Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with great pride to stand with Chairman Young in order to reaffirm my commitment and the commitment of the members of the Armed Services Committee to the dignified and respectful transportation of the remains of our war casualties to their final resting places.

The current process of airlifting our fallen warriors was initiated by the Committee on Armed Services and legislated in 2006 following a series of unfortunate cases in which the transfers of remains simply did not meet the high standard that the people of our Nation demanded. As awareness grew, it was very quickly clear that the routine treatment of our warriors on their returns home was not meeting the expectations of families and communities across the Nation.

Without this law, the Department of Defense would be required to transport them by the cheapest means, in other words, to transport remains without an escort and in the cargo holds of commercial airliners along with the suitcases and FedEx packages. No one wants to see that. That is not how the American people wish to treat those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

The soul of a nation can be measured by its commitment to honor those who have sacrificed all to defend that nation. If a nation takes a bookkeeper's approach to measuring that commitment, then, in this Nation's case, the cost of Arlington, of all the national cemeteries, of the cemeteries we maintain overseas, of the efforts made to account for our war dead and missing is too high. When it comes to upholding the traditions so intrinsically linked to the values treasured by the American people, our Nation will never be accused of possessing a bookkeeper's mentality. There is only one standard for the treatment of our fallen heroes, and the American people will demand that the standard will be met in the most dignified and respectful manner possible.

I commend the gentleman from Florida for taking a moment to reaffirm the commitment of the Congress and the American people on this important issue. I cannot understand anyone who would challenge him on his devotion to our servicepeople. He and his wife both have dedicated the ultimate measure to seeing that our servicepeople are given the respect and the things that they need. I don't know anyone who has visited the hospitals more or who has really cared about our people. I commend the chairman for this, for his

devotion to those who wear the uniform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him and Chairman Ryan for bringing this bill to the floor. It is greatly needed.

Barring a new agreement between Congress and the White House on deficit reduction, over $1 trillion in automatic cuts, known as sequestration, will take effect. Although the House has passed a measure that would achieve this necessary deficit reduction to avoid sequestration for a year and give us time to work on it outside of election-year pressure, the Senate has yet to consider any legislation.

Now, I hear a lot of good ideas from the other side and they talk about increased revenue. All I'm saying is put it down on paper.

We have a process by which we work. It's outlined in the Constitution of the United States. One body passes legislation, the other body passes legislation, a conference committee is formed, and the differences are resolved. It goes back to the bodies for final passing and then goes to the President for his signature.

We have taken action in the House. We're waiting for the other body to take some action.

The President weighed in on this. He submitted a budget. His budget sought $1.2 trillion in alternate deficit reduction. He followed the process. That budget was defeated in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. Now, we need another bill that we can work on.

This impasse and lack of a clear way forward has created a chaotic and uncertain budget environment for industry and defense planners. Compounding the issue is a lack of guidance from the administration on how to implement sequestration.

We just held a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where we had industry leaders come in to tell us the problems they're having on getting guidance.

You know, I come from a small business background, nothing like building planes or ships or boats or the other things that our warfighters need to carry out their mission.

And I might remind people that we are at war. We do have warfighters going outside the wire, as we speak, every day, putting their lives on the line, and they're watching this. They're watching what we're doing. They're wondering if they're going to have the things that they need to carry out this mission and to return home safely.

My business, as I said, was a small family business. We were in the western wear business. We sold boots and hats in a retail way. And we would go, my brothers and I, family business, would go to the market in January. We would buy for our needs for the next 6 months. We would buy shirts, hats, jeans, boots. And then our suppliers would go to their suppliers and buy the things they need to make those things, and then they would ship them to us in an orderly manner, and then we would be able to have the product on the shelves when our customers came in in February, March, April, May.

These industry leaders are asking for a little guidance. All they know is the law, as we have it now, kicks in January 2, says that there will be no thought, no planning, just we take out the budget and cut every line item by a margin, 8, 12, 20 percent, whatever it is, realizing we're already a quarter of the way into the year.

One of the leaders gave us this quote in this conference. This is Sean O'Keefe, president and CEO of EADS North America and chairman of the National Defense Industrial Association. And I quote:

Most immediately, the administration must communicate today

its sequestration implementation to the public, our Armed

Forces, and to industry.

The current uncertainty has effectively put sequestration

and its consequences in motion. In the absence of any

guidance, industry is already holding back investments,

questioning the fairness of ongoing competitions, doubting

the viability of existing contracts, and starting to trim

capacity.

In the absence of definitive guidance from the DOD, the

OMB, and the Defense Contract Management Agency, we feel

compelled to act in the spirit of this law and, in all

likelihood, will issue WARN notices to those employees

engaged in ongoing Federal contract activities.

We are going to put thousands of people in jeopardy of their jobs between

now and when sequestration should kick in. This is already in motion.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we come together on this issue, that we solve this issue. I ask the President to put forth some leadership. As Commander in Chief, he has the obligation to help us solve this problem. I ask our colleagues to please support this legislation and to bring transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the City of Santa Clarita and its residents on the recent annexation of Elsmere Canyon. This annexation completes a 25-year journey to protect a beautiful canyon that provides outstanding recreation opportunities to residents of the Santa Clarita Valley and visitors from surrounding areas.

Elsmere Canyon serves as an important wildlife corridor and is an integral part of the City's greenbelt. The Canyon is a popular destination for hikers and outdoor enthusiasts, and greatly enriches the recreational opportunities available in our area.

I am proud to have fought for, and won inclusion of, a legislative provision that was written into law which will forever protect Elsmere Canyon from being developed as a massive landfill. In February of 1995, I introduced H.R. 924, legislation that would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring any part of the Angeles National Forest from federal ownership to be used as a landfill. This language was included in the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, which was signed into law that year.

I would like to recognize the efforts of the Santa Clarita City Council, Supervisor Antonovich, and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for working together to purchase the land in 2010, which helped to pave the way for annexation into the City this spring. It is my sincere hope that Elsmere Canyon serves as a reminder that when residents, elected officials, and community organizations come together, we can create great opportunities for the residents that live in our beautiful valley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Colonel Todd P. ``Sledge'' Harmer on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force.

I have had the pleasure of working with Sledge on a number of occasions during his tenure in the Air Force House Liaison Office, and greatly appreciate his professionalism, knowledge, and dedication, which has benefited me personally, as well as numerous other Members and staff.

Colonel Harmer has given much to this Nation through his dedicated and selfless service. His Air Force career started the day he arrived at the U.S. Air Force Academy in June of 1982. He established himself as a serious student with a great aptitude for flying. Upon graduation on May 28, 1986 with a Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering, Lt Harmer was competitively selected among pilot training selectees to attend Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training, Lead-In Fighter Training, and F16C Operational Course, excelling in each course. He was assigned to the 14th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Misawa AB, Japan where he started flying combat training missions and preparing for greater aerial tasks. His superiors rated him the ``best wingman in the squadron'' and recognized him as a gifted fighter pilot. As a new Captain, he was upgraded to instructor pilot (IP) and mission commander in absolute minimum time, then selected to be a Standardization/ Evaluation Flight Examiner because of his great flying skill and leadership. He was reassigned to the 69th Fighter Squadron at Moody AFB, GA as an IP and Chief of Weapons and Tactics. He was certified as combat-ready, and qualified in air-to-surface, air-to-air and nuclear roles. To no one's surprise, he was selected to attend the coveted F 16 Fighter Weapons Instructor Course, and completed it with honors. He went on to complete Squadron Officer School, again completing it with honors and the designation of Distinguished Graduate. He returned to the 69th Fighter Squadron for a few years to train and evaluate pilots, and contributed greatly to the success of this important fighter squadron. Captain Harmer was reassigned to the 23rd Operations Support Squadron at Pope AFB, NC where he was responsible for planning and coordinating F 16 employment supporting contingencies, exercises and readiness inspections. After serving as a flight commander and IP, he was sent overseas to serve in the 36th Fighter Squadron, Osan AB, Republic of Korea. He was hand-picked to command a flight of fighter pilots flying wartime taskings in a upgraded F 16C. His superiors identified him as an ``aviator without peers'', and the ``greatest contributor to the combat readiness of the most forward deployed fighter squadron in the Air Force.'' He was promoted to the rank of Major and give greater responsibility as the Assistant Operations Officer, and later the Aide-de-Camp to the Seventh Air Force Commander, Lt General Joseph Hurd. General Hurd recognized his superior airmanship and trusted counsel and called him the finest aide he had ever seen. Sledge was sent to the U.S. Naval War College and earned a Master of Arts degree in National Security and Strategic Studies, then went on to the Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies and spent a year excelling in a rigorous curriculum. Following this, newly promoted Lt Colonel Harmer was assigned to the prestigious Checkmate Division at the Pentagon to lead the European Command Pacific Command Branch. There he continued to contribute, lead and inspire his research teams through keen analysis and writings. Senior Air Force leadership had been impressed with his papers and reports over the years, but his writings would receive special recognition while in Checkmate and would help shape the employment and advancement of air and space power. Perhaps more importantly, however, Lt Colonel Harmer would become an impact strategist and leader in the days following 9 11. He led teams developing Air Force position on Grand Military Strategy, air and space operations plans, combat search and rescue, and the air attack plan for Operation Enduring Freedom. His years of training, education and performing every mission in a superb manner would help him to continue on the track to senior leadership. He was assigned as the Commander, 63rd Fighter Squadron, Luke AFB, AZ and given the difficult task of commanding in the Air Force's largest fighter wing. He did not disappoint. He set the benchmark for training and air operations. Following this assignment, Lt Colonel Harmer would attend National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, DC and receive a Master of Science in National Security Strategy, and the designation of Distinguished Graduate. He would spend the following year in Turkey as an Executive Officer to the Commander of CC Air and 16th Air Force, and, U.S. Senior National Representative, Allied Air Component Command HQ Izmir. He was promoted to Colonel and assigned as the Vice

Commander to a very demanding and active fighter wing, 388th FW, Hill AFB, UT, and to prepare him to later command his own wing, the 33rd Fighter Wing, Eglin AFB, FL. His boss, Lt General Gary North, tasked him to direct important sorties such as protection to POTUS, space shuttle and several deployments at home and abroad. General North also hand-picked Colonel Harmer for a demanding position in Iraq's Ministry of Defense where he led a highly specialized planning and training team, and advised the U.S. Forces-Iraq leadership on sensitive Arab- Kurd issues. Upon returning to the U.S., the Air Force continued to challenge Sledge by assigning him to one of the most demanding positions within the Air Force, his current job as the Chief of Air Force House Liaison. Since June 2010, Sledge has advised the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Director of Legislative Liaison, and numerous other senior military and civilian leaders on issues of the greatest concern to HQ Air Force and the Congress. He has more than served as a liaison between the Pentagon and the Hill, he has developed and improved key relationships that help us make better decisions about the Air Force. He is extremely intelligent and articulate, and has helped shape my thinking and influenced many Members of Congress. Simply, we trust him!

Colonel Harmer is a command pilot with over 3,300 flying hours primarily in the F 15 and F 16. He is the recipient of the following major medals and decorations for his service and accomplishments: the Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Aerial Achievement Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal, Combat Readiness Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, and the NATO Medal.

Throughout his distinguished career he has represented our country and Air Force with dignity and honor, and this is why I am so privileged to pay tribute to this fine Airman. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Todd Harmer, his wife Stacie and their daughters, Jordan, Leigh and Erika, for their service and sacrifices over the past 26 years. I wish them Godspeed, and continued happiness as they start a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters:

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 10, 2012.

Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC

Dear Chairman McKeon. I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation

contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. However, in

order to expedite floor consideration of this important

legislation, the committee waives consideration of the bill.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform takes this

action only with the understanding that the committee's

jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation

are in no way diminished or altered.

The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment

to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and

requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I

would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the

House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen from Florida, for agreeing to allow amendment No. 114 to proceed on the NDAA in the en bloc package, a matter that is within the rule X jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been considered by both the majority and the minority.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), my friend and colleague.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Colleagues, we've had a good couple of weeks. We've had some late nights. We've addressed hundreds of amendments in committee and in the House.

This is a joke. For them to come down to the floor and talk about jobs, when they're cutting defense to this degree, taking all of the jobs out of the military, I don't even know where to begin.

So what I'm going to say is thank you for your help and for your support. Let's go home and go to work in our districts.

I oppose this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4310.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4310, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and the table of contents, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following letters:

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: I write concerning H.R. 4310, the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as

amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation

which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.

This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding

that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or

to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters

contained in the bill or similar legislation which fall

within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you

urge the Speaker to name members of the Committee to any

conference committee named to consider such provisions.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee

report on H.R. 4310 and into the Congressional Record during

consideration of the measure on the House floor.

Sincerely,

John L. Mica,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4310.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1 be modified in the manner that I have placed at the desk.

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

We have worked long and hard, the staff has worked long and hard to get us to this point. This manager's amendment that we've worked on has been worked through both sides. We have unanimous agreement on it. It's a good bill, a good addition to the bill, and I ask that it be approved.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to commend the gentleman, Mr. Berman, for his strong work on this amendment, for the work that he's done to further this cause of helping businesses in being able to do business abroad while still protecting the security of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chair, I yield, at this time, 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I do agree that protecting our men and women in the military from the detrimental effects of prescription drug misuse, especially protecting our combat-wounded servicemembers, is of vital importance.

As the gentlelady knows, the committee report of H.R. 4310 includes an item of special interest that expresses the support for substance abuse treatment programs within the military services and that encourages the Department of Defense to pursue research aimed at developing new treatments to help our troops who are struggling with the devastating problem.

I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman from California to consider the appropriate measures to address this critical issue.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

We have no further requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I encourage all Members to support the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the vice chairman of the committee.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), a member of the committee, a gentleman who has led troops in battle.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a member of the committee and an Air Force pilot.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Could I ask the time remaining?

And I have the right to close?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, when I was in Afghanistan a few years ago, I visited Camp Leatherneck. General Nicholson, who was just setting up base, and they were just there in the desert--the men were out setting up forward operating bases, trying to take back territory that the Taliban commanded. The general told me that his troops were being asked every day by the local people, when are you leaving? How long are you going to be here? Can we trust you to be here to protect us?

Last year, when I returned, I went to the same area. We were able to go to Marjah this time, which we couldn't go to before because that was a Taliban stronghold. Last year, we were able to walk down the street in Marjah. I saw marines and Afghan soldiers embracing; they were happy to see each other. Maybe they'd been apart for a while.

The marines had put up light standards down the street, and the merchants were able to keep their stores open a little bit longer.

We opened a school while we were there, not a school like we enjoy, but it was a school built out of adobe and tents. They had 500 kids. About a third of them were girls. They were able to go to school that they hadn't been able to go to before. They were excited about that opportunity.

I visited with the local governor there. We had lunch. I asked him what motivated him, because he knew, as the Taliban came back for the spring effect, that his life was on the line. He said, God willing, we'll prevail.

Mr. Chairman, I think when we talk about pulling these people out before they have a chance to complete their mission--I was at a street fair in Simi Valley last week and I talked to a lady working in a booth for the troops. She said, my grandson just came home from Afghanistan. And I told him we ought to just get out of there. And he said, Granny, that's wrong. We're accomplishing great things. We're helping those people. Let us finish our mission.

That's what the generals say they should do. That's what the troops say they should do.

Defeat this amendment that pulls the troops out immediately.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment although I don't oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we had an amendment earlier to cut off all funds to Pakistan. This is a more moderate approach.

Pakistan is part of the problem, we understand that. They live in a tough neighborhood. We know that in some ways they help us, in some ways they don't help us.

This amendment is kind of a carrot-and-stick approach. We say, when you do the things that you say you'll do, when you open these Ground Lines of Communication, we'll be giving you some of the funds. I think that's the proper approach that we should take, and I think that will help us in moving forward our effort in that area.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I think it makes the bill stronger. I thank him for his work in this regard.

I ask support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Conyers amendment. The F 35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the F 35 stealth fighter, and it's in the final stages of development and has entered low-rate initial production. The F 35B will operate from large deck amphibious ships as well as have the capability to operate from forward operating bases and damaged air strips to support Marine Corps ground maneuver forces ashore.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Amos, wrote to the committee yesterday and said:

The importance of the F 35B short takeoff vertical landing

variant to the Marine Corps and the Nation cannot be

overstated.

The F 35B has made significant progress in the last year, under General Amos' guidance, by completing all of the plan test points in 2011 and accomplishing 260 vertical landings. If passed, this amendment could have major negative impacts to our Nation's future combat power, increase the cost of the overall F 35 program, and negatively affect the eight international program partners in foreign military sales.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Conyers amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee and the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, chairman of the Education Committee, and a marine pilot, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I just might note that the B 52s that have been around that their grandchildren are flying now that the original pilots flew, the B 2s, we have 20. I inquired the other day how many of them were ready to go on a mission--maybe eight. So I think that all of this talk about nuclear, the next bomber is the next generation bomber that will deliver all kinds of weapons, not just nuclear.

I yield, at this time, 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks and his strong support for the readiness of our Armed Forces. There's no doubt that our C 17 fleet is doing a remarkable job around the globe, and I assure the gentleman that this committee strongly shares in your desire to ensure that the C 17 continues to perform magnificently for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

I'm not as good as my friend in characterizing or talking about something, so I would just like to read from the bill what it actually says:

The United States military should not maintain an

indefinite combat mission and should transition to a

counterterrorism and advise and assist mission at the

earliest practicable date, consistent with conditions on the

ground. In order to reduce this uncertainty and to promote

further stability and security in Afghanistan, the President

should fully consider the international security assistance

force commander's assessment regarding the need for the

United States to maintain a significant combat presence

through 2013. And finally, maintain a force of at least

68,000 troops through December 31, 2014, unless fewer forces

can achieve the United States objective.

This is the policy that has been established by the Commander in Chief in consultation with the generals and the field commanders. Now, I met with General Allen, the commander in Afghanistan, about a month ago. I asked him how many troops he needed, and he said he was in the process of evaluating. He didn't have a number yet. When he got that number, he would send it back through the chain of command to the Commander in Chief.

At that time, if he finds after his assessment that he may be able to withdraw troops sooner or may be able to accomplish his mission with less than 68,000, I would imagine the Commander in Chief will want to change his policy. And this allows for that because if the Commander in Chief, in consultation with the commander in the field, says that we can do it with fewer forces to achieve the objective, that's exactly what the bill says.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

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

I don't quite know where to start. We have just cut in this budget and in the previous Deficit Reduction Act $487 billion and another $500 billion, $600 billion that kicks in with sequestration next January, so that over the next 10 years we'll be cutting $100 billion dollars a year out of defense at a time when we are fighting a war.

In my lifetime, I have seen this cut back after every war so that we won't be prepared, I guess, for the next one. And what happens when we get in the next conflict, being not prepared and having run our military down, is we end up losing a lot of people. And I do not want to see that happen if there is any possible way that we can overcome it.

I was in a meeting in the Pentagon a couple of months ago when the Secretary was laying out this budget. A senior military officer, one of the highest ranking in our country, was sitting across the table from me, and he looked at me at the end of the meeting, and said, In my 37 years in the military, and doing this, I have never seen a time more serious, more dangerous than right now.

We're facing a possible nuclear weapon in Iran. Much of the terrorism that we see around the world is nurtured and paid for and embraced and sent forth from Iran. We have the problem, we know, in North Korea. We have the problem of China that is decreasing their defense spending and pushing us further back in helping us defend Taiwan and other commitments that we have in the area. We had the Arab Spring that nobody had thought about or planned on. And where is the next hotspot going to be? We do not know. But I guarantee you that when you run down your defenses, that is when somebody will take advantage.

President Reagan said we should have peace through strength. General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, we hear a lot the quotes about beware of the military industrial complex. He also said our military, our strength, our people in the military, are the ones that keep us safe, and we should be so strong that no one ever should dare attack us for fear of being annihilated. It's when we run down those forces, as we have.

I remember I was at the Reagan Library recently and they showed a video of when President Reagan ran in 1980. You might recall that we had hostages in Iran that had been causing lots of problems for President Carter. And we tried to send the military on a mission, and they couldn't even fly across the desert with the equipment they had at that time. We had a hollowed-out military.

We do not want to go there at this point. Half of the savings that we have taken in deficit reduction have come out of the military. We have done this on the backs of our troops, when they account for less than 19 percent of the overall spending. If we had no discretionary spending, we would be running a deficit of a half-trillion dollars a year. That is no military spending, no education spending, no spending on our parks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

How much time is remaining?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), my friend and colleague on the committee.

How much time do we each have?

And we have the right to close?

We just have one more speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 661, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rivera).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of our Members to support the en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

May I inquire if the gentleman has any more speakers?

Then I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chair, how much time remains?

I yield myself 1 minute.

We have had this back-and-forth about the President's comments. But enough of us heard it--in fact, I think we heard it over and over and over from the media, with the President on an open mic saying--and I don't think there's any dispute about this--Please take back to Mr. Putin that I will have greater flexibility after the election.

You know, we could debate whether or not there's a secret deal, but I don't

think there's any debate to the fact that the President said that, not wanting the general public to realize that he said that, but he did say it. So that leaves a question in America's mind of what he was talking about.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

You have to be a little concerned, a little nervous if he's that interested in sending a message to Mr. Putin that after the election, I will have a little more leeway. I think it's very important. Why not lay it out for the American people? What did he mean when he said he would have more leeway? What does he plan to do with that additional leeway? I would like to see the President go to the American people and say that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

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

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

This is a very clear opportunity to see the difference of the two sides of the aisle, how they feel about supporting the defense of our Nation. We have taken, with the Deficit Reduction Act, half of the savings has come out of defense. Less than 19 percent of the budget goes for defense, but half of the savings. So if we had a big pie and we had 19 percent of the spending comes out of defense; but then when we take the savings, we're taking half out of defense.

Mr. Chairman, if we continue to try to solve our deficit problem on the backs of our military, our troops, who's going to have our backs the next time we're attacked?

Over my lifetime, we have cut back the military after every war. This is the first time I've seen us cut back during the war.

We have troops right now going outside the wire, and they, when they get back to camp, they watch ``Fox News.'' I've been there. I've seen it.

They find out what's going on, and they listen to this debate, and they feel that there are some who don't have their backs. Well, it's not this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will just note that the President increased over $4.5 billion over the Deficit Reduction Act, and we went $3.7 billion more than the President's in order to protect TRICARE and some other others things for the troops.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes the chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish we were wrong, and I would hope that they are right in that we could continue to cut defense--cut it to the bone, cut it to the marrow--and that we could just live one big, happy, paradisiacal life, but history shows that that isn't the way things work.

As Reagan said, it is important to have peace through strength. You will remember before he was elected, when President Carter tried to deal with the hostage situation in Iran, that our helicopters couldn't even fly across the desert. We'd cut back the military so far that we had a hollow military.

There is a lot of talk about General Eisenhower and about President Eisenhower, and the thing he said, ``Beware of the military-industrial complex.'' He also said we have to have a very strong military because, if we don't, someone will take advantage of us. We have to be so strong that they're afraid to attack us for fear of annihilation.

I was talking to one of our leading military leaders just a few months ago. Mr. Smith was in the meeting also. At the end of the meeting, he looked at me, and he said, In my 37 years, I've never seen a time more dangerous.

If we are right and if we go through with all of these cuts and hollow out our military, we are talking about cutting $100 billion a year for the next 10 years.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the committee.

Hearing the word ``undermined'' brings to mind the fact that they are way underground building this nuclear facility. It kind of stretches the credibility thinking that they're doing that just to build a power plant.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

I am happy to oblige.

I thank the gentleman for his efforts in addressing such a complex and serious issue.

I agree that much needs to be done to improve our contingency contracting outcomes and to preserve and integrate the lessons learned over the last 10 years. The committee report accompanying the bill takes action on many of these same concerns. The committee will pursue this issue going forward to explore additional recommendations for systemic improvements to operational combat support and stabilization and reconstruction programs, including the proposal represented by the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 32 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, May 18, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4310.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which

overwhelmingly passed the Committee on Armed Services. In keeping with the committee's tradition of bipartisanship, Ranking Member Smith and I worked collaboratively to produce this bill and solicited input from each of our members.

The legislation advances our national security objectives, provides support and logistical resources for our warfighters, and helps the United States confront the national security challenges of the 21st century. The bill authorizes $554 billion for national defense in the base budget, consistent with the allocation provided by the House Budget Committee. It also authorizes $88.5 billion for overseas contingency operations.

The legislation continues my priorities set forth when I was elected chairman. It contains no earmarks. It carefully analyzes the Defense Department for inefficiencies and savings. It helps ensure the Pentagon's new national defense strategy is not a hollow one. And despite historic cuts to our wartime military, it plugs critical capability and strategic shortfalls opened in the President's budget submission.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 achieves these goals by working to:

Number one, ensure our troops deployed in Afghanistan and globally, including the National Guard who are the Nation's first line of defense at home, have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time they need to successfully complete their missions and return home safely;

Number two, care for our warfighters, veterans, and their families with the support they've earned through their service;

Three, provide critical strategic capabilities in an era of austerity;

Fourth, mandate fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability within the Department of Defense; and

Finally, improve the relationship between the Defense Department and the supporting industrial base by eliminating red tape and incentivizing competition.

Mr. Chairman, in 2012 we affirmed that the President is authorized to detain certain al Qaeda terrorists pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF. Ten years after the horrific attacks of 9/11, it was time for Congress to once again ensure that our men and women in uniform have the authority they need to continue to fight and win the war on terror.

Foreign terrorist groups, such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, still pose a grave threat to all U.S. citizens. As a result of last year's bill, we've heard from a number of concerned citizens wondering what this affirmation meant in relation to the rights of U.S. citizens. As a result, in this year's bill, we've incorporated Representatives Scott Rigell and Jeff Landry's Right to Habeas Corpus Act, which affirms the availability of the ``great writ'' habeas corpus to any person detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF. As we all know, the writ of habeas corpus is the ultimate protection against any unlawful detention by the Executive.

I am especially proud of the bipartisan work done on defense industry reform. We have several provisions in our bill that adopt bipartisan recommendations to improve the relationship between the Pentagon and the defense industry. In a time of declining defense budgets, we can no longer afford to conduct business as usual. This bill encourages small businesses to compete for Pentagon contracts and closely scrutinizes every penny that the taxpayers send to the Armed Forces.

Finally, in light of the Pentagon's new national security strategy, it's Congress' constitutional obligation to ensure this new force posture is not a hollow one. To that end, we provide modest increases in combat capabilities, with a particular emphasis on our Navy fleet and critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.

I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee for working with us to bring this measure to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of this bill. In partnership with you, we look forward to passing the 51st consecutive National Defense Authorization Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just wanted to respond to my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Smith

from Washington. He's correct, we are $8 billion over the amount that was in the Deficit Reduction Act. In the budget the President submitted to us, it was $4 billion over. And we went about $3.7 billion above that. But in the overall budget that we will pass out of the House--and we did pass out of the House, under Budget Chairman Ryan--we increased the spending for defense due to the priorities that we feel are most important and the constitutional requirement that we have to provide for the common defense. But we will cut in other areas of the budget so that we comply fully with the Deficit Reduction Act.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee of Tactical Air and Land Forces, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the vice chairman of the Armed Service Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West), my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and a man who has led troops in battle.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend and colleague and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that is remaining.

Does the gentleman have further speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of work done on this bill, and I want to thank my ranking member--my partner in this effort--and all of the staff who have put in countless hours to get us to this point for the work that they have done.

As you can see from the opening debate, we have many things that we agree on and some things that we disagree on. I feel good about that because I once heard that if two people agree on everything, one of them is an idiot. I think that there will be things that we have honest disagreements on, and we'll have much to talk about tomorrow. And I'm sure we'll have many hours to do that.

Mr. Chairman, for the second year, there have been misconceptions raised by the ACLU and others relating to last year's provision dealing with the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. In 2012, we affirmed that the President is authorized to detain certain belligerents who are part of or substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. This interpretation was not a new creation. It has been used by both the Bush and Obama administrations and has been upheld by our Federal courts.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board has described the NDAA's affirmation as a ``modest law.'' Former Attorneys General Meese and Mukasey have noted that:

Given the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda

in the Arabian Peninsula, the affirmation was a critical step

in reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat

terror.

Importantly, at no point did last year's bill detract from the rights of U.S. citizens. No one could possibly be in favor of the unlawful detention of innocent American citizens. And nothing could be further from the aim of the NDAA, which was to reinforce the protection of American citizens from terrorist attacks. While we felt confident that the NDAA in no way impacted this issue, we took the feedback we received seriously and analyzed the issue. In particular, I worked very closely with my colleague, Chairman Smith of the Judiciary Committee, as well as numerous outside experts and former U.S. Government officials.

In acknowledgement of the concerns that have been raised, we felt that it was important in this year's bill to explicitly reaffirm that anybody detained in the United States, pursuant to the AUMF, can challenge the lawfulness of their detention in U.S. Federal court. The great writ of habeas corpus is a citizen's most fundamental protection against any unlawful depravation of liberty.

Some want to go further and have this bill prohibit military detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists in the United States. And for all the blood and treasure we have spent taking the fight to the enemy to prevent terrorists from coming to the United States, I find this astonishing. Why would we weaken our ability to fight foreign terrorists here at home? Why would we take lawful options off the table for our national security officials? We must not forget that it is, in fact, foreign terrorist organizations like the al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula who would like nothing more than to deprive us our life and liberty. We must have all lawful options available to us in order to effectively dismantle and defeat them.

My understanding is that the Rules Committee is meeting as we speak. There have been, I think, about 240 amendments submitted to be debated on the bill. Last year, I think they approved 150. I don't know how many or what amendments will be approved. We'll find that out as we go through the evening and tomorrow. But I know that we will have a good and healthy debate; and at the end of the day, the important thing that we must remember is that this committee's responsibility is to look out for the common defense of this Nation. We do so by supporting our troops, those who were on the battlefield and those who are stationed in various places around the world. We must see that they have everything they need to carry out their missions and to return home safely to their loved ones and that their loved ones that are left behind are given the things that they need, the support that they need to continue to support their loved ones who are out fighting for our freedoms.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the debate tomorrow. I encourage all the Members of our conference and our colleagues in the Congress to support this very important bill to help them carry out that important mission.

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

Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.

Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation

contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Budget. However, in order to expedite floor

consideration of this important legislation, the committee

waives consideration of the bill.

The Budget Committee takes this action only with the

understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests

over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or

altered.

The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment

to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and

requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I

would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 4310 on the

House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Paul Ryan,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5652.

Fifty percent of the savings that we have already generated this year have come from the military cuts, and we're talking about adding another $500 billion to $600 billion on top of that next January with sequestration. That's over a trillion dollars a year coming out of the military over the next 10 years, while defense spending only accounts for less than 20 percent of our budget and while we're fighting a war in Afghanistan and facing other uncertainties around the world.

Let me remind everyone here of the major consequences of sequestration. There will be 200,000 troops taken out of the Army and the Marines, bringing our force level down below pre-9/11 levels. The ability to respond to contingencies in North Korea and Iran and other hot spots around the world will be put in jeopardy. We will have a fleet of fewer than 230 ships for a Navy that has protected the sea lanes around the world and our commerce. Ninety-five percent of our commerce travels on the sea. They've protected that since World War II. They'll be taken down to pre-World War I levels.

We'll have a smaller Air Force than at any time since the Air Force was created and two rounds of base closures. That's why Secretary Panetta has said, It's not shooting ourselves in our foot with sequestration; it's shooting ourselves in the head. That's why 31 organizations representing more than 5\1/2\ million American troops and veterans have called on Congress to act immediately to prevent these catastrophic cuts to our military.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support our troops, support our national security, and support this bill.