bring our troops home, and I think we're making progress in that direction, but there are two things that I do want to correct. One, it's a little bit of a myth that no one has ever defined success. Success has been defined by the President clearly. We want a government in Afghanistan that can stand so that the Taliban and al Qaeda do not come back to power. That is success--when we are confident that that government can stand and we can draw down so that we don't go right back to where we were before 9/11. That is what we are trying to accomplish.

And the second thing is, we all want to transition to a lesser mission, to be able to bring our troops home, and counterterrorism is the focus. We would not, however, have been able to run the mission against bin Laden that we did if we didn't have the broader support in Afghanistan. If we pull out and think that we can run a counterterrorism mission with a government that is collapsing around us and that does not support us, then we kid ourselves. That's why it is so important, as Mr. Coffman said so well, to make sure that we complete the mission and we have a government that can stand so that we can begin to responsibly draw down. I think it's important we draw down, but we have to do so in a responsible way.

Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition. I am not opposed, but I am happy to yield 30 seconds of that time to Mr. McKeon to finish his statement.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I mentioned, I'm not opposed to this amendment. In fact, I would support Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment. I understand the concerns of the chairman, but there is one point that I really want to make clear in this.

Throughout this whole process, well over, gosh, I guess it's been 12 years now since we passed this restriction, there has always been this notion that somehow we have to wait in order to be extra cautious--as if there is no risk in waiting. And that is where I think we are completely wrong. Absolutely. There is a risk in selling technology that could wind up in the wrong hands. And in the world we live in today, that's a risk we have to live with and attempt to manage.

But what has never been properly understood in this body, and particularly on the Armed Services Committee, is the risk of excessive restrictions on U.S. companies' ability to export technology. And it is a risk precisely to our national security. It is not just a matter of jobs or business or the economy. This isn't national security versus economic strength.

One of our great strengths as a Nation in terms of our defense is the superiority of our technology companies. We have companies here in the U.S. that we can rely on to give us the best equipment, the best technology to protect us. But, as Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out, we are losing that edge. We are ceasing to be the leaders in critical areas of technology, and nowhere is this more painfully clear than in the area of satellites. We have lost over 40 percent market share during that period to our competitors.

When I was in Europe visiting some satellite companies 2 years ago, I came across an advertisement, something that was being put out in the trade papers by a European satellite company for an ITAR-free satellite. Well, what is an ITAR-free satellite? It's a satellite that has not one single U.S. component in it. Why? Because if it were ITAR- free, they could much more freely export it and much, much more easily be competitive in selling that satellite technology. We were blocking out all U.S. companies from anything that goes into a satellite. And trust me, I've seen satellites. There is a heck of a lot that goes into them.

Our companies are being severely disadvantaged, and that is undermining our ability to get access to those companies to build technologies we need to defend ourselves. Inaction is not the safe and correct course here.

We have the evidence we need. I believe we need to go forward. And Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment makes sure that we're not selling this to China and other places we don't want to, but it does free up our companies to begin to compete before it's too late, before we lose that edge.

Now, we've got the interim report. We don't have the final report. We've analyzed this thing for a long period of time. I personally don't think we need to wait for the final report. But I will be optimistic that we will get that final report between now and when we go to conference. And we'll get something done on this critical issue-- critical not just for U.S. companies, though certainly jobs and economic strength are matters of national security, but also critical for national security, itself, to make sure that U.S. companies can maintain the leadership role to help provide for our defense, to help work with our Defense Department as they do.

So I would hope that we would adopt this. I know Mr. Rohrabacher is planning on withdrawing it, but I hope we continue to work on this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it's really important to understand what's going on here. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The original purpose for this money, it was $200 million, it was determined to no longer be valid for all the reasons that were stated. They couldn't spend the money. But we had $200 million floating around, and they hate to give back $200 million in the Defense Committee, so they grabbed $150 million of it and simply designated it, broadly speaking, to shipbuilding. We do this a lot. Mr. Flake spoke about this in the other amendment. And I understand there are Members who are concerned about the top line within the defense budget and holding it.

I think it's important where we spend the money. We have to have a reason to spend it. We just have to say, well, there's $150 million. We would kind of like to have it because who knows? We might need it at some point.

We can't afford that in our current deficit environment, to simply set aside $150 million. I know we're going to talk about shipbuilding. I heard about it a little bit before. Yes, we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. I would submit that our Navy today is vastly more capable than our Navy back in 1916 because our sheer numbers of ships is not the only factor that matters. It kind of matters what their capabilities are.

Throughout the bill--and we have an amendment coming up after this that is the same sort of thing. There is a lot of money in the defense budget that gets appropriated, and then for whatever reason we find out we can't actually build what it was intended for, and then we just hold on to the money because we might use it later. That is not an efficient way to spend money.

And I'm sorry. The deficit does matter to our national security. As has been quoted earlier, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that our deficit, in fact, is the number one threat to our national security. So we have to save money where we can. Clearly, this is a place where we can save money.

I urge support for the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, this is a very frustrating debate because nobody's questioning the importance of missile defense. There is $1.1 billion in this bill precisely for this missile defense.

The reason that funds have been cut for this program isn't because it's less of a priority; it's because the program wasn't working as it was intended.

As I have discussed earlier, this happens frequently in the Defense Department. We don't get a program up to where it's supposed to be. We are appropriating money, authorizing money, in this bill that cannot be spent not because we simply want to cut it because we don't have a priority but because it isn't working at the pace that we expected it to be. We are giving $100 million that isn't needed even to continue the program. We need to be more fiscally responsible with our money.

We support this program. We support $1.1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor members of the University of Washington Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC), as well as the Pacific Lutheran University Army Reserve Officer Training Corps, for creating the First Annual ``22 to

the U'' march to raise money for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.

During ``22 to the U'' on May 22, cadets from the University of Washington and Pacific Lutheran University participated in a march, called a `ruck,' wearing 45-pound packs. Beginning at midnight, marching through the night and most of the day, the cadets traveled 45 miles from Joint Base Lewis-McChord to the Medal of Honor Memorial at the University of Washington.

This challenging event raised funds for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides college scholarships to the children of fallen Special Operations personnel, as well as immediate financial assistance to severely wounded service members to allow families to join them at their bedsides. By establishing the ``22 to the U'' fundraiser, these Air Force and Army cadets not only accomplished an extreme physical feat, but also demonstrated an admirable commitment to helping their fellow service members and the families of wounded warriors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in honoring the members of the University of Washington AFROTC, as well as the Pacific Lutheran University Army ROTC, whose efforts embody the spirit of selflessness and sacrifice that makes our Armed Forces truly great. These cadets have started a tradition of honoring the legacy of Special Operations members which I am confident will endure for years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I too rise in support of this bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking the chairman and our staffs for the outstanding work that they have done putting together this bill.

I think Mr. McKeon has more than risen to the level of the bipartisan tradition of our committee. He has upheld the tradition held by our predecessors that this committee should work together, Republicans and Democrats, that it should be an open and transparent process.

I can say that I and my staff feel very, very good about the open process that we have had, although we have not agreed on everything--we do not agree on everything--that is in the bill; but where there were disagreements, we had an open and honest dialogue. We had votes in the committee, and now we will have votes on the floor.

And overall I think the chairman and the members of both parties and staffs have put together a very strong bill that will protect our national defense and meet the primary duty of this Congress, and that is provide for the national defense and the national security of our country. So I thank the chairman and his staff for that work, and I look forward to continuing to work with him throughout this process.

I also want to note one of our members, who was not able to be there during the course of our markup as she usually is, but nonetheless contributed greatly to the process. We all miss Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords' presence on the committee, but we work very closely with her staff on issues and priorities that have been important to her during her time on the committee, and she and her staff are still doing an outstanding job with the committee in contributing to this process. So I thank them, and we all look forward to Gabby coming back to this body and continuing her work.

