comment them for compromising. that's what our forefathers talked about. i'm glad to see that the defense centers of excellence for psychological help and brain injury will move oversight to the army. there will be increased efficiency for our soldiers. there are still problems screening and treating our troops. recently, n.p.r. ran an expose on how the department of defense has tested over 500,000 soldiers with a predeployment cognitive test but performed fewer than 3,000 tests post deployment to actually compare the results the fiscal 2008 national defense bill bipartisanly supported public law 110-181 required prethe employment and post-deployment

screenings of a soldier's cognitive ability, current policy is clearly violating the intent of the law. we can't gauge the cognitive health of our troops without comparing tests. last year my amendment, to address this, passed the house but is not in the time bill. we need to correct in the next years defense authorization before anymore soldiers slip through the cracks. it has consequences within service and when they get out of service it has bigger consequences. the defense department has raised concern with the currently administered test, but as stated it will not be able to select an alternate until 2015. that is not acceptable. the longer we wait, the longer our troops suffering from undiagnosed t.b.i.'s, go

untreated. i am concerned that we are not providing proper oversight for those soldiers who could have been injured in theater before this policy took effect in 2010. many of these soldiers remain on active duty. we must ensure that they are tested and treated. i fear we are doing a disservice to them and the armed forces by not addressing this problem in this bill. i ask everyone to consider this. this is a critical, critical issue given little attention except by mr. mckeon and mr. smith. i ask that you do review that. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the speaker: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield to my good friend from ohio, mr. kucinich, two minutes. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, thank

you. this bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. it gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. it diminishes the role of this congress, the founders saw article 1, section 8 of the constitution which places in the hands of congress the war power as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. this legislation diminishes congress' role in that regard. this legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. in short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the

united states constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the state. i want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand this. we are giving the state more power over individuals with this bill. it's the wrong direction. our children deserve a world without end, not a world without end, our children deserve a world where they know the government will protect them that it's not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts and going as the patriot act does into their bedrooms or into -- excuse me, into their banking records or into their educational records. we got to keep the government out of people's lives, stop the government from getting more into war which gives the government more control over people. this is the time we take a stand for the constitution and a stand for a government which is smaller when it comes on matters of war.

thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i wish to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beneficiaryon: -- mr. bishop: in the year we have been here discussing these things we have talked a lot about budget problems we have in this country. it's my contention that our budget is not just we have been spending too much but we have been spending on too much. one of the things, though, that we should be spending is of course military issues. article 1 of the constitution clearly states the defense of this country is a core constitutional responsibility. and for that there must be government workers who are required to do this. that is what it should indeed be. unfortunately we have a president and administration that has decided there should be some financial restraints on

this particular area, indeed it means reducing spending significantly on the military, not necessarily other areas. the result of this will be as has been shown in testimony that we will create an army smaller than any army we have had since world war ii, a navy at its smallest since world war i, and an air force that is smaller and older than any time in this country. and to do that there will at least be 100,000 uniformed jobs 245 will be -- that will be cut, destroyed, and reduced. there are some people who think that simply cutting a few soldiers, airmen, few sailors will be an easy solution to this issue. that is naive. it will not happen. what it means, though, is also programs must be cut at the same time. we have acquisition which buys new materials for our soldiers and sustainment which fixes it. that means in certain situations our maintenance and sustainment site will have even greater requirements of them because of

the decisions the administration has foisted and we will be making in this and the appropriations bill to come later. for example, the united states has owned air superiority ever since the korean war and we take it for granted. yet the f-16's we fly to maintain that were flying at 150% of their designed capacity when i was first elected to this congress. yet this is an administration that even though we have that will deficit decided not to build any more f-22's and playing the f-35 which does produce and put our air superiority in jeopardy. you have to have a plane for an air force. and you have to have a boat for a navy. and they cost money. in each case we will have the oldest equipment. that means when men and women go into battle to defend this country we are eequipping them with the oldest products they will ever have to protect themselves and that old stuff requires massive maintenance if you are really going to do that. but what we are requiring to do in this particular budget if we

go along with the president's request for making bigger and bigger cuts in the defense of this country, is taking those civilian employees that make that maintenance effort, that do that sustainment, that make those equipment last longer than they were designed to last. we are taking them out of the picture. the end result for the massive cuts we are looking about in the military both proposed by the obama administration and they go into effect because of rescission by the failed supercommittee will be anywhere between 100 and half million civilian employees and this vital function in this constitutional function, that will lose their jobs. if you go to the worst case scenario it may be a million employees. i mention that specifically because we have heard often and often where are the jobs bills? this job has passed a number of job bills to promote private sector growth. yet at the same time we now have a situation where indeed the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. there are those out there who are going around saying that we

have to pass and are not pilloring 24 congress for not passing bigger and bigger spending to create more and more government jobs which is questionable if we should be there in the first place, but we are being pillored for not doing that, we are being presented by the left hand with a proposal that will cut existing civilian jobs in areas where we are actually -- actually required to have them and maintain them. if we don't -- constitutionally required to have them and maintain them. if we don't find that inconsistent, it is a problem in not facing reality. we have always thought pass more government jobs, the same people demanding that now in this area cut more government jobs. there is no consistency with that. and the sad part is the left hand, the one that is defending this country with the needs of the military which is our constitutional responsibility, those are the ones which are appropriate and those are the jobs that are needed, and those are the jobs that are not being

protected in the future. we must make some decisions in congress on what is significantly important to us and this is an area which we must make those decisions in the future. we must continue to talk about jobs, but we have to realize if you want more jobs, you can't go about cutting the jobs, and unfortunately this administration is trying to play both of those ends and it is unfortunate. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the speaker: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, after my good friend from utah spoke i just -- i guess i say wow. last night i reminded him that military people are government workers also. indeed, i do, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. and toward that end when we talk about cuts and my friend talked about passing on spending, i'm

curious when $1 billion walks away in iraq and nobody knows where it went, i'd ask my friend to tell those soldiers that fort bragg, where president and mrs. obama have spoken to them today, that are returning home, why they were in iraq and what is it that we protected by spending $1 trillion, why is it we are sending money to corrupt governments and somewhere along the line i think we'll come up with some answers that we had enough money to spend but we spent it on things that we should not have. mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to my very good friend from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, for many american families they will only be able to celebrate this holiday if

they forget about the burdens of their daily lives. some are about to lose their jobs, others are about to close their businesses for the last time. some are worried they can't pay for their health care. others are worried they are next in the layoff line. this congress has an opportunity on this day to address those problems. yesterday the house took action on a bill that, frankly, isn't going to go anywhere to address these problems. and today's the day we ought to enact a bill that will. on january 1 everyone who earns wages in this country is facing a tax increase if this congress doesn't act. $1,000 a year tax increase on the middle class. we should suspend that tax increase today. many people will lose their unemployment benefits, they'll have no income, no check, and to those who say, well, they should go find a job, you should walk in the shoes of those who are in that predicament because here's what you'd find.

for every one job that's available in this country, there are four people looking for it. so failing to extend unemployment benefits is craven in my opinion. on the first of january doctors who take care of our seniors, our grandmothers, our grandfathers, our disabled citizens will see a 23% cut in what medicare pays them. if we do not act by december 31. yesterday's bill was deficient in so many ways, but here's two of the real big ones. first of all it attached extraneous provisions about whether to build a oil pipeline, some people are for it, others are not. it doesn't belong in that bill. and second, a large way the bill was paid for was to blame the unemployed and to say we are going to pay for what's in that bill by cutting their benefits. that's wrong. what we ought to be saying is we can hold down the taxes -- i would ask for 30 more seconds.

the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. we can hold down the taxes of the middle class, we can fairly extend benefits for the unemployed, we can make sure our doctors will continue to see our seniors and disabled people if we ask the hedge fund managers and the millionaires and billionaires of this country to pay just a little bit more. we will give the house an opportunity this afternoon to vote on that bill, these the bill we should be considering. if we do we can then proceed immediately with passing this badly needed defense bill. i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. the gentleman from new jersey is right. yesterday the house did act in a bipartisan way. now it's up to the senate to act, amend, change, anything except just sitting there and not taking action. i'm pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr.

flake. the speaker: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of section 1245 in the conference report. to require what we hope are crippling sanctions on the central bank of iran. these provisions offered in a bipartisan amendment in the other chamber and approved by unanimous vote would severely limit the funding available to the iranian regime to use in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. . i introduced legislation as a standalone bill here in congress and we urged the conferees to accept the language, which they did. there is no silver bullet to stop the iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, but if there is a sweet spot to make a difference it is the bank of iran. i am pleased with this, i would urge adoption of that section

all the way through the process. i hope that this signals our intent, certainly to ensure that iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: would you be so kind as to the amount of time remaining on either side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the speaker: the gentleman from florida has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from utah has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: thank, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield to my friend the distinguishedwoman from california, mrs. davis, two minutes. the speaker: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. s that positive bill for our military families. when we move to the bill i'm going to take an opportunity to address that. while we're on the rule, i have to express my immense disappointment that still, to this day, we as a congress will not even bring to the table, we won't even look at the fact

that if a military servicewoman is raped and becomes pregnant, she does not have access to an abortion procedure. mr. speaker, this is really an outrage. we say that we want to help our servicewomen, we say we are finally starting to treat them as the warriors that they are. and yet i ask you, how many women have to fight and die for our country in order to have the same rights as women sitting in federal prison? this is a slap in the face to all military women. they volunteer to train, they volunteer to deploy, and fight for our country, and we repay them by treating them as less worthy than prisoners. honoring women in our military means changing this policy. and treating them with respect. haven't they earned this? it's well past time to show

them that they have. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker: the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hastings: if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to deprovide that immediately after the house adopt this is rule it will bring up the middle class fairness and putting america back to work act of 2011, which extends middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the medicare reimbursement doc fix. i ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker: without objection. mr. hastings: at this time i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from california, ms. hahn, two

minutes. the speaker: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from florida for giving me this time. i want to encourage my friends and colleagues on both sides to defeat the previous question so we can work together to pass a clean extension of unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut. you know, yesterday, the house chaplain began the day with a reminer that the holidays are a time of -- reminder that the hol lays -- holidays are a time of hope. it is in that spirit of hope that congress should embrace and put aside the politics that have darkened recent discussions. last night my republican friends passed legislation that however well intended has no chance of passing in the senate. it did not receive my vote because like many of my fellow democrats in the house and senate, i don't believe that we should be debating

controversial issues as part of those extensions. if you believe that building a pipeline through the united states is a good idea, let's have that debate. if you believe that the e.p.a. shouldn't regulate emissions from certain industries and machines, let's have that debate. however, those issues cloud the need for extending unemployment benefits to those who can't find work. and it clouds the benefits for american families that would get an extension of the payroll tax without. i want to work with my republican friends to get this done. i know i'm new around here, but i think that means putting aside these other issues to debate them on their own merit. let's work together in a spirit of hope. vote against the previous question and come back to the table and do what needs to be done. thank you, and i yield my time. the speaker: the gentleman from

utah. mr. bishop: i reserve. the speaker: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i advise my friend from utah, i'm going to be the last speaker if he's ready to close. mr. bishop: there may be another speaker coming down but he or she is not here so if you want to go, i'll take him out. mr. hastings: all right. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: in the mad rush to get home for christmas, we're delivering an early gift to those who criticize our country for failing to live up to our ideals. with this legislation, we're undermining over 200 years of constitutional protections. we're returning american society to an age when an all-powerful executive can command unaccountable power over people's lives. to codify in law the power of

the president to indefinitely detain american citizens without charge or trial is an egregious affront to our nation's system of justice. franz calf ka wrote about it year -- kafka wrote about it years ago, it's known as kafka-esque. 10 years of war, of runaway defense spending or of the patriot act, torture, and extraordinary rendition, and we are still responding to the terrorist threat with a knee jerk reaction devoid of reason and common sense. this legislation says that our law enforcement agencies do not work, that our judiciary, our court system, does not work. this legislation says that the president can, alone, decide

who is guilty or innocent. i would remind my friends that brauking -- that barack obama may be the president all the time. but no president should have untrammeled authority to determine innocence or guilt. it puts the lie to the judicial brampling of our government and to the legislative branch of our government. this legislation goes too far. if the republican majority were serious about having this body carefully consider our nation's defense policies, members would have had more than two days to review the more than 1,000 pages covering $600 billion in spending. i urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you.

let me reiterate one more time. the speaker: the gentleman recognizes himself for as much time as he may consume. mr. pish shop: i would be happy to recognize myself for such time as i may consume. or even less. this bill has gone through regular order as no other bill has. went through its committee in regular order and was passed out in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 60-1. came on the floor with 152 amendments to be considered and was passed out with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. went to the senate, was passed out in an overwhelming bipartisan vote and the conference report was signed by the conferees in a clear, bipartisan effort. this is one of those good bills that does authorize our military forces through fiscal year 2012 and it is significant. but i would like in closing to talk about one of the issues that i think was brought up and brought up with some

exaggeration to the content of what is there that deals specifically with military detainees. it is very clear, both congressman mckeon, chairman of the committee, congressman smith, the ranking member of the committee, spoke at length in rules committee on this specific issue. they were asked about the issue, they addressed the issue. let me make this very clear. everything in this law that deals with retire yeses does not change in any way, shape, or form, existing law. it does not deny anyone habeas corpus opportunity. that is not waived in any way, shape, or form. let me quote from mr. smith, the ranking democrat on the committee, when he said, when talking about different things, he simply said that there is possibility of attention without a norm -- detention without a normal criminal charge but even if you do that, which once again the president said he won't do, but even if you did that in certain

isolated circumstances where it could be necessary under the law of war, even if you do that, habeas corpus still applies, which means you have to have a hearing in front of a federal judge to make your case under the law for why you have the right to detain this person. and to do that, you have to show there is a connection to al qaeda and the taliban and you have to show there is a threat that they present, so habeas corpus applies to everyone, whether they are a citizen, illegal alien, or a noncitizen. habeas corpus still applies. it is very clear in both sections 1021 and 1022 that protections for american citizens are clearly stated in there. in the senate, they added in 1021 the words, nothing in this section shall be con strured to affecting existing law -- construed to affecting existing law or authoritying relating to u.s. citizens, lawful residents of the united states or any other perps captured or

arrested in the united states. in 1022 it makes it very clear, before somebody can be detained, there are two standards which must be met. first of all, there has to be association with an armed force that is in coordination and acting against the interests of the united states. and, not just member, but they have to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out attacks or attempted attacks against the united states or its coalition partners. can't just go out and pick people off the streets, there has to be a standard, and everyone gets habeas corpus rights in all these events. let me report -- quote again from the law, the bill we are debating. the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section, this power, does not extend to citizens of the united states. which means you can't do this kind of detainment against a

citizen or lawful aim yen of the united states. only in this section -- lawful alien of the united states. only in this section and the other section you have to meet special criteria that are not different than what we are currently doing. it means in the past history of the united states, especially in some of our wartimes, there have been presidents we used to say would throw people in jail who opposed them. president obama could still do that, thunder statute but not with this particular language, in this bill. there are specific protections written for american sit zepps, for legal aliens of the united states. it is only a very restricted authority and very restricted power and doesn't affect habeas corpus or change existing law. in essence, those people who worked in committee on this bill have done a oweman's work in coming up with -- a yeoman's work in coming up with a good

bill. they came up with a good conference report. this is a good rule a standard conference rule. with the only exception that we still must be very careful that if we follow the administration's advice, and cut our military spending too much, not only are we putting our military in jeopardy and our equipment in jeopardy but we are destoying jobs which is what we don't want to be doing in this particular time period. i would urge everyone to vote for this rule and i would urge everyone to vote for the underlying bill and with that, mr. speaker, i now yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the speaker: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman move the previous question? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, in closing i would also like to urge adoption of the rule, the underlying legislation, yield back my time and move the previous question. the speaker: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it.

the resolution is agreed to. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a volt by the yeas and nays -- a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235rk the nays are 173. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. podse those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute

vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 169. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the members will take their conversations out of the back of the room. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the house will come to order. >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 493, i call up the conversation report on the bill -- conversation report on the bill h.r. 1540 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1540, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of

energy, to proscribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to house resolution 493, the conversation report is considered as read. -- conversation report is considered as read. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 30 minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: mr. speaker, is the gentleman from washington opposed to the conversation report? -- conference report? mr. smith: no, i'm not. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the conference reports. the speaker pro tempore: brown-waite, clause 2, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany h.r. 1540. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields himself as much time as he might consume. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act conference report. as you know the ndaa is the key mechanism by which the congress fulfills its primary constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense and this year will mark the 50th consecutive year we completed our work. the ndaa passed the armed services committee with a vote of 60-1. it passed the full house by a

wide margin of 322-96. likewise the senate adopted this version of the bill by a vote of 93-7. we negotiated every provision in the two bills and have delivered this conference report using regular order. this is a bipartisan product from start to finish with a wide base of support. let me further assure members that the bill's authorization levels have been reduced to comply with the budget control act. the bill would bring the total authorized funding for the national defense to $554 billion for the base budget, and $115.5 billion for overseas contingency operations. this represents a $19 billion reduction from last year's authorization. nonetheless, what makes our bill such an important piece of legislation are the vital authorities contained therein.

our bill provides for pay and benefits for our military and their families, as well as the authorities that they need to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. in addition, we include landmark pieces of legislation sanctioning the central bank of iran and strengthening policies and procedures used to detain, interrogate, and prosecute al qaeda, the taliban, and affiliated groups, and those who substantially support them. however i must be crystal clear on this point, the provisions do not extend any new authorities to detain u.s. citizens and explicitly exempt u.s. citizens from provisions related to military custody of terrorists. the conference report covers many more critical issues but i'll close in the interest of time. however, before i do i'd like to thank my partner, the ranking

member from washington, adam smith, the ranking member on the committee. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, want to thank the chairman, mr. mckeon. we always say our committee is the most bipartisan committee in congress. we strongly believe that. republicans and democrats on that committee are committed to doing our job which is to provide the troops and make sure that our national security is protected in this country. mr. mckeon was an excellent partner to work with. it's a model for what happens when you sit down and try to legislative together. something i think could be emulated by many more committees and issues. thank you. it's been great working with you on this. i think we produced a good product. . i want to address the issue

surrounding detainee policy. i have never seen an issue more distorted as to what people said is in the bill versus what is actually in the bill. number one, habeas corpus is protected, not touched, in this bill. pursuant to court rulings, anyone picked up pursuant to this has pursuant to the authorization for the use of military force has habeas corpus rights. that is not touched categorically. now, i understand that a lot of people have a problem with what is current law. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is right. the house is not in order. the house will come to order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. and current law, something we have been debating since 9/11, both the brucks and the obama administration has taken the position that indefinite detention is an option.

a u.s. citizen was briefly subject to indefinite -- sorry -- indefinite detention. the circuit upheld that right. that is current law and i actually share some of the concerns amongst my colleagues about that current law. but this bill doesn't affect that. we in fact make it clear in our category on military detention that it is not meant to apply to u.s. citizens or lawful resident aliens. read the bill. it is in there. nothing in this section shall apply to u.s. citizens or lawful resident aliens. now, if you have a problem with indefinite detention, that is a problem with current law. defeating this bill will not change that. won't change it at all. but i'll tell you what it will do, it will undermine the ability of our troops to do their job, to do what we've asked them to do. if we defeat this bill we

defeat a pay raise for the troops, we defeat milcon projects for the troops, we defeat endless support programs that are absolutely vital to them doing their jobs. and i don't think i need to remind my body in a 100,000 of those troops are in harm's way in afghanistan right now facing a determined enemy in the middle of a fight. it is not the time to cut off their support over an issue that isn't going to be fixed by this bill. and let me emphasize that just one more time. current law, as interpreted by the bush administration, the obama administration, and the judiciary of this country creates the problems that everybody's talking about. not this bill. we put language in under detention policy because we think it's about time the legislative branch at least said something on the subject, but we are not the ones to create that problem. i urge support of this bill. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds, if i may. one issue i want to talk is

about military construction projects for guam. there is some limiting language in this bill on that issue based on the fact that the department of defense is rethinking their posture in asia between okinawa and guam and other places. let me make clear, guam is a critically important part of our asia presence. they have presence of our military there now. language in this bill was not meant to cut off existing military construction projects or indeed other ones that may not be related to this and i want to make sure that's clear and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the conference report and yield myself five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. nadler: we are in danger of losing our most precious heritage, not because a band of thugs are risking our freedom, but because we forgot who we

are. we have let go of our freedoms bit by bit. with every executive order, court decision and yes, congress. laws of detention have major implications for our fundamental rights. we should not be considering this as a rider to the defense authorization bill. this should have been the subject of close scrutiny by the judiciary committee. the complex legal and constitutional issues should have been properly analyzed and the implications for our values carefully considered. you will hear that this bill merely recodifies existing law. but many cleel scholars tells us it goes a great deal further than what the law now allows. that it codifies claims of executive power against our liberties that the courts have never confirmed. you'll hear it really won't affect u.s. citizens, although again there is credible legal authority that tells us just the opposite. you will hear that it doesn't really turn the military into a domestic police force but that clearly isn't the case.

most of all, you will hear that we must do this to be safe when the opposite is true. we can never be safe without our liberties, and this bill continues a decade long campaign to destroy those liberties. this bill goes far beyond the authorization for the use of military force. that resolution authorized all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons the president determines planned, authorized, or committed terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons. this bill is not limited to those responsible for the september 11 attacks and those who aided or harbored them. it includes anyone who, quote, substantially supported al qaeda and the taliban or, quote, associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners, unquote. it is not clear what is meant by substantially supported or what it takes to be associated with someone who substantially supported them. it refers to any belligerent act or directly supported such

hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. it doesn't, as does our criminal law, says material support so we really don't know whether that support could be merely a speech or an article or something else. so let's not pretend this is the same as the aumf. if it were there would be no need to pass this law. we already have it. courts operate on the assumption that congress doesn't write surplus language that it must have been intended to do something. here it is pretty clear that we are stretching the aumf beyond the 9/11 commission. whoever it reaches, and we don't know, the government would have the authority to lock them up without trial until, quote, the end of hostilities, end quote. given how they have been used to justify actions far beyond afghanistan might mean forever. and who will be taken out of the civilian justice system and imprisoned forever without a trial, it says anyone who is

under this statute. it doesn't say what protections a person doesn't disappear into marlte prison. that's not america. we also need to be clear that the so-called feinstein amendment does not provide the protections the sponsor intended. it should not construe existing laws or scrutiny of the united states citizens, lawful aliens of the united states or anyone captured in the united states, closed quote. so what are existing laws and authorities? as william sessions has recently written, the provision does not limit such detention authority of those captured on the battlefield. the reality is that current law and the scope such executive authorit unsettled. director sessions says in the two case where is the supreme court might have questioned u.s. citizen, legal permanent resident, the president had the authority, the administration claimed the president had the

authority to detain a suspected terrorist captured in the united states indefinite without charge or trial. the government changed course and decided to try them in civilian court in order to avoid a supreme court ruling on that question and that question remains undetermined. so when the feinstein amendment references existing law it deprives the president of this dangerous power. we should ensure that our liberty is protected and not leave that question to some future court. and we should certainly not enact a law codifying -- and that's what this law does. it codifies, it puts into law terrorfying claims of power made by presidents but never approved by the courts or until now by the congress. and that's the fundamental reason we should reject this bill. we must take great care. our liberties are too precious to be cast aside in times of peril and fear. we have the tools to deal with those who would attack us. i yield myself 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields himself an additional 30 seconds. mr. nadler: we should not do this. because of this moment us challenges to one of the founding principles of the united states that no person may be deprived of his liberty without due process of law, this bill must be rejected. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, vice chairman of the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities and member of the congress of the conference committee, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields to the gentleman from texas two minutes. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this conference report and it is a broad-ranging conference report that affects everything from personnel policies to weapon systems to research and development across the department of defense and the military. and i especially commend chairman mckeon, ranking member

smith and the staff who have worked since -- all year to make this possible but worked especially hard in the last few days to make this conference report possible before the congress adjourns. there are a number of good, important provisions in this bill that strengthen our country's national security. but in light of the comments we have recently heard, mr. speaker, let me talk just a moment about this issue of detention. you know, one can put into law the sun comes up and if somebody comes and says, no, it doesn't, you can present all the evidence and you can present words that have clear meaning and if somebody just wants to say, no, it doesn't, you know, at some level reach an impasse. the two provisions related to detention in this bill, the words have been put into the law are very clear. one says it does not apply to u.s. citizens. it does not.

nothing here affects u.s. citizens. the other provision says that nothing in this section can be construed to affect existing law or authorities related to the detention of u.s. citizens. now, it seems to me there may well be people who are uncomfortable with the current law, and i understand that. and the proper thing to do is to introduce a bill and try to get that amended in some way, to get it more to your liking. but to argue that this bill changes in some way the current law when the words say nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities is just not credible. this is a small step, the provisions in this bill, mr. speaker, are a small step towards having this congress back involved in making this detention decision. i think it is the right small step and it should be

supported. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state seek recognition? mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, a very important member from the armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend inside remarks. the speaker pro tempore: seeing no objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with profound respect for our constitution and for my colleagues and friends who care deeply about the impact of this bill on the constitution. it is because i have considered those issues that i would respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues and argue for the propriety and constitutionality of this bill. i would deplore the idea that an american citizen or a permanent resident alien could be rounded up and put in a prison in the united states of america. this bill does not authorize that scenario. i would deplore a circumstance or any person, even a person

who is not here under some permanent legal status, could be rounded up and put in a prison and only a military prison. that is not what this bill authorizes. it leaves open the option that such a person could be detained in a regular civilian prison or in a military provision. i would reject completely the proposition that any person could be held in any facility, military or civilian, anywhere in our country indefinitely without the right to have the charges -- that are levied against them held by some mutual finding or effect. it is our interpretation that the habeas corpus provisions already extend to these individuals. that is to say that a nonresident or nonlegal person in the country who's held under such circumstances in fact has the right of habeas corpus. i think the law requires it. i think the constitution

demands it. there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether or not that conclusion is correct. that is the state of present law. this bill does not amend present law in a way that i would like to see it amended by clarifying that right of habeas corpus but it absolutely does not erode or reduce whatever protections exist under existing law. so those who would share our view that the right of habeas should be clarified should work for a statute that clarifies that but we should not subvert this necessary and important bill. i would urge a yes vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield to the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. members of the house of representatives, this issue has never gone before the house judiciary committee. never. and i would like to put in the record a letter from the former director of the federal bureau of investigation, william sessions, and it's dated december 14. and it says, there has been some debate over whether section 1021 of the national defense act authority merely restates existing law or would for the first time codify authority for the president to indefinitely detain without charge virtually

anyone picked up in anti-terrorism efforts. including united states citizens arrested on united states soil. attached please find a letter from judge william sessions, a former federal judge and former director of the f.b.i. under presidents reagan, bush, and clinton, explaining the current law on this point is unclear and that enacting section 1021 of this act would dangerously expand the power for indefinite detention. i know you gentlemen have studied this in the armed services committee, but i've got a letter from the former head of the f.b.i. and judge william sessions, and another letter from 23 generals and admirals

saying the same thing. i know you are very learned people and very consciencious, but, please, when the heads of the f.b.i., republicans, judges all tell you that you are doing the wrong thing, what does it take for us to vote this down because this provision allows for the first time, we codify a court decision that will now make it ok to lock up u.s. citizens for terrorism. this is what it says, mr. chairman. can't you -- i'll read it again. there has been some debate and he says -- mr. smith: that's

what that person -- mr. conyers: would you let me recognize you on your own time. i've only got three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from maryland, the chairman of the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces, member of the conference committee, mr. bartlett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields two minutes to the gentleman from maryland. mr. bartlett: thank you. i rise in support of the conference report for the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. this is the 50th consecutive conference report for the national defense authorization act. i have the honor of serving as the chairman of the tactical error and land forces subcommittee of our armed services committee. under the full committee leadership of chairman mckeon and ranking member smith, our

subcommittee's ranking member, and a suburb staff, ours is truly a bipartisan -- superb staff, ours is truly a bipartisan effort. this comes at a critical period for our nation and military. world events and the nation's fiscal circumstances have challenged our government's will and capacity to address the enormity of the challenges we face. we need to develop a new national military strategy that better reflects the current and projected threat and fiscal environment. this is needed to facilitate full and balanced consideration of force structure and equipment and investment plans and programs. our first priority and immediate requirement is to fully support our personnel serving overseas in afghanistan and the many other countries where we have asked them to serve. under the daily constant threat to their personal survival. this conference report properly reflects this immediate requirement. the national defense authorization act conference report authorizes an additional

$325 million for national guard and reserve equipment on funded requirements. $3 billion is provided to support urgent operational needs and counter-- and to counter improvised explosive device activities. $2.7 billion is provided to support mine resistant ambush protective vehicle modernization. and $2.4 billion is provided for army and marine corps tactical wheeled vehicles, including $155 million for the development of the joint light tactical vehicle. an additional $255 million is provided to support the abram industrial base and national guard tank modernization. increasing the request of 21 to 70 tank upgrades, avoiding a production break in the tank upgrade program. $85 billion is provided for f-35 aircraft. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bartlett: and multiyear --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bartlett: army and navy helicopters. i urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. it's time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member on the air, land subcommittee, mr. reyes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. reyes: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act. this bill represents months of hard work by members on both sides of the aisle. and i especially wanted to thank my friend and chairman, mr. mckeon, and ranking member smith, as well as my chairman, roscoe bartlett, for the inclusive work that was done in this legislation. it is important to note that what this bill does not include

during conversation negotiations unnecessary provisions limiting the work of military chaplains were dropped. now the bill will allow the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell to proceed so that troops who defend our values will have protections that they have fought to defend. working with the white house our committee achieved a final compromise on detainees that does not grant broad new authority for the detention of u.s. citizens and does not establish a new authority for indefinite detention of terrorists. the bill strikes a reasonable balance between protecting our nation from terrorists like those who attacked our nation on september 11, and protecting our american values. it demonstrates that we do not need to sacrifice our civil liberties to be safe. finally, i urge members to support this legislation because it also includes a pay raise for our troops and provides funds for the care needed to recover from the bounds of -- wounds of

war. the bill improves access to mental health care for members of the national guard and reserves, and the bill also expands and improves loss dealing with sexual assault and harassment. i ask all members to vote for this very important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield to the gentleman from georgia, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for four minutes. mr. johnson: than you -- thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have a unique position in congress in that i serve both on the house armed services committee and the house judiciary committee. the house armed services

committee is charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of america from external threats. the judiciary committee is charged with the awesome responsibility of protecting the rights of americans to live freely and protecting that fro internal threats. i -- from internal threats. i note my service on armed services has been good and i appreciate the bipartisanship with which our chairman and the ranking member address the issues for keeping america safe from external threat. and i must commend you for a very difficult time in reaching this particular product. however, i rise in opposition to this defense authorization bill

reached in conference committee because it does disturb the rights that americans have come to enjoy under our constitution. we have sworn to uphold our constitution of the united states of america regardless of which committee you serve on. yet we are about to give our seal of approval to a bill that gives military authority, or gives the military the authority to hold american citizens captured abroad on suspicion of terrorism and to hold them indefinitely without trial. this is a codification of an unfortunate supreme court ruling that is wrong, and it gives that ruling statutory legitimacy. mr. speaker, we must reject

indefinite detention of americans and defend the constitution. an american arrested abroad could be subject to indefinite detention abroad. and that's wrong. no matter how you spin it, it's wrong. it's unjust, it's orwellian, and it's not who we are. as americans we don't put americans in jail indefinitely without trial. no matter how heinous the accusations against them. this is not what we are about. this is not who we are. it's against our values as americans and for this reason i cannot support the bill. the bill also makes the military not civilian law enforcement authorities responsible for custody and prosecution in the military courts of foreign

terrorists suspects apprehended within the united states. this provision disrespects and demoralizes our law enforcement officers and prosecutors who are responsible for protecting our national security using the united states criminal justice system and process which has been effectively used repeatedly to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate individuals who are convicted of terrorism. imagine an f.b.i. agent or federal prosecutor with a tremendous record finding, arresting, convicting, and locking up terrorists, now you are told to step aside so that the military can do your job for you. the military is a machine of

war. not a law enforcement agency. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. johnson: thank you. that's why the director of national intelligence, the director of the f.b.i., the director of the c.i.a., the head of the justice department's national security division, and the secretary of defense himself oppose this provision. more than 400 terrorists have been convicted in our civilian courts. only a handful of cases have been brought before military tribunals, and not all of them have been successful. if it ain't broke, ladies and gentlemen, don't fix it. terrorism is a crime and our law enforcement authorities, our prosecutors, our judges are more than up to the task.

this bill ties the hands of law enforcement, militarizes counterterrorism on our own soil, and makes us less safe. mr. speaker, our constituents sent us here to provide for the common defense, yes. but they also sent us here to safeguard their liberty. so i ask my colleagues to think long and hard about this vote and i ask the staff watching this on c-span to think long and hard before making their recommendations, reject indefinite intention, empower civilian law enforcement and defend the constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? . mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, member of the conference committee, mr. akin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman. i think that perhaps before we give the report on the status of sea power i would make the comment that if this

sequestration goes through which people are talking about it grateful influences the ability of our country to protect itself and it hallows out our force. as it is, if that were to go through, we would have the smallest navy or navy smaller than we had in the year 1916. however, this particular authorization bill has some good aspects. one of the things is it does support the construction of 10 new ships in the budget request. the bill also is going to require a competitive acquisition strategy for the main engine of the next generation bomber. that's a place we've gotten in trouble before. it allows the retirement of six b-1 aircraft but still maintains the requirement for 36 aircraft for the next two years. it provides the recommended force from the air force of the

strategic airlift of 301 aircraft comprised of c-17's and c-5's. it also requires the g.a.o. to conduct an annual review on the new tanker program which the military has just entered into. i would be remiss if i didn't call our attention to an historic pattern that has occurred all through america's past and that is in times of feas we keep cutting defense and cut really defense and then some war comes up and we don't have what we need and we sacrifice a lot of lives and money and we also give ourselves fewer political possibilities because we are not prepared. we are rapidly approaching that same mistake once again in our history with the danger of the sequestration. we've already taken almost a 10% cut in defense, $450 billion. as a navy guy what that means is 45 aircraft carriers. that's how much we've cut.

the equivalent -- we only have 1 in the navy. you are not supposed to lose them or sink them. this would be the equivalent of cutting 45 aircraft carrier. that's before sequestration. we must be careful. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, the reable of the personnel subcommittee, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the national defense authorization act of 2012. as the ranking member of the military personnel subcommittee, i am pleased that this bill includes a number of provisions that continues our commitment to our men and women in uniform as well as their dedicated families. first i want to thank my chairman, joe wilson, for his support and assistance. i would also like to recognize chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for their leadership. i urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report as it supports our military and their families who have faced the stress and the strains of

the decade at war. the conference report includes a 1.6% pay raise for our troops and would also require the department of defense to enhance suicide prevention programs and allow service members to designate any individual, regardless of their relationship, to direct how their remains are treated. this bill will also allow service secretaries to permit members to participate in an apprenticeship program that provides employment skills training and it makes significant enhancements to the sexual assault and harassment policies of the d.o.d. such as requiring full-time sexual assault coordinators and victim advocates, ensuring access to legal assistance and allowing for the consideration of a permanent change of station. and finally, h.r. 1540 will ensure future tricare prime enrollment fees are tied to increases in military retired pay cost-of-living adjustments. the bill before us continues to

recognize the sacrifices of those who serve our nation in uniform. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from guam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from guam is recognized for two minutes. ms. bordallo: i wish to thank the ranking member, mr. smith, for his support for guam and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1540, the conference report accompanying the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. if i were able to vote on final passage of this legislation, i would vote against this bill. the bill completely ignores the important efforts that this

administration has taken to better posture or military forces in the pacific. furthermore, we undercut efforts, significant efforts by prime minister nota in japan in trying to achieve progress with the development of the replacement facility. i am deeply concerned about this bill because there are constant talk in this chamber about recognizing the importance of the asia pacific region and now we are going in the opposite direction. people discuss their concerns about the potential threats posed by both china and north korea, yet, when this country and this administration asks the congress to act in our best national interest, to realign forces in the pacific, we blink. we are all talk and no action on this very important issue. i understand the budget realities that we currently face, but we must make the necessary hard choices and investments now or it will cost

more money and time in the long run. that said, it is important for our partners in japan to continue the progress they are making to begin construction of a replacement facility for fatima in northern okinawa. it's important for the prime minister to continue to show leadership and present an environmental impact statement to the governor of okinawa by the end of this year. further, we must have further progress toward the permitting of a landfill so we can finally move forward with this realignment. right or wrong, the patience of those in the senate has run out and it is important for more action and less rhetoric in okinawa. i ask the gentleman if i can have an combra 30 -- extra 30 seconds. mr. nadler: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. bordallo: the cuts to infrastructure in guam is

punitive. this congress has uniformerly stated that infrastructure improvements are needed on guam to sustain any type of additional military presence. yet, once again our rhetoric does not match our words. i will continue to work to make sure that we get funding to address critical infrastructure needs, and as such, i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to engage in a colloquy with my friend from louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mckeon: the ndaa conference report, mr. landry. mr. landry: mr. speaker, i rise today in order to fulfill my constitutional duty of protecting the liberty and freedom that the men and women who this bill authorizes to

fight for or protect and that the protection is bestowed on u.s. citizens of the ones i am concerned the most. the question upon us is whether or not the ndaa impacts the rights of a u.s. citizen to receive due process to challenge the legality of detention by the executive before an article 3 court. mr. mckeon: this conference report does no such thing. it no way affects the rights of u.s. citizens. mr. landry: my concern is that when the writ is suspended, the government is entirely free of judicial oversight. so we agree that no section of the ndaa purports to suspend the writ of habeas corpus? mr. mckeon: i agree. mr. landry: and do you agree that the supreme court said that during are the state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of our citizens? mr. mckeon: i do. mr. landry: will you you a sure me that you will work with --

mr. mckeon: additional 15 seconds. mr. landry: will you assure me that we will work with the committee to clarify the language contained in this bill in order to assure that clear and precise language which protects american citizens' constitutional rights are protected? mr. mckeon: and i do and would be happy to work with you. mr. landry: i thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i at this point yield to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. seungas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields one minute to the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsonga: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the national defense act that is before russ today. i want to thank chairman mckeon, ranking member smith and all the members of the armed services committee that has worked to ensure that we are helping the service members, particularly those who are survivors of military sexual trauma. i also want to highlight

inclusion of a long-term re-authorization of the small business innovation research program. it is the government's most effective research and development program, creating jobs and fostering innovation in massachusetts and across the country. and it plays a critical role for the department of defense. the bill before us today ensures that the sbir program retains its proper focus on true small businesses, creating a platform for needed job growth while guaranteeing that our armed forces continue to have access to the best technology available. and i urge passage. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i

yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from south carolina, the chairman of the subcommittee on military personnel, mr. wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, chairman mckeon, for your commitment to military service members, family members and veterans. before i begin i want to commend vice chairman mac thornberry for his claire if i -- clarification of the detainee issue and that is the issue does not apply to u.s. citizens. this is directed at al qaeda, illegal enemy combatants, not at u.s. citizens. the military personnel provisions of the h.r. 1540 provide new and important authorities to support the men and women in uniform and their families. some of the more important personnel provisions contained in the conference agreement are a 1.6% increase in military basic pay, a revised policy for measuring and reporting unit operations tempo and personnel tempo, especially when we must

continue our resolve for victory in the current mission requirements. another initiative important to my constituents is reform of the military recruiting system to include graduates of homeschooling and virtual schools. i see military services opportunity and fulfilling and these are extraordinary patriots who deserve the opportunity to serve. the conference agreement would make the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs of staff. furthermore, the agreement clarifies the legal authority for oversight of arlington national cemetery, a national shrine, for veterans. i believe this bill is strong in the multiple provisions dealing with sexual assault and provides new authority such as temporary early retirement to ease the impact of future military personnel reductions. i urge all my colleagues to support the conference report. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr.

speaker. may i first inquire as to how much time each person has left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 10 minutes. the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, 8 1/4. the gentleman from new york has four additional minutes remaining. mr. smith: great. thank you. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island. mr. smith: sorry, ranking member of the submerging threat subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1540, the 2012 national defense authorization racket. and i'd like to begin by thanking chairman mckeon and ranking member smith and my subcommittee chairman, mr. thornberry, for their leadership and commitment to keeping our nation safe and protecting our service members. as a conferee, i was certainly

proud to join them in signing the conference report monday night and even more proud of our excellent staff that completed the full conference in record one week's time. as ranking member of the emerging threats subcommittee, i'm especially pleased with the inclusion of significant funding to special operation forces, the full re-authorization of the sbir program and support -- to support our job-creating small businesses. and also the inclusion of important cyber protections to prevent future actions like wikileaks. the purchase of two virginia class submarines, also fully funding the development of the ohio replacement submarine and continuing work on the first dg-1000 destroyer. further, the conference committee removed damaging language that would have ended d.o.d. efforts of clean fuel technology in order to break our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our carbon footprint

which d.o.d. officials stated are both high risk to our national security. finally, while i'm concerned that we were unable to remove some harmful measures requiring that terrorist detainees be held in military custody, provisions included in this bill help address concerns about the potential detention of u.s. citizens in military custody and the flexibility of counterterrorism efforts by the f.b.i. . this measure supports the efforts of our brave men and women in uniform that they make for our country every day and provides resources to carry out vital national security projects. with that, i'm proud to serve on the house armed services committee and to serve with chairman mckeon and ranking member smith and i commend them and the great work they have done in producing a good bill and i appreciate the staff for their great work as well and i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the gentleman from virginia will control the time of the gentleman from california. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. >> is it the turn of the gentleman from washington? i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. turner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: i join my colleagues in speaking in favor of the conference report. as chame of the strategic

forces subcommittee, i'd like to walk through key provisions of the conference report. this conference report imposes checks on the administration's flarns nuclear reductions by requiring assessments of those reductions before any nuclear reductions are made. ital requires the administration to disclose its plans for future reductions and reasserts congressional oversight of the nation's nuclear war plan. we have retained house and senate provisions to ensure that the f.c.c. will not be able to give final approval thoo network unless it resolves concerned about impacts to our national security. recent press reports indicate that per new test results, lightsquare's proposed network continues to create un-- to create interference. i would like to thank chairman rogers and mr. frelinghuysen for support of the vie call weapons programs.

i would like to discuss an issue that forces service members to choose between service to their nation and their families thesms issue of military child custody. a short time after becoming a member of the house armed services committee i was struck to learn that this country's judicial system was using a service member's deemployment against them. we're asking an all-volunteer force that consists of less than % of our population to engage in the longest conflict in our nation's history and do so at the peril of losing custody of their children upon return. recognizing this unconscionable injustice we have included language in the past five national defense authorization acts to provide service members with a uniform standard of protection. this has made it through the house veterans affairs committee. unfortunately, despite bipartisan support in the house and the support for the department of defense, the senate has failed our service members an their families.

it appears they are operating on false information. this provision should pass the house an we'll continue to work on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. >> at this time i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member and i thank he members of this committee. this is a tough decision, but in the midst of welcoming home many of our troops, i believe it is important to look at aspects of this legislation that has been corrected and aspects that have been enhanced. let me thank the members of the committee for the enhancement of the small business technology and the efforts on research and development, let

me thank them for the response to sexual assault and harassment policies that have been improved as well as the improvement of the military pay for our military families and soldiers and the enhanced resources that have been put in helping our soldiers return to the workplace. but i am concerned and as i review this, let me specifically yield to the gentleman, the ranking member, and ask the question on detention which i think so many are concerned. it is my understanding that along with present law, that this has been vetted, the language of detention and the response to civilians, american civilians and legal aliens, been vetted to be in inc. with the constitution due process and the right to habeas corpus if individuals are detained. >> we absolutely protect those rights. ms. jackson lee: i believe also

that congress has the privilege to be notified if someone is detained and has the ability to intervene or interact with the executive, the president, on the particular unique circumstances of someone being detained as a person that may be involved in terrorist acts. i thank the gentleman and would argue the point that this is a challenge but that this bill has a value of changing the law, of improving the law on the question of the constitution and i yield back my time with the support of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from illinois, a member of the conference committee, mr. schilling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. schilling: i rise in support of the mdaa conference agreement.

i want to thank mr. mckeon and ranking member smith for shep everydaying this through the committee and the armed services committee and really doing a great job for our brave men and women. this marks the fifth year of the mdaa passing and it is an example of bipartisan cooperation for the good of our country. i appreciate the opportunity i have had serving on this important conference and i believe that what we have put together is a great framework that is fiscally responsible and supportive of our troops and national security. included in this bill were provisions that would help support our military organ inbase, including carsals like the one i represent in rock island. i'm proud to represent this national treasure found within the department of defense. the rock island arsenal and its 8,600 employees have worked hard for our country. one of the provisions that was included in the mdaa allows our army industrial facilities to enter into public-private

partnerships. this provision does away with a cap on the partnerships and ends the sunset. i urge strong support in this passing of this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. >> thank you. may i inquire again as to the time left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from virginia, 5 1/4. and the gentleman from new york, four minutes. >> at this time, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in a few minutes i will offer a motion to recommit that would strike a misguided provision in the conference report to exempt tricare network providers from our labor protection laws. section 715 of this conference report ex-dudes -- excludes the

tricare network providers from being considered subcontractors for purposes of any law. section 715 is nothing but an attempt to override pending litigation and long standing civil rights law under executive order 11246 of 65, section 503 of the rehabilitation act of 1973 and the vietnam vet raps assistance act of 1974. the civil rights protections contained in these laws have existed for decades and exist to protect workers from discrimination. contractors are -- must have an affirmative action plan. the law currently exempts employers with fewer than 50 employees who do not meet minimum contract value requirements. the health care industry employees approximately 16 million workers in 2009.

hospitals and similar entities employ tens of thousands of minorities, women, veterans and low age workers, groups that depend on the basic assurances of fair treatment. the health care sector is the largest sector of growth in this department. veterans would be especially hard hit under this law. there are 96,000 unemployed veterans right now. despite their skills, wounded warriors and veterans struggle to find meaningful employment in the civilian sector. that's why congress passed laws enforced by the department of labor to protect the brave men and women who serve our country. the office of federal contract compliance ensures that federal contractors and subcontractors do not discriminate against our veterans and instead take steps to recruit to hire to train, qualified veterans. tricare providers, the very people who provide health care

to our nation's veterans are arguing that they should be exempt from adhearing to the regulations passed to protect our veterans. this action would gravely undermipe our efforts to employ veterans. these large government health care contractors should not be exempted from civil right responsibilities that apply to all other similarly situated contractors or subcontractors. section 715 is a brazen attempt by large health care industries to overturn pending litigation and exempt themselves from civil rights scrutiny. congress should vote against weakening these laws and i urge my colleagues to join with me in support -- and support my motion to recommit the conference report. i yield back the plan of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i would like to yield a minute and a half to my friend

and colleague, a member of the conference committee, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. graves: i rise in support of conference report h.r. 1540. included in this bill is a long-term re-authorization, the small business innovative research program this program sets aside federal research and development demrars small businesses that have cutting edge ideas and promise regular search that the government needs. the sbir program fosters innovation while giving a boost to our nation's pest job create crors. i'm pleased to say the house and senate have come together on a compromise to give certainry to -- certainty to our small businesses. i want to thank chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for providing this deal in the conference report and i would like to thank the ranking member of the small business committee, ms. velazquez, for her important contributions to this debate as well as the chairman and ranking member of the science committee, mr. hall and ms. johnson who have been partners in this effort. and of course all the staffs on the various committees who

worked very hard on this, they deserve a lot of credit for their hard work. i encourage my colleagues to support the conference report and the thousands of jobs that benefit from the sbir program and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would serve notice that the gentleman from virginia has a remaining 3 3/4 minutes, the gentleman from washington has 3 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from new york has four minutes. for what purpose does new york rise? >> i'll reserve until it's time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. >> i'm also going to reserve until it's time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. >> does that mean you're ready to close? >> i would tell the gentleman, yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized to close. four minutes, sir.

mr. nadler: mr. speaker, we are told, and this seems to be a principal issue in the debate today that this bill, with reference to the detention and security provisions merely codifies existing law. some of us say no, it doesn't codify existing law. it codifies claims of power by the last two administrations that have not been con fired by the courts. by some courts but not by the supreme court. rather terrifying claims of power, claims of the right to put americans in jail indefinitely without a trial even in the united states. . now, i can cite specifics here. now, the text, for example, says very specifically that congress affirms the authority of the president includes the authority for the armed forces of the united states to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war and then expands the definition of covered persons with people not implicated or

supporting or harboring people implicated in 9/11 for the first time. and then we have a provision that says nothing in this section expands the limit of the president for the use of military force. it contradicts what i just read which is a very specific provision and since it says that the specific controls the general this provision frankly snaffers it contradicts the first -- insofar as it contradicts the first. it condrakets the feinstein amendment for similar reasons. now, we have disagreements we heard on the floor today, but that reflects the disagreement in the country at large. we have many law enforcement people, many legal scholars disagreeing what this language means. the president's chief counterterrorism advisor, jaurn brennan, says the bill has certain class of terrorism suspects and since it would apply for individuals inside the united states, we we heard denied on the floor, but the

president's counterterrorism advisor thinks it does, it would be inconsistent with the fundamental principle that our military does not patrol our streets. and we have many generals, including the former commandant of the marine corps, says this is a terrible change of law. now, the fact that whether it simply codifies existing law or further restricts our liberties in unprecedented ways is unclear. that my friends here can say it only codifies existing law and i can say and all these other people, experts, legal people, counterterrorism experts say it goes way beyond existing law shows where it is dangerous to have this kind of provision affecting the fundamental rights and civil liberties in a defense authorization bill which is admirable in many other ways. the armed services committee is not the proper place to consider questions of civil liberties and legal rights. and certainly not a conference report. all these questions should have been considered in hearings.

the judiciary committee in both houses frankly should have held hearings. we should have called in the counterterrorism experts. we should have called in the legal scholars. we should have called in the statutory scholars and say, what does this provision mean? how should it be changed? does this provision contradict that proscrigs? and what does it really mean and does it go beyond existing law and if so how can we change that? legislation like this, there should be hearings and testimony and proper debate and consideration. now, we can still fix this. if we defeat this bill now, we can then take this provision out of the bill, pass the bill without this provision in a couple of days. we're going to be here. there's no reason we shouldn't do that. and then next year, which is only a couple weeks away, give proper consideration to these detention provisions if people felt a need to pass them. we should not do such fundamental changes on the fly in a conference report with one hour of debate, no proper

committee consideration, no public hearings and considerable disagreement among scholars and judges and counterterrorism experts and military experts as to what this language means and what it does. the true answer is that nobody on this floor can be 100% certain what this does, and when you're dealing with our fundamental liberties that should say, don't pass it. so i urge my colleagues to defeat the bill. we can then take this out of the bill, take the bill up on the floor again in a couple days and that's the safe way to safeguard our liberties and to do what we have to do for our military security. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized to close. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: first of all, let me say we had hearings on this. last february and march, we had language in our bill which we passed in may. this issue has been thoroughly debated. now, i heard a couple of times that the judiciary committee has not heard this issue. this has been going on for 10

years under both democratic and republican control. i don't know why the judiciary committee has not chosen to have hearings on this issue. but that's hardly our fault. we have. we've had endless discussions on this. it has in fact been debated. and let me also say that i am very concerned about these very issues. on our committee i have been one of the strongest voices of concern. i support closing guantanamo. i know a lot of people don't. i think we should have all of the suspects here in the u.s., that we should try them. i also strongly believe that the criminal justice system has to be part of how we combat al qaeda. i have heard the argument. people say this is a war, not a criminal matter. why are we bothering with things like article 3 courts. i disagree with that and have spoken out publicly and strongly and in many cases even when popular support have been on other issues like closing guantanamo. i care deeply about in issue and from the very hard fought to protect the very things that mr. nadler is referencing. i fought hard in the conference

committee to make sure they were protected and they were. now, the argument is we don't know exactly what it means so therefore we should do nothing. it is very true that law is unsettled. again, got nothing to do with this bill. there are court cases ongoing. there are habeas cases ongoing and it's being interpreted by courts and also by the executive branch. let me make it also clear, the judiciary and executive branch, they would always rather we do nothing. they would always rather forget that we are supposed to be a co-equal branch of government but we are. after 10 years and after countless hearings, the legislative branch should say something about this, and what we said, we said very, very carefully to simply codify what the executive branch and the judiciary said about the aumf and to make absolutely clear and this language is not ambiguous. the military custody in the u.s. does not apply to u.s.

citizens and does not apply to lawful resident aliens. again, the problems the american people have, and i share with them, is with existing law, not with this bill. defeat this bill and it won't change a piece of that existing law that we've heard about that we should all be concerned about. but defeat this bill and it will make it very difficult for our troops to get the support they need. now, i've been around this process long enough to know, there ain't no guarantee of fixing anything. and if we defeat this bill our troops will be left to wonder if they're going to get that pay raise, if those military support projects are going to get built, if our troops are going to get the support they need. and i don't know the answer to that question. so there is a ton of very, very good stuff in this bill that supports our troops, that addresses members' concerns on issues like sexual assault within the military and a whole host of others. we need to support this bill to support our bills. and the issues that folks are concerned about on detention, again, that is existing law. whether this bill passes or

not, those controversies will continue. this is an excellent piece of legislation, well crafted, worked hard by a lot of folks. it deserves an overwhelming yes vote. i urge passage and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of his time. mr. forbes: thank you. mr. speaker, i want to thank our conferees and the members of the armed services committee once again and want to thank our staff directors, bob simmons and paul arcangeli. this conference report addresses a wide array of policy issues from cooperation with nations like israel and georgia, operations in havings, our new partnership with iraq, balancing strategic opportunities and risk with respect to china and pakistan, to mitigating the threat from iran in north korea, enhancing missile defense and maintaining

this nation's nuclear deterrent. passage ensures our troops get a 1.6% pay raise and the benefits their families rely upon. this bill ensures that we help the all-volunteer force in history. besides thanks them for their service and sacrifice to this nation, in ensuring they are afforded the best benefits and care for their service, there is little we can do to repay them for standing watch and keeping america safe. mr. wittman: this bill authorizes a modest 1.6% pay increase, but it never can express how truly grateful we are as a nation for the service and sacrifice of our all-volunteer force and their families. additionally, some very important provisions were

included to ensure our industrial base maintains a constant workload and a fully employed work force. 14.9 billion dollars was authorized for u.s. navy shipbuilding, a total of 10 ships which include two virginia-class submarines. the bill also extends the multiyear funding authority for the second and third four class aircraft carriers for four to five years of incremental funding authority. american ingenuity, creativity and initiative are alive and well in our shipyards that build war ships for the united states navy. shipbuilding is supported through business and industries spanning 50 states and designed and engineered by our greatest asset, the american people. the american aircraft carrier is the pinnacle of this industrial engineering ingenuity and genius. where mechanical, nuclear, aerospace form a magnificent

100,000-ton, 1,092-foot long piece of american sofert that travels anywhere, anytime around the world. additionally, the bill reinstates the requirement of the annual delivery of the navy shipbuilding plan, slitfying the need for the navy to communicate their plan as it relates to the strategic objectives of the united states balanced against a very challenging budgeting environment. i'm pleased that this legislation came together to support our men and women in uniform. in times of austerity they remain a priority as does the safety and security of this nation. today, i stand in support of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support its passage, and i'd like to reflect that all 26 senate conferees signed this report and 29 out of the 32 corps house conferees signed as well. this is a solid product,

thoroughly debated and deliberated considerably. i ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 493, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration on the conference report is postponed. and pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in

ident thed by the joint select

committee, by the members who participated in the biden group and a lot of other potential savings, for example, savings identified by senator culver and any other good suggestions, frankly, and package those savings into spending reductions to offset the sequestering. this could be done all at once. if the committee had done its job, it would be done. it could be done in an annual decision. each year we could pull the savings together and pass that. s that bipartisan exercise, both sides an both bodies have to be involved in it. we have talked to house colleagues who are interested in pursuing it as well. we will identify savings, present that in the best legislative vehicle we can and thereby offset the savings that would be required to sequester.

in the case of defense spending, senator mccain will speak to this, we have to begin now. we can't wait until 2013. because the time it takes for the defense department to plan cuts of this draconian nature require that the planning actually commence about a year ahead of time. so for the secretary of defense to know he is not going to make these sacrifices, we need to demonstrate in the converse we can achieve the savings a year before they're required. that's why we have to get to this at the beginning of this next -- of next year rather than waiting until the enof the next year. we will have legislation introduced when we get back from break but i wanted to make it clear so there's no doubt in anybody's mind that the across the board sequesters to defense spending will not have to happen.

this is incredibly important. the department of defense is already under the budget control act over the next 10 years is signing a way to come up with a reduction of $4 billion and i think that sometimes people forget that, we're not leaving defense off the table, we are asking them to make significant reductions, and in fact, the leaders of our military have said that those reductions are difficult. they can do it, but it's going to be difficult. it's unfortunate that the subcommittee wument able to do our resolution but we shouldn't use that as an excuse for not going our -- doing our jobs around here. as secretary panetta said, devastating, catastrophic, bings us back, besides the -- the sthifes navy in 1915, the

smallest ground forces in 1940's, the smallest air force in the history of our country and huge impact and a devastating impact to our defense industrial base. secretary panetta was not someone sent to the department of defense to increase defense spending. he was sent there, in my view, based on his history in the clinton administration, to be in a position to find responsible reductions. so when secretary panetta makes these statements, i take them very seriously. we have a duty under our constitution to provide for the common defense. i look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that we come up with alternative spending reductions to make sure that we don't devastate our national security. thank you. >> in a congress known for ill-conceived ideas, this wins the cake. wins the prize. takes the cake. that's what i was trying to think of. just think about it for a

minute. somebody, including people on our side, thought this was a good idea. let's try to cut $1.2 trillion out of the budget over 10 years, not exactly a heavy lift when you're talking about what we're going to be spending over the next 10 years and i'm not here to blame anybody because we couldn't get there but the idea that if you fail to do the most minimum task, let's gut the military. who thought that would be a good idea. so if a bunch of politicians who can't seem to walk across the street together in a single file fail to do the basic task, let's fire thousands of americans who have been at war for 10 years as the remedy. it offends the hell out of me that we would even consider that. these men and women have really gone out of their way to protect all of us system of when you get congressional

leaders saying, let's gut the military, put thousands of people at risk in terms of being kicked out, you're going to fire anybody, fire us. keep the soldiers. the soldiers are doing a better job for the country than we are. so not only is the sequestering of $600 billion on top of the $400 billion devastating to the militarying the whole construct offends me. what happened to the party of ronald reagan? i cannot imagine ronald reagan even entertaining the thought, let's put the military at risk like this. so we're going to have a good, honest debate with the american people. if you want to destroy the defense industrial base in this country, pull the sequestering trigger. if you want to put us at risk against -- in a world where threats are growing, not lessening, pull this trigger.

my bet is that when this debate is all said and done, the defense department is not going to be gutted and it should never have been put in this spot to begin with. reforming the defense department, yes. reducing spending over the next decade, yes. we can do that in a bipartisan way, $400 billion is achieveable. but to do the sequestration on top of that, is not only ill conceived but offensive. >> i can't elaborate much on what senator graham has said because he's so mild-mannered and equivocal on his views of the day. facts are stubborn things and the facts, as general odeer noah, a great hero of in iraq

and chief of staff of the army said, congress, cut this magnitude would be catastrophic to the military and would significantly reduce our capability to assure our contacts abroad while threatening the readiness of our owl after -- of our all-volunteer force. we'll have a plan, we'll have it in january and i hope our colleagues will heed the words of our secretary of defense, of ourer is vice vist troops and every military expert that i know that cuts of this magnitude will put our nation's national security at risk and so we face a choice beginning in january. the pentagon will either begin to plan on budgets for 2013 that will cause drastic cuts in all aspects of our national

defense or we'll be able to reverse this misbegotten idea of mandatory sequestration and make the kinds of cuts that we could easily make in other aspects of our nation's economy. i want to point out again, it's not as if we are for leaving defense sack ro sanks. i will take a back seat to no one in my efforts to try to reform the corruption in the pentagon which characterizes our weapons accusation process. but i would point out that already, $450 billion has been imposed, already $178 billion is -- savings were dictated by former secretary gates. so already we have hundreds of billions in cuts already mandated. we will improve efficiencies in defense spending that need to be made in our proposal.

but not anywhere near the magnitude of those required by this idiotic process we just completed. >> senator mccain or anybody who wants to take this, you all just vote forward balanced budget amendment to cap spending at 18 ppt 5% of g.d.p., the bowles simpson people were at 20.5% or something. depuble you cap spending at 18% of g.d.p. you can avoid the types of cuts you are seeing here without making cuts that are unacceptable to programs like medicare and social security. >> during the bush administration, 2006-2007, to be exact, we had revenues exceeding 18% of our g.d.p., we were funding defense and entitlement programs. it's very possible to do that. very so many -- as a member of

the joint select committee, i can tell you there are hundreds of billions of dollars that can be save without doing any harm to the entitlement program or the beneficiaries of those programs and we can avoid the kinds of cuts that would be inimical to our national defense. >> another big story today, the senate democrats were hoping to hold a bill on the house bill, why not hold that vote today? >> i'm sure we'll be supportive of the house-passed legislation at the appropriate time. we're not here to talk about that, i'd prefer not to do that. you can ask our leaders about that. any other questions on our subject here? >> on the legislation, do you think it's going to be a framework, what is that going to mean? will it call for areas, dollar amount, how -- >> all of the above. >> it is our intention we will identify the specific areas from which the savings can

come, identify it by c.b.o. scored amounts. >> dollar amounts as well? >> how can you get support in both chambers? >> we hope to work with democratic colleagues because in reality, i think there's much as -- just as much fervor on the democratic side to prevent cuts to nondefense discretionary spending and i suspect we'd be supportive of ways to do that reduction more intelligently as well. and to give bipartisan support on both sides of the lenneller we'll undoubtedly work together. i find it somewhat odd, though that the only people that are turned to to protect our national defense are republicans. i bet at the end of the day we have a lot of democrats joining us in that effort as well. >> senator kyl -- >> i can't conceive of the president of the united states, any command for the chief,

retoing an effort to save the defense department from ruin. i would expect the defense department to come to the aid of those who will get devastated and say you better not send me a bill that does what leon panetta says. this is twisted. i would just ask the president to reevaluate his position on this. your job is to protect us and to stand up for the men and women in uniform who have paid a heavy price for the last decade. why don't we cut our pay if we can't get to $1 ppt 2 trillion? that will really get people's attention in this body. why can't we make it real to us? the defense cuts are devastates, why don't we cut our pay 23%. so to the president of the united states, don't say such things. stand up for the men and women who are at risk. our nation is at risk. they don't defend the republican party. they defend all of us. i wish the president would retract that statement and jump on board with us and say we're going to get to $1. trillion.

we'll co-it -- do it without gutting the military. >> senator kyl, why did you vote for the budget control act? do you regret that now? >> the budget control act saved $914 billion or $1917 -- or $917 billion over 10 years and had the prospect for saving another $1.2 trillion, the remainder of the $237b9 trillion by which the debt ceiling was extended, as you'll recall. had the prospect of saving that on the mandatory side of the budget. roughly 40% would be saved on the discretionary side, 60% of the mandatory side. i thought that our democratic colleagues on the joint select committee would join us in finding ways to reform our entitlement programs to achieve savings. you are aware of what happened. that did not occur. like leader mccome and even majority leader reid at the time the committee was created, we thought there would be the will and the desire and the

ability to work together to achieve success. it did not turn out that was true. >> we've got -- >> what gives you hope now that you'll be successful? >> let me just say, we did identify a lot of savings then. i'm sure part of what our legislation will do is include a lot of savings we identified that was never able to be put into a bill. >> >> senate republicans from earlier. we expect the house back sometime shortly after 4:00. we'll have live coverage when they return here on c-span the senate today failed to pass two versions of the balanced budget amendment, also in the senate,

the republicans blocked two efforts by democrats to take up the house version of the payroll tax plan, the associated press saying that officials say democratic lawmakers are considering whether to jettison their demand for a surtax on millionaires as ay of covering the cost of a social security payroll tax cut extension that disclosure came as senate majority leader reid and other democrats went to the white house to meet with president obama. the president returning this afternoon from fort bragg, north carolina, he and he first lady were there paying tribute to those who were wounded or killed in the iraq war. we'll bring you a portion of his speech from earlier today. >> your patriotism, your commitment to fulfill your mission. your abiding commitment to one another. that was copstant. that kid not change.

that did not waver. it's harder to end a war than begin one. indeed, everything that american troops have done in iraq, all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding, and the building and the training and the partnering. all of it has led to this moment of success. iraq is not a perfect place. it has many challenges ahead. but we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable, self-reliant iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. we're building a new partnership between our nations. and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. this is an extraordinary achievement. nearly nine years in the

making. and today, we remember everything that you did to make it possible. we remember the early days, the american yublets -- units that streaked across the sands and skies of iraq. battles from karbala to baghdad, american troops breaking the back of a brutal dictator in less than a month. we remember the grind of the insurgency, the roadside bombs, the sniper fire. the suicide attacks. from the triangle of death to the fight for ramadi. for mosul in the north to basra in the south. your will proved stronger than the terror of those who -- of those who tried to break it. we remember the specter of

sectarian violence, al qaeda's attack ops mosques and pilgrims. their campaigns of intimidation and assassination. and in the face of ancient divisions, you stood firm. to help those iraqis who put their faith in the future. we remember the surge and we remember the awakening when the events of chaos turned toward the promise of reconciliation. by battling and building block by block in baghdad, by bringing tribes into the fold and partnering with the iraqi army and police, you helped turn the tide toward peace. we remember the end of our combat mission. and the emergence of a new dawn. the precision of our efforts against al qaeda in iraq. the professionalism of the training of iraqi security

forces. an the steady drawdown of our forces. in handing over responsibility to the iraqis, you preserved the gains of the last four years and made this day possible. just last month, some of you, members of the falcon brigade -- tushed over the anbar operation center to the iraqis in the type of ceremony that's become common place over the last several months. in an area that was once the heart of the insurgency. a combination of fighting and training, politics and partnership, brought the promise of peace. here's what the local iraqi deputy governor said. this is all because of the u.s. forces -- force's hard work and sacrifice. that's in the words of an iraqi. hard work and sacrifice.

those words only begin to describe the costs of this war. and the courage of the men and women who fought it. we know too well the heavy cost of this war. more than 1.5 million americans have served in iraq. 1.5 million. over 30,000 americans have been wounded. and those are only the wounds that show. nearly 4,500 americans made the ultimate sacrifice. including 202 fallen heros from here at fort bragg. 202. so today, we pause to say a

prayer for all those family who was lost their loved ones, for they are part of our broader american family, we grieve with them. we also know that these numbers don't tell the full story of the iraq war. not even close. our civilians have represented our cupry with skill and bravery. our troop have served tour after tour of duty with precious little dwell time in between. our guard and reserve units accepted -- stepped up with unprecedented service. you've endured dangerous foot patrols, and you've endured the pain of seeing your friends and comrades fall. you've had to be more than soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen. you've also had to be diplomats, development workers, trainers and peacemakers.

through all this, you have shown why the united states military is the finest fighting force in the history of the world. [applause] as michelle mentioned, we also know that the burden of war is borne by your families. in countless base communities like bragg, folks have come together in the absence of a loved one. as the mayor of fayetteville put it, war is not a political word here. war is where our friends and neighbors go. there have been missed birthday parties and graduations.

there are bills to pay and jobs that have to be juggled while picking up the kitsdz. -- the kids. for every soldier on patrol there are huhs, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters praying they come back. so today, as we mark the end of the war, let us acknowledge, let us give a heartfelt round of applause for every military family that carried that load over the last nine years. you, too, have the thanks of a grateful nation. [applause]

part of ending a war responsibly is stand big those who fought. it's not enough to honor you with words. words are cheap. we must do it with deeds. you stood up for america, america needs to stand up for you. that's why as your commander in chief i'm committed to making sure that you get the care and benefit and opportunities that you have earned. for those of you who remain in uniform, we will do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our force, including your families. we will keep faith with you. we will help our wounded warriors heal. and we will stand by those who suffered the unseen wupeds of war.

and make no mistake, as we go forward as a nation, we are going to keep america's armed forces the strongest fighting force the world has ever seen that will not stop. that will not stop. [applause] but our commitment doesn't end when you take off the uniform. you're the finest our nation has to honor. after years of rebuilding iraq, we want to enlist our veterans in the work of rebuilding america. that's why we're committed to doing everything we can to extend more opportunities to those who have served. that includes the post-9/11 g.i. bill so you an your families can get the education to allow you to live out your dreams. that includes a national effort to put our veterans to work.

we've worked with congress to pass a tax credit so companies have the incentive to hire vets an michelle has worked with the private sector to get commitments to create 100,000 jobs for those who served. and by the way, we're doing this not just because it's the right thing to do by you, we're doing it because it's the right thing to do for america. folks like my grandfather came back from world war ii to form the back bone of this country's middle class. for our post-9/11 veterans, with your skill, with your discipline, with your leadership, i am confident that the story of your service to america is just beginning. but there's something else we owe you.

we have the responsibility to learn from your service. an example, lieutenant alvin shel, based here at fort bragg. a few years ago, on a supply route outside baghdad, he and his team were engulfed by flames from an r.p.g. attack. covered with gasoline, he ran into the fire to help his fellow soldiers and then led them two miles back to camp victory where we he finally collapsed, covered with burns. when they told him he was a hero, alvin disagreed. i'm not a hero, he said. a hero is a sandwich. i'm a paratrooper.

we could do well to learn from alvin. this can'try needs to learn from you. folks in washington need to learn from you. policymakers and historians will continue to analyze the strategic lessons of iraq. that's important to do. our commanders will incorporate the hard-won lessons in the future military campaign, that's important to do. but the most important lesson we tan cake from you is not about military strategy. it's a lesson about our national character. for all of the challenges that our nation faces, you remind us that there's nothing we americans can't do when we stick together.

for all the disagreements that we face, you remind us there's something bigger than our differences. something that makes us one nation and one people. regardless of color, regardless of creed. regardless of what part of the country we come from. regardless of what backgrounds we come out of, you remind us we are one nation. that's why the united states military is the most respected institution in our land because you never forget that. you can be the a-- can't afford to forget. if you forget it, the mission fails. so you don't forget. you have each other's backs.

that's why you, the 9/11 generation, have earned your place in history. because of you, because you sacrificed so much for people that you had never met, iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. that's part of what makes us special as americans. unlike the old empires, we don't make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. we do it because it's right. let there be no fuller expression of america's support for self-determination than our leaving iraq to its people. that says something about who we are.

because of you, in afghanistan we've broken the momentum of the taliban. because of you we've begun a transition to the afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there and around the globe as we draw down in iraq. we have gone after al qaeda so that terrorists who threaten america will have no safe haven and osama bin laden will never again walk the face of this earth. [cheers and applause] so here's what you i want you to know and all our men and women in uniform to know. because of you we are ending these wars in a way that will make america stronger and the world more secure. because of you that success was never guaranteed.

let us never forget the source of american leadership. our commitment to the values that are written into our founding documents and a unique willingness among nations to pay a great price for the progress of human freedom and dignity. this is who we are. that's what we do. as americans. together. the war in iraq will soon belong to history. your service plongs to the ages -- belongs to the ages. never forget that you are part of an unbroken line of heroes spanning two centuries. from the colonists who overthrew an empire to your grandparents and parents who faced down fascism and communism to you.

men and women who fought for the same principles in fallujah and kandahar and delivered justice to those who attacked us on 9/11. looking back on the war that saved our union, a great american, olver wendell holmes, once paid tribute to those who served. in our youth, he said, our hearts were touched with fire. it was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing. all of you here today have lived through the fires of war. you will be remembered for it. you will be honored for it. always. you have done something profound

with your lives. when this nation went to war you signed up to serve. when times were tough, you kept fighting. when there was no end in sight, you found light in the darkness. years from now your legacy will endure in the names of your fallen comrades etched on headtones in arlington and the quite memorial als across our country -- memorials across our country. in the whispered words of admirations as you march in parades and in the freedom of our children and our grandchildren. and in the quiet of night you will recall that your heart was once touched by fire. you will know that you answered when your country called. you served a cause greater than yourselves. you helped forge a just and lasting peace with iraq and among all nations.

i could not be prouder of you. and america could not be prouder of you. god bless you all. god bless your families and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> president obama earlier today as fort bragg. all of that event later in our schedule and in the c-span video library at c-span.org. here on c-span we're waiting for the house to gavel back in to finish up work on the 2012 defense authorization conference report. the house gaveled out about an hour ago. the republican conference is meeting. republican house members are meeting. and that meeting has not broken up as of yet from what we

understand. meanwhile in the interim, the white house is saying, according to the associated press, the white house says seniors officials will not recommend that president obama veto the defense bill that is pending before the house. the a.p. writing that a white house statement says changes by congressional negotiators would not challenge or restrict the president's ability to collect intelligence or incapacitate terrorists. the white house had threatened to veto military custody of suspected terrorists linked to al qaeda. meanwhile over in the senate, the democrat republicans have blocked two efforts by democrats to take up the payroll tax cut measure that was passed yesterday in the u.s. house. passed by a vote of 243-193. one of the members of the house, john yarmuth of kentucky, a budget committee member, talked to "washington journal" this morning about that vote and what's ahead in the house and senate. we're going to show you as much of that conversation as we can as we wait for the house to gavel back in. now on your screen we want

to introduce you to congressman john yarmuth, democrat of kentucky,

that's what we've been facing ever since 2008. so, one way you meet that demand, which, and of course when you have demand that ends up in jobs being lost, because if there's not enough business people don't hire or lay people off. so to put $120 billion or so back into the economy through the payroll tax, we know most of that's going to get spent because it's on a weekly basis rather than sending one check.

we know it's going to be spent and that will help put a floor under this economy which is what we need to do. host: so what did last night's vote, how does this and where does the continuing resolution, the continuing funding of the federal government fit into what happened last night? how does that fit? guest: of course i heard senator coburn speaking and one of the things that i think he negotiated to say was that we're trying to -- neglected to say is that we're trying to figure out a way to pay for this, to replenish the social security trust fund so that double cost that he mentioned does not occur. in the senate they would like to do that by taxing incomes over $1 million a year. i strongly support that. what they did in the house side, in an effort to pay for that payroll tax holiday, was to cut medicare programs and some other things that, again, put the cost back on middle class america and not on the people who can best afford it. so, that to me is one of the fundamental debates about this

payroll tax holiday is how we're going to pay for it and the republicans don't want to tax very wealthy people to do it and i think democrats do. host: i want to get your reaction to this. the chairman of the ways and means committee, dave camp, talked about the unemployment issues within the bill. here's what he had to say. >> the bill will also extend unemployment benefits that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month. but does so while permanently reforming the program and adopting the president's plan to wind down reasoned expansions of the program. since 2008 extensions of unemployment benefits have added $180 billion to the debt. we're putting an end to that deficit spending. this program is fully paid for and it contains significant reforms such as allowing states to screen and test unemployment insurance recipients for drug abuse, overturning a 1960's-era labor department directive. requiring all unemployed recipients to search for work, be in a g.e. program if they've

not finished high school with reasonable exceptions and participate in reemployment services. it also implements a program integrity measure such as new data standardization to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse. and just as we did in connection with welfare reform, we're giving the states flexibility to design their own re-employment programs, similar to the sorts of programs the president has touted like georgia works and wage subsidies. host: congressman yarmuth. guest: well, first of all, again, i think you're talking about some very fundamental reforms and programs that you don't just stick into a bill with no hearing, no discussion, no analysis and say, this is great stuff. i mean, he makes it sound like it's an article of faith that those items are good. that forcing somebody to have a g.e.d. as a pre-re-- prerewick sit to getting unemployment benefits is something we ought to do. maybe that's a good idea but you don't say automatically you're

going to cut these people off if they don't have a g.e.d. the idea of drug testing, why don't we drug test everybody who gets a federal benefit? why don't we test formers who get farm subsidies? why don't we test them for drug abuse? some of these ideas are good, rhetorical employs but they really don't stand up to an in depth analysis. the bottom line, is as far as i'm concerned, if you want to do that, let's have hearings on them, let's discuss them, figure out what the implications are and then vote on them. don't just stick them in a big package. host: so, congressman yarmuth, is the house going to be outing of -- out of session shortly? is there going to be funding passed for a week, for a month? guest: my sense of the discussion as of late yesterday was that i would bet on a continuing resolution for a week or so rather than an omnibus bill. i still think there are too many of the so-called riders, policy changes, that really don't relate to funding that of course the republicans in the house

vowed not to put in appropriations bills, but they're doing that, i mean, one of them which is just absolutely absurd to me that would hold up the bill is travel restrictions to cuba for cuban americans. i mean, we're fighting that battle 50 years later? and that's going to hold up the funding of the government? to me this is why the american people are so cynical about congress, with very good reason. host: so you foresee at this point the house being here over christmas? guest: i think we'll come back for a day or two to do the -- to cast the kind of votes we need to cast. in some cases, you know, there have been in the past, over some of these crises that we've come up with, they basically agree to do it on unanimous consent and they have one person convene the house and basically call for a vote and it's sustained on a voice vote. so that's a possibility, too. but i can't imagine that this week we're going to get an omnibus bill with all of these extraneous problems. host: john yarmuth is a democratic from kentucky from the louisville area. he's a member of the house

budget committee and the first call for him as we continue our conversation on the "journal" this morning. caller: i've been back and forth with these guys listening to you and i think the major problem is, you fellas have lost your tax base. when you gave all the jobs to china and india and everything, you literally have just lost your tax base. and usually manufacturing can pull us out of a recession and it just ain't here anymore. and i don't hear any of you all talking about. it you don't say not a thing about it you skirt around it and oh, we need to do this and that and you keep making more trade agreements with other countries, panama and south korea and there goes more manufacturing jobs. to hear you guys argue back and forth about it, nobody's dealing with the problem. guest: i think you're absolutely right but i would take issue with you because democrats in

the house have actually advanced an agenda that has a number of proposals designed to, what we call make it in america. and that has a double meaning. we want every individual american to be able to make it in america but also it has a manufacturing, a domestic manufacturing theme as well. a number of proposals to do that involving tax incentives for businesses to make products in america, to hire people in the united states. i voted against the trade packages and obviously they were enacted because i don't think they do help promote jobs in the united states. and some isolated industries they do, but not overall. so, i think we are trying to do that. again, in the house, we're in the minority and we can't advance our own agenda and that's unfortunate. host: lancaster, pennsylvania, john on our independent line. you are on with congressman yarmuth. caller: good morning, congressman yarmuth. the previous caller sort of stole a lot of my thunder.

i think the tax question is spot-on. we tax money coming back into the country from these multinational corporations but don't tax it going out. we have an extraction economy in this country. we need to modify the tax code to make our people more productive. if we are 70% consumer based and we don't produce what we consume , i don't see a way forward. we need to produce more in this country and punish the corporations that basically take the capital out of this country and then import the product back in. we need to change the way we've been doing business in this country. i mean, it's evident with this financial collapse that, you know, you have financial concerns that are growing

exponentially. they do stuff, you know, hidden and transparent, you know, you have these credit default swaps and we don't even know how many are out there. and they can come back and bite us at any time. you see europe's now in recession. host: we got to wrap that up, john, and get a response from congressman yarmuth. guest: thank you. you hit on a lot of very important issues. again, the manufacturing segment of the economy is very important. in my district we have been able -- we have a g.e. appliance manufacturing facility there, we're the head of the consumer productions division in louisville. because of certain policies we've been able to bring back about 1,000 jobs from overseas, 430 from china and about another 400 or so from mexico because of the tax policies of the united states that incentivize these companies to make energy efficiency appliances in the united states. so there are ways we can enhance

the manufacturing base in the country and you're absolutely right, we have to do that. we cannot just continue to buy products from china and vietnam and korea and not make them ourselves. we can get into the financial thing is a very complicated discussion and i probably don't have enough time to do that. i will say one other thing on the manufacturing score. you know, this is a global economy. we can't avoid that. and corporations will make their investments and will make their products where it is most advantageous for them to do it. what g.e. has found versus making something in china is the cost of transportation and so forth more than offsets or offsets the lower labor cost. so we have to look for opportunities in certain areas where we do have -- we can make up with very small incentives, we can make up that difference and then corporations will want to bring products back here. host: as a member of the budget committee, congressman yarmuth,

what were your views about the deficit reduction committee, the so-called supercommittee, not coming to any agreement? guest: i voted against that whole proposal because i thought the supercommittee was a bad idea and i didn't think it could work. we have a hard time passing anything through both houses of congress and so the idea that 12 people were going to be able to do something where more couldn't do it, seemed improbable to me and it turned out to be right. i'm not scared of the sequestration alternative which is across-the-board cuts as some people are, because i think it will force us to really seriously examine the defense budget and impose some of the same cuts on them and the same frugality that we're now being asked to do across all of the domestic programs. so i think it would be a shame and i hope the president remains true to his word that he'll veto it if we try to circumvent that sequestration.

the alternative is to come up with another option. and, you know, i'm not -- i'm one who thinks that simpson boles was a very, very thoughtful package and that we should have discussed it and i still think there's an opportunity for us to take that up and see what the president -- what the american people think about it because they really haven't thought about it as intensively as i think it deserves. host: when you say take up that, where, when, how? guest: our budget committee could take it up and certainly the senate could and we could have hearings on it. i really think ways and means could as well. i think that's an important thing for us to do. the american people get what the media feed them for the most part. and they're getting everything in kind of polar perspectives. i don't think that the american people really know the extent of what simpson-bowles proposed or how it might impact them and that's what most people are concerned with. i was involved for over a year on a daily basis on health care

reform and that's what people wanted to know. how does it affect me? i understand, especially with health care, which is a very personal thing. we need to let the american people know and that's our fault for not communicating as effectively, but that proposal, once it came out of that commission, was basically just dropped and never heard of again. i think it deserves a discussion. host: you talked about polarization, etc. you and mitch mcconnell represent the same state. how do you two work together? guest: i've known mitch for more than 40 years and i think that it's safe to say that mitch and i agree on almost nothing and we're still civil to each other. i talked with him about a week ago about an issue we had with some appointments in our state. so, when issues involving kentucky are concerned, we are able to work together. but on some of these big questions, he has a very different role now. he's in leadership. his mission is to basically to herd his 47 republicans through

the legislative process and to whip them into shape and his focus is not as much on kentucky as it once was. but when there are issues involving kentucky, we can work together. host: and what about your relationship with john boehner? guest: speaker boehner and i get along very well, actually. he's a golfer, i'm a golfer. and golf transcends a lot of things and john is a very, very delightful person. and i think he's in a very, very difficult spot. he's trying to do what speaker pelosi had to do when the democrats were in control and actually to herd a diverse caucus. before the last election republicans weren't very diverse in the house. so he has a very difficult task right now. host: next call for congressman yarmuth comes from arlington, virginia. david on our republican line. thanks for holding. you're on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for your service.

you used the words force people to take the g.e. used the words to have an open debate and discuss these things because we don't know about implications and you just mentioned health care. so i'm wondering where you voted on health care because it seems to me as a relatively knowledgeable voter that that health care bill wasn't fully exhausted through a public debate and we don't know what that implications are going to be and someone is going to have to be forced by health care and you also speak about now being in the minority and for 40 years before the gingrich revolution back in the mid 1990's, the democrats were in charge. so this momentum that has brought us up to the current state was really the genesis was with the democrat party and i just -- as you well know, once momentum starts in the government, it's nearly impossible to turn it off. please address why it seems like

-- i believe, and you mentioned before that the average voters are so sick and tired of hypocrisy on both sides, on the right and the left, and for you to say force the g.e. and not have a thorough debate -- host: we got the point, david. thank you. mr. yarmuth. guest: first of all, let's talk about health care. i have to laugh when you talk about health care because you're talking about 17% or 18% of the american economy, something that affects everyone of the 306 or so million american people and affects everybody in different ways and that was the big problem with health care reform. we didn't have a bill because we had -- to start the debate we had five different committees working on legislation and so we couldn't in any -- to any meaningful extent explain to individual families how that would affect them. i think that was the big problem. i'm not sure that there was any alternative to that. i think in retrospect the

administration probably made a mistake in not advancing its own proposal early on and saying, this is the baseline, this is what we want, now you all tweak it. they basically said, here are our principles, you all draft it. and we spent six months or so debating whether there should be a public option or not, which the american people didn't understand because it was a nebulous concept. so the health care debate was a very unusual situation and, again, most people just wanted to know how it affected them. i think there was exhaustive debate on the health care reform act. