Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is a wonderful body. It's one of the most amazing places in the whole world. It's where we make decisions for 300 million people, and we make them for a lot of other places that we're going to influence around the world. And every once in a while you sort of come here and say, I think I've seen everything, and then we've got one more.

Here we are today, the last day of the session, with no debate whatsoever on this bill--anywhere. It's just brought out here de novo. I guess it came from God, or from the Speaker's Office, or someplace. I don't have any idea where it came from. But it seems to me that the House of Representatives is working hard to forget every positive lesson we have learned in the history of governing this country about how to get things--big things--done for the American people.

Today's bill sets up a process to ram through whatever bill Congressman Levin writes in 2013, because he'll be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He will sit in a closed room, using arbitrary rates, with no input and no debate. It will be a disaster. Did I say Levin? I meant Camp. What am I talking about?

It would be a disaster to have one person sit somewhere in a room and decide what the bill is and bring it out. And this power grab will destroy any attempt that we have or any chance we have of having tax reform. We used to know better.

I got here in 1988--that was 2 years after the tax reform of 1986. Now, roll back the clock a little further. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won, 44-State mandate. He was in power. But there were also strong majorities on the Democratic side in the Congress, just like today.

In 1980, just like today, the government was divided. And just like today, both sides wanted to get tax reform done. It wasn't any different in 1980 when President Reagan came in. But today we're debating a power grab bill where it's introduced by one Republican Member--I guess he didn't have time to get anybody else to sign it before he had to drop it in to bring it out here and discuss it--scored by one Member and given an up-or-down vote by one Member. In every case, unfortunately, the lot falls to Mr. Camp.

I don't think Mr. Camp did this. This isn't Mr. Camp. I know him. This isn't the kind of bill he would sit down and write, because we've seen him when he writes bills. This was written somewhere, and this is how we're going to ram through the House of Representatives, and the point of the sword is Mr. Camp.

Now, this appalling breach of procedure is the worst try to get anything done in the House of Representatives. I can't be more clear: comprehensive tax reform simply will not happen if the process and the bill are autocratic and rabidly partisan. That's the end of it right there.

Back in the 1980s, both the Republicans and the Democrats knew that this was true. Tip O'Neill sat up here, he was Democratic Speaker of the House, and Ronald Reagan sat down at the end of Pennsylvania as the President. They fiercely disagreed with each other on just about everything when they started, but they knew that they had to find areas of agreement and compromise to get anything done as big as tax reform.

These two were not cut from the same piece of cloth. Tip O'Neill was a working class Irishman. He was passionate about fairness, knew how to get things done, and, well, he liked to have a glass of whiskey now and then. Ronald Reagan believed in a pure sense of individualism. To Ronald Reagan, tax reform was about lowering taxes. He also liked to tell jokes and occasionally have a glass of whiskey. They both liked to play golf.

Then there was Rostenkowski. He was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He also played golf, and he liked a glass of whiskey occasionally. They all got to know each other. They pulled other people in. They discussed issues in detail. It was bipartisan. It was not done on one side or the other or simply by one person--wouldn't, couldn't, never would have happened in those days. They did the people's business that way.

Now, lots of voters are angry these days. They don't think Washington works. Well, it doesn't work when you get this kind of legislation brought out here.

If people from both sides can't sit down--it took Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill and Rostenkowski 6 years, from 1980 to 1986, talking about this issue by the time they finally got it all done. And here we have a bill that, I guess this could pass by--well, when we get back from Labor Day I suppose it will be a couple days and then it will be through the House.

That's not going to happen. You know it's not going to happen, and I know it's not going to happen. And the public is angry about this because Washington is not dysfunctional because Members of Congress aren't extreme enough. They're not getting things done because we're not working together.

To do tax reform well, to do it right, in fact, to do it at all, we will have to work together. It will take time, it will take debate, and it will take thoughtful consideration. There is no other way.

This bill we are considering today guarantees failure. It's bad for America. I ask Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the True Cost of Coal Act of 2012 that protects the American taxpayer from bearing the costs of transporting coal for private companies to sell. If you were to listen to the coal companies, you would hear them decry the decline in domestic coal consumption. And while it is true that our domestic appetite for coal is waning, much of the rest of the world is still hungry for it.

U.S. coal producers and suppliers are considering the construction of up to 9 coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon. These terminals will have a combined annual export capacity of 170 million tons of coal. To put this in perspective, the U.S. exported just 26 million tons of coal in 2011. This sharp increase in coal exports will be transported primarily through Oregon and my home State of Washington. Without question, this staggering increase will have serious implications on the Northwest's environment, safety, commerce, and public health.

But what does it take to ship 170 million tons of coal through the Pacific Northwest annually? We're talking about a 1.5 mile long train packed with coal travelling thousands of times a year next to pristine waterfronts and through cities along the Puget Sound--each train spewing up to 500 pounds of toxic coal dust into the environment while increasing traffic on already congested rail tracks. These trains will run straight through the heart of my district, the city of Seattle, wreaking havoc on people's health, the environment, commerce and shipping, and traffic. All of these costs will be endured for the sake of transporting coal that we get no benefit from.

And who will pay for this added cost? Without legislation like this, the taxpayers will pay the costs of mitigating the negative impacts of coal. As traffic increases, and public health risks are exacerbated, coal companies will continue to reap the profits of cheap coal, mined from public lands, and remain largely free from responsibility for any of the negative impacts. This means that States and local governments will need to raise taxes to pay for the additional crossings, the environmental cleanup, and increased health costs. It is time we opened our eyes to the true cost of coal.

This legislation would impose a 10 dollar per ton excise tax on all extracted coal. This money will go to mitigating the negative impacts of coal transportation, and ensure the true cost of coal is paid for by the responsible parties, and not the taxpayers. The money is allocated to the affected States, who are in the best position to determine how best to use their funds.

Make no mistake, these coal exports are not about jobs, they are about profits. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that it costs about $20 per ton to ship coal mined from the Powder River Basin to the Pacific Northwest. The EIA also has data that shows the average price per ton of coal exports is $148 per ton. I cannot emphasize enough that none of the profits will go to helping the affected communities.

It's time we shine a light on the true cost of coal and protect the American taxpayer from the negative impacts of transporting coal through our States. I have dedicated my career to keeping Washington and the Northwest a place where the environment, public health and efficient transportation do not get trumped by narrow interests. In 1980, I led the successful ``Don't Waste Washington'' initiative, to keep Washington from becoming the country's nuclear waste dumping ground, and 30 years later I remain just as committed to keeping it that way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss today's vote on the bill to approve and implement the Obama administration's offshore drilling plan. Holding this vote today was a political stunt by the Republican majority--nothing more. No committees have reviewed the plan, and it was brought to the floor without any consideration.

The Obama Administration's plan would supplant the Bush Administration's plan which is currently in place and I voted for the bill today, not wanting to play political games with our environment. Despite any reservations I have with the details of the Obama Administration's plan, the current administration correctly excluded lease sales in the Atlantic, Pacific or North Aleutian Basin. The Republicans offered an alternative plan that would, without question, cause significant harm to the environment. Voting yes today on this better package was the right thing to do.

Protecting our environment is not a game. Today I voted to move us forward from the terrible environmental policies of the previous administration, and I will continue to advocate and vote for stronger environmental protections.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 504, 505, 506, I missed these rollcalls because I was giving Awards at the HIV AID convention to the Red Ribbon Awardees for UN AID.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on all 3.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. Speaker, wonders never cease. I picked up The Hill this morning, which is a local newspaper that most people read once in a

while, and there were the words of one of the best Republican doctors that ever served in the Congress. Bill Frist has said he's encouraging his Republican colleagues to embrace the insurance exchange which is central to President Obama's health care plan. He said:

Originally it was a Republican idea. The State insurance

exchanges will offer a menu of private insurance plans to

pick and choose from, all with a required set of minimum

benefits to those without employer-sponsored health care

insurance.

Now, here's a Republican doctor who was the Majority Leader in the Senate. Contrast him to who we have there now. We have 31 times in this body tried to repeal this, and here you have a Republican doctor who was Majority Leader of the Senate saying we ought to do it.

Read it and weep.

Thank you, Mr. Boswell.

Mr. Boswell and I saw the Vietnam war in different ways--he, by flying a helicopter and me, by being a psychiatrist dealing with people who came home. And I feel strongly that suicide prevention and the intervention must become, in military speak, a core mission of the military.

This week's Time magazine, as you see from that front page, describes military suicides as an epidemic. I would like to take $10 million out of a $19 billion fund in this amendment to go beyond the funding for existing suicide prevention services and toward modifying the culture that keeps some from seeking help. We must also note that any progress in suicide prevention will be fleeting if we don't focus on reducing the stigma associated with seeking psychological health services among our Active Duty people.

I believe the Pentagon can do more to eradicate barriers to mental health care. This means ensuring that mental health and substance abuse issues are treated as medical issues and are taken out of the realm of personnel matters. This means ensuring that seeking and receiving psychological health care does nothing to jeopardize a soldier's security clearance or prospects in his future career.

I would also urge the Pentagon to ensure that a portion of this money goes toward hiring, development and retention of top-tier psychological health talent for our military at this time. It is the tale of cost of this war that nobody calculates when we go to war. What do we do when the people come home? We forget them. We think they should pull themselves together and go back to their regular life. And many of them can't do it without some help. We need to provide it. They become desperate, figure there's no hope and take their own life. That shouldn't happen to a 24-year-old kid, man or woman, who has been in Afghanistan or Iraq giving to our country what we ask from them. Their willingness to risk the whole business of going to war has to be dealt with when they come home.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I love this cartoon. According to the Republicans, we're out here raising the biggest tax on people ever. Now, in this cartoon, you'll see the woman got into her car. She didn't put her seatbelt on. It was a choice, right? She's now being fined. But she says, ``No, it's the biggest tax increase in history.''

That's what's going on here today. It is a joke. With the individual mandate, everybody gets a choice whether you're going to put your health care safety belt on or not, the principle of personal responsibility: If you can buy health insurance and can afford it, you have to buy it or pay a penalty; now, otherwise, you're passing the cost on to us. You're a freeloader. The Republicans are glorifying freeloaders, people who say they don't want to pay if they can.

Now, the Speaker said, Don't spike the football if we win in the Supreme Court. What you should have said was, Don't kick the watercooler. What's going on on the floor today is another pointless, time-wasting exercise. It's the 31st time the Republicans have tried to repeal the bill. Now, as a psychiatrist, I'm qualified to say this: One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

The game is over. The referee, John Roberts, blew the whistle. It's over, guys. Why don't we have the Speaker call us when we're ready to get down here and talk about real things like jobs and the economy and stop giving people the idea that they're going to be scared to death. Less than 1 percent of Americans will choose to be irresponsible and not buy health insurance if they can.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Rotary International and others for their efforts in vaccinating children around the world against polio. I also rise to encourage continued commitment and funding by the U.S. Government to the global effort to eradicate polio. In this regard, I want to thank Senator Dick Durbin for his leadership in bringing this timely resolution to the Senate.

Polio is a highly infectious disease that primarily affects children and for which there is no known cure. It can leave survivors permanently disabled or paralyzed. Eradication of polio is a high priority for Rotary International, whose membership extends across the country and in more than 170 countries. I am proud to represent the Rotarians of the 7th congressional district of Washington, who have generously given their time and financial support to the global fight against polio.

The U.S. Government is the leading public sector donor to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. The Centers for Disease Control and the United States Agency for International Development have been at the forefront in the U.S. Government's work to eradicate polio both nationally and internationally. Polio is now endemic only in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan.

Over the past week, it has become more difficult for international organizations to distribute polio vaccines to children in Pakistan. There is a critical lesson for the U.S. Government to learn. When humanitarian workers are used for intelligence collecting purposes, as we saw in Dr. Shakil Afridi's case, it erodes trust and undermines legitimate humanitarian work.

The immediate and long-term consequences of the CIA's ill-conceived project with Dr. Afridi are grave. The immediate consequence of Dr. Afridi's bogus vaccination program run by the CIA was that the Pakistani Taliban in northern Waziristan have since used it as an excuse to ban polio vaccinations to 161,000 children. The long-term impact is that it will be fodder for conspiracy theorists that American espionage is everywhere and that medical programs could have sinister motives.

The tragic impact of CIA's operation is that thousands of Pakistan's children who could have been vaccinated will suffer or die from polio.

As we recognize our achievements in eradicating polio, I urge my colleagues to look at countries where polio is still endemic and work to ensure that intelligence agencies are not using medical workers as tools to collect information.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Washington Men's Crew Team for winning the 110th Intercollegiate Rowing Association Championships (IRAs) on June 2, 2012.

From the moment that they began their grueling training, the University of Washington Huskies exemplified sportsmanship, athleticism and perseverance. Their discipline was rewarded when the Huskies won all five events at the IRAs--the first time in IRA history that a single program has swept five races. This victory marks the first time in more than 70 years that the Huskies have won consecutive national titles, and it finishes a season where the Huskies won every race in which they competed.

The Men's Varsity Eight--Sam Ojserkis, Dusan Milovanovic, Alex Bunkers, Ryan Schroeder, Mijo Rudelj, Sebastian Peter, Sam Dommer, A.J. Brooks, and Robert Munn--easily surpassed the standing record for the IRA championship. In fact, every Husky boat also set a championship record on their way to victory.

As we celebrate the long tradition of crew at the University of Washington, I want to commend Coach Michael Callahan, and all of the talented athletes of the Husky Men's Varsity Crew Team for their truly historic season. I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I introduced the Ensuring Child Care for Working Families Act to help low-income workers stay in the workforce. My bill creates a guarantee of Federal child care assistance for children up to the age of 13 in families with incomes up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. This program would be matched with State funds and administered by the State.

Low-income families and single parents have been bearing the brunt of this recession. They want to work, but often can't afford reliable and appropriate child care, so they are forced to either leave their jobs or to leave their kids in unhealthy or dangerous environments. For many poor people, there simply are no better options.

In the 1990s, Federal assistance for child care programs was established to address this very problem. It was created to help low- income families transition from welfare to paychecks. Over the years, funding for this program has dwindled, despite growing demand. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the TANF legislation, was passed in 1996 to ``end welfare as we know it.'' But we failed to provide the necessary support services to enable poor working families to succeed. One of those services is high-quality child care.

Today, only one of six children eligible for Federal child assistance receives it. Twenty-two States have waiting lists for child care. And families in 37 States were in worse circumstances in February of 2011 than they were in February of 2010 as the child care waiting list continues to grow, copayments rise, eligibility tightens, and reimbursement rates stagnate.

After three decades of wage stagnation in this country, with paychecks failing to keep up with the cost of health care, housing, and education, child care has become an unaffordable necessity for too many Americans.

A related problem that we also must acknowledge is the gender wage gap. Women only earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, according to the Census Bureau. Yet two-thirds of the women are now either the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in their family. So when there are wage gaps, entire families suffer. That means less money for food on the table and everything else that a family needs to survive.

Two days ago, Senate Republicans blocked a bill introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski that would strengthen the Fair Labor Standards Act's protections against pay inequities based on gender. As President Obama said, Republicans have once again put ``partisan politics ahead of women and families.'' This is wrong. Republican Senators ought to explain to their constituents why they did not vote for Senator Mikulski's bill.

Let me be very clear: equal pay for equal work isn't just a woman's issue--it's a family issue. For the millions of American women whose families depend on their earnings, reliable child care is vital.

It's time to level the playing field for working women. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5188 so that all parents, particularly working women, have the child care they need to stay on the job.

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed. I think I've seen the silliest thing in the world and then I come out here and they've done it again.

Sometime in the next 23 days, the Supreme Court is going to make a ruling on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. If they throw it out, as the Republican Party at prayer is hoping, this tax will have never existed. It will be gone because it's never been implemented. It's not affecting anybody. This is a PR stunt for the election. The Republicans are helping the device industry back out of a deal they made during health care reform.

In May 2009, the president of AdvaMed, which is the professional organization of the device manufacturers, signed a letter to President Obama stating: ``We are ready to work with you'' to do health reform.

The industry later agreed to the excise tax, knowing the cost would be offset by the new demands for devices created by the 30 million new people who would be insured. That was the deal they made.

You can't make a deal with a Republican and think it's going to last. It surely won't. And all the other sectors of the health care industry made similar deals.

Unlike the Bush-era Congress, the Democrats insisted their legislation be paid for. We paid for the whole thing. Well, guess what? AdvaMed now wants out of the deal. They never meant it. They were a flim-flam operation when they came in in the first place. They also claim that, Oh, my God, we're going to lose 43,000 jobs. You know who did the study? AdvaMed contracted with somebody to do a study; and lo and behold, they lost 43,000 jobs. Bloomberg had an independent consultant look at it, and they find that there is no evidence that there will be any jobs lost whatsoever. That was entered into the Record during the earlier debate, and I won't do it again.

The demand for devices will remain steady even after the tax kicks in, and the tax does not only apply to devices made in America and shipped overseas. It applies to every one of them. There's no way you're going to get out of it.

So the argument about offshoring jobs is just political nonsense. They want to call this is a jobs bill--we're saving 43,000 jobs. They were never in doubt, never in question.

That a company is laying off somebody today in anticipation of a tax that goes in effect in 2013, folks, 6 months from now that might be repealed by the Supreme Court, you cannot tell me that the management of these companies are that foolish.

They're going to pay for it by having the IRS claw back the subsidy to middle-income families who will be in the new health plans. The Treasury will pay these subsidies directly to the health plan so the individuals won't even know it happened. So they will be invisible to the newly insured, but at the end of the year, middle class people are suddenly going to get a bill from the IRS for something they never knew went there.

So, in other words, we're going to let a hundred-billion-dollar industry pull out of a deal and pay for it by requiring working people across this country to write a check to the IRS. Welcome to Republican- style health reform.

Vote ``no'' on this bill. It's simply another way to try and repeal ObamaCare. Mr. Obama cares. He passed a bill. The Republicans have done nothing since they have been in charge.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remind my colleagues about the ongoing problem of hazing in the United States military. Hazing, particularly racially motivated hazing, undermines our military.

Multiple suicides in 2011 by service members of color after suffering hazing drew increased attention to this problem. These incidents involved dehumanizing service members through racist taunting, harassment and physical assault.

Private Danny Chen, 19, a Chinese American, took his own life in Kandahar, Afghanistan in October 2011 after being hazed. Investigators found that he had been physically assaulted and taunted with racial slurs. Eight soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, assault and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Private Chen.

In his annual holiday message on December 23, 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta condemned hazing in the military. He later directed military commanders to review hazing policies and ensure compliance.

At the outset of this year, our colleagues in the Congressional Tri- Caucus called for public hearings and hosted a forum on the issue. In March, the Armed Services Committees' Subcommittee on Military Personnel hosted a hearing on this subject and heard testimonies from U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard representatives. Those testifying all agreed that hazing is wrong and should not be tolerated.

However, the hearing also highlighted the need for greater transparency and regular oversight in order to ensure real, measurable success in combating hazing within the ranks of our military. Thankfully, a portion of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 calls for annual reports by the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security as well as a report by the Comptroller General, which will create help define hazing as well as create systematic means by which data about hazing can be collected and tracked.

As a result of these reports, we will have the common language, tools, data and communication needed to better prevent hazing in our military. By learning from our failure to protect Private Chen and other victims, we also hope to honor their memory.

Mr. Speaker, we owe an immense debt to our brave members of our military who risk their lives for our national security. I join my colleagues in their steadfast effort to make sure that Congress does its due diligence to ensure that hazing has no place in our armed services.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate, I am not sure if we are talking about India or China, but where are we talking about here? The Republicans have set up another straw man.

This bill is another Republican attack on women's rights at the same time it's masquerading as an antidiscrimination bill. It's about as cynical and deceptive as anything I've seen on the floor.

I ask the proponents of this bill: If you care, Mr. Speaker, if they care about discrimination against women, why did they vote in the last Congress against women's rights to challenge gender-based pay discrimination? Why did you also vote to allow health insurers to continue charging women higher premiums based on their sex?

These votes are on the record. That's what you think of women.

My friend, this bill is not what it claims to be. It is not about fighting discrimination against women. It is the opposite. It is another Republican intrusion into a woman's right to choose. Women should be able to make such

sensitive and private decisions with their families, their doctors, and their God, free from the fear of the police.

What are you going to do, set up a registry every time they do a sonogram and they decide what the baby is, girl or boy, they are going to post it and then they are going to follow? If that woman then decides to have an abortion, well, she is getting rid of a girl, so we are going to criminally charge her with making that decision on the basis of the sex of the child. That's what kind of nonsense you are setting up.

For people who don't want government in people's lives, who argue over and over and over about keeping the government--in fact, we don't want ObamaCare. We don't want government in our lives at all. But in this one, you want them to go right into the personal mind of the woman and decide and criminally charge her.

Do you think that's going to do any good? You simply are attacking women's rights.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Berman/Manzullo bill to reform how we promote exports. This is a great down payment on a whole host of reforms we can make to how the government works with U.S. businesses to create jobs by exporting our goods and services.

We have enormous business opportunities in overseas markets, and we have overwhelming data and analysis that shows that other countries have been doing a better job at promoting their exports and that we can easily do much better.

Today's bill will focus our export promotions activities and reduce obstacles to exporting without spending any more money.

As you may know, Mr. Reichert and I also have a bill with a couple of additional export promotion provisions that also have no cost and are uncontroversial.

Because of a quirk in the tax code we are getting inaccurate data on services exports that could be up to one-third wrong. We need to fix it. We also need to have a better annual report and plan from the TPCC on how the government's overall export work is matching up with the needs of U.S. businesses.

I'd ask the members for their support in continuing to push on this bill, to get it through the Senate, and on other measures too, like what Mr. Reichert and I have put together--costless improvements we can make to improve exports and create jobs.

Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 that granted unprecedented powers to the president, including ability to indefinitely detain without trial American citizens suspected of terrorism. I strongly opposed this provision and voted against passage of the entire Act.

On December 15, 2011, after the bill had passed, I spoke on the House floor condemning these dangerous and unnecessary measures. I was concerned that our civil liberties would erode if we leave the interpretation of the law to the commander-in-chief. As we continue our counter-terrorism efforts at home and abroad, we are leaving enormous leeway to the current president, the next president, and the president after that to gather intelligence and detain individuals without charge or trial.

Today, government surveillance is more intrusive than ever. Congress, which once seemed poised to shut Guantanamo Bay, has instead passed bipartisan law after law ensuring its indefinite operations. In my district, the Seattle Police Department recently acquired surveillance drones, but no policies have yet been drafted to guide their use. It is not clear whether these drones will be used only to collect evidence on specific crimes or become an invasive, all-encompassing surveillance operation without proper oversight.

This week, we're voting on the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, and the House had an opportunity to challenge some of these far-reaching provisions in current law.

Earlier this morning, I voted for the Smith-Amash amendment to the FY13 NDAA, which would strike Section 1022 of the FY12 NDAA and amend Section 1021 to eliminate indefinite military detention of those detained in the United States. In short, this amendment would explicitly ban any president or government official from ordering the military to place anyone in the country into indefinite detention without charge or trial. It also reaffirms due process protections for all persons within the United States.

I am deeply disappointed that this bipartisan amendment did not get enough votes to be adopted into the FY13 NDAA.