In putting together this bill, there are five main areas of priorities that I think we should focus on. First and foremost, whenever we have troops out in the battlefield, as they are in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also spread out in a whole lot of other countries, priority number one has to be to make sure that we give them the support, the equipment and the means necessary to carry out the mission that we have given them.

I believe that this bill prioritizes that, both within the base bill and within the overseas contingency operations funding to make sure that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, elsewhere, have the equipment they need to carry out the mission that we have given them.

Second, I believe the counterterrorism in the fight against al Qaeda must continue to be a top priority of this committee, and I believe that we strongly support that once again. We all learned as a Nation and the world, with the killing of Osama bin Laden, how effective our Special Operations Command and other elements of our counterterrorism policy can be, but we also need to be mindful that the job is not done, and we continue to fund those priorities.

I do want to specifically commend the folks at the Special Operations Command. I had the great privilege of chairing the subcommittee that has had jurisdiction over the Special Operations Command for 3 years. They do a fantastic job for our Nation. Certainly, everybody saw that in the case of getting bin Laden; but they do it every day in many, many ways that many people do not know and do not recognize, so I thank them for their outstanding work.

We also have a huge challenge with the budget. As the chairman mentioned, finding efficiencies in the Defense budget is going to be critical. As we have heard on this floor over and over in many contexts, we have a massive deficit. We have a deficit that is over 33 percent of what we spend. The Defense budget is 20 percent of the overall budget. You cannot take 20 percent of the overall budget off the table and effectively deal with a deficit of that size.

We are going to have to look carefully at where we spend our money in defense, just like everywhere else, to make sure that we're getting the most for our dollar. I believe we have done that effectively in this bill, but I also believe that going forward that task is going to get harder, not easier. We must find ways to save money and spend it more efficiently within the Department of Defense. I also believe that our policy in Afghanistan is going to be critical.

As I mentioned, we certainly fund our troops in the effort that they are performing right now in Afghanistan, but going forward, we are going to really need to begin to bring those troops home to complete that mission. We will have some amendments that address that issue during the course of this bill. I look forward to that debate because I think that Congress needs to play a strong role in concluding our mission successfully in Afghanistan.

Lastly, the issue that the chairman mentioned that I think is very important in this bill is detainee policy and the AUMF. The chairman very early on identified this as a clear priority, and I think he is absolutely right that Congress' voice should be heard on these very, very important issues. We've worked closely on that. We have reached some agreement. We have some areas of disagreement. The biggest one we're going to have an amendment on this is the idea of whether or not article 3 courts should continue to be available for Guantanamo Bay detainees and those who would be captured in similar situations in the future. I believe that it should. We shouldn't always have them in article 3 courts. Military commissions have their place. Indefinite detention of enemy combatants has its place. But article 3 courts have effectively served this country for over 200 years. We have tried and convicted over 400 terrorists in article 3 Federal courts. Right now in the United States of America, we have over 300 of them safely locked up. We can do it. It's an option we should not take away from the President.

So, again, I want to thank the chairman for a very open process. Bipartisanship is the tradition of this committee. He has upheld that very well. I look forward to working with him as we go forward in this process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee.0

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), who is the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

Again, I just want to thank the chairman and the staff for putting together an outstanding bill. This is no small enterprise. It is $691 billion. It is critical policy to provide for the national security for our country, critical policy to make sure that our troops and their families are properly taken care of, they have the equipment and support that they need to do the job that we ask them to do. And I think Mr. McKeon, the members of the committee, and the staff have done an outstanding job.

I do want to also recognize our past chairman, Mr. Skelton. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is a strong bipartisan tradition on this committee. Mr. Skelton upheld that very well, and Mr. McKeon has done so as well. It was an honor to work with Mr. Skelton. I appreciate his leadership and guidance for all of us on the committee.

I do just want to mention one issue that I neglected to mention in my opening remarks, and that is to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Langevin with regard to the energy amendment that was contained in this bill. I think it's critical that we give the Department of Defense the ability to pursue alternative sources of energy that actually do improve our position in terms of greenhouse gases, and improve our position in terms of reducing our dependency--well, sorry, increasing our ability to use clean-burning sources of fuel.

The amendment that was attached to this would allow to be considered alternative the use of fuels that really aren't. They are not clean burning or renewable. So I think that it is imperative that we strike that provision from this bill. But overall I am very supportive of the bill. I appreciate the chairman's leadership. I look forward to working with him over the course of the next couple of days as we deal with the amendments that are coming our way, and as we go into conference with the Senate to hopefully get this bill done, to the President for signature. It is critical to our national security interests that we do that.

I thank the chairman again for his leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Darrel Bowman, an entrepreneur, an advocate, a disabled veteran, and 2011 U.S. Small Business Administration's National Veteran Small Business Champion.

The U.S. Small Business Administration recognizes Small Business Champions in a variety of categories, celebrating the important contributions made by these men and women as entrepreneurs, advocates, and community leaders. The National Veteran Small Business Champion is an individual both successful in helping to grow business, and mindful in working towards a stronger community.

As the owner of Mynetworkcompany.com, Darrel has been a local leader in his field. Darrel's work providing technology solutions to the public and private sectors has earned him respect in the business world and has helped him build a reputation as a sharp and forward-thinking entrepreneur.

Having served in the Coast Guard, Darrel brings a military perspective into his business activities and daily life. As a service disabled veteran, Darrel is both an advocate for and an example to those who serve our country in the Armed Services. His work supporting legislation to encourage the hiring of veterans is just one example of his efforts on behalf of active duty military, veterans, and their families.

As the home to Joint Base Lewis-McChord and countless small businesses and technology innovators, our region is fortunate to count Darrel as one of our own. Individuals who are successful in business while remaining committed to giving back make our communities stronger, and serve as an example to others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in

honoring Darrel Bowman, recognized by the U.S. Small Business Administration as the National Veteran Small Business Champion of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William Wilson, recipient of the Frontiers in Physiology's Online Teacher Professional Development Program Fellowship.

When Mr. Wilson is not coaching high school wrestling, he is inspiring his students in the field of science as a teacher at Clover Park High School in Lakewood, Washington. His outstanding research proposal in the biomedical field earned him the Frontiers in Physiology's Online Teacher Professional Development Program Fellowship. Mr. Wilson will be awarded educational grants to help him advance his research and make improvements to Clover Park's science department.

The Frontiers in Physiology program was initiated in 1990 by 10 impassioned high school science teachers embarking on a summer research grant in physiology. The 10-month fellowship aims to integrate best practices in scientific research into middle schools and high schools, incorporate technology and internet-based resources to enhance learning, and improve classroom labs with a better understanding of the scientific research process. The program has been proven to enable teachers to advance teaching techniques and promote excellence in science education.

As a dedicated and inspiring teacher, Mr. Wilson has proven to be an invaluable asset to the Pierce County community. The resources that Mr. Wilson will bring from the Online Teacher Professional Development Program fellowship will undoubtedly allow him to contribute more to Clover Park High School and the greater science community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives please join me in congratulating Mr. William Wilson for receiving the Frontiers in Physiology Online Teacher Professional Development Fellowship and honoring him as a model teacher.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 1, 2011, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 223 (on the motion to recommit H.R. 1255 with instructions), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 224 (on passage of H.R. 1255).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize March as National Kidney Month. This is an ideal time to renew the commitment to take action to stop kidney disease.

National Kidney Month observes the significance of kidney health and allows us to educate each other on methods of prevention, treatments, and potential cures for kidney disease. More than 26 million Americans have chronic kidney disease. Minority patients and communities including Hispanic, African-American, and Native-American populations are at an increased risk at developing the disease. While the rate of those affected by kidney disease is increasing, many individuals with kidney ailments go undiagnosed. Most people forego visiting a doctor until symptoms are severe and damages to the kidneys are irreparable. Kidney disease can be fatal to those who do not identify the symptoms of kidney failure. Every year, thousands die prematurely of cardiovascular problems linked to kidney disease where death could have been prevented in many cases.

In addition to the health effects of kidney disease, kidney failure can also be costly. Currently, less than one percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have some form of renal disease, yet the disease consumes nearly seven percent of the annual Medicare budget.

Prevention is the best approach at dealing with kidney disease. The most common risk factors are high blood pressure and diabetes, which can be controlled by diet, exercise, taking prescribed medication, and regular visits to a health care professional. National Kidney Month serves as an important reminder for individuals, especially minorities as well as those with hypertension and diabetes, to get their kidneys checked regularly.

In my district, the non-profit Northwest Kidney Centers provides testing opportunities at community events and provides important education to the public about kidney health and renal disease prevention.

Kidney disease is common, harmful, but treatable, especially if caught in time. Let's continue to work to stop kidney disease, save Medicare dollars, and save lives while doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, and I do so as one who does firmly believe that we need to, as soon as we responsibly can, end our military engagement in Afghanistan. The cost is very real.

I represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord, which includes Fort Lewis Army Base, and we have lost many soldiers in Afghanistan. The families understand the cost. We need to wind down this war as quickly and as responsibly as we can. Unfortunately, this resolution does not give us the opportunity to do that. And we have clear national security interests in Afghanistan.

While I may agree with many of the statements about the troubles and challenges that we face in that region, the one thing that you will hear today that I cannot agree with is the idea that we have no national security interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or that we somehow do not have a clear mission. We have a clear mission. We do not want the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies back in charge of Afghanistan or any significant part of Afghanistan from which they could plot attacks against us, as they are still trying to do in the parts of Pakistan that they are in.

We need to get an Afghanistan Government that can stand up, and they are going to need our help to get there. Now there are many who have argued--and I am sure some on both sides of the aisle would be sympathetic with the notion that we need to reduce our commitment there--that a full-scale counterinsurgency effort, or 100,000 U.S. troops and 150,000 NATO and U.S. troops combined, is too much. Let's go with a much lighter footprint. Many have advocated that. Focuses on counterterrorism, focuses on going after the terrorists, and allows the Afghans to take the lead on everything else. And there is a plausible argument for that. This resolution does not allow that.

I want the Members of this Chamber to understand this resolution requires complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of this year. And I can tell you, as the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, that is not in the national security interest of this country.

We may have a legitimate debate about what our presence should be, how we should change it, but the notion that we can simply walk away from this problem, as Ms. Ros-Lehtinen pointed out, is simply not true. And it is a problem that, believe me, I, as much as anyone in this body, would love to be able to walk away from. It is an enormous challenge. And what Mr. Friedman has to say about the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan is spot on. But the problem is, we can't simply walk away from them and let them fall because of the national security implications that that has for us right here at home, given what the Taliban and al Qaeda would plan. I am all in favor of a more reasonable plan for how we go forward in Afghanistan, but simply heading for the hills and leaving is not a responsible plan. It's not even really a plan for how to deal with the very difficult challenges that we face in that region, and I urge this body to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 10 and Friday, March 11, 2011, I was unable to be present for recorded votes.

Had I been present on Thursday, March 10, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 168 (on agreeing to the amendment offered by Mr. Lynch), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 169 (on agreeing to the amendment as modified, offered by Ms. Waters), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 170 (on the motion to recommit with instructions on H.R. 830), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 171 (on passage of H.R. 830).

On Friday, March 11, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 172 (on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Waters), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 173 (on the motion to recommit with instructions on H.R. 836), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 174 (on passage of H.R. 836).

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 28, 2011, I was unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 148 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 394, as amended), ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 149 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 347, as amended), and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 150 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 368, as amended).

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 18, 2011, during consideration of H.R. 1, the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011, I recorded an erroneous vote on amendment number 569, offered by Mr. Issa of California. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote number 133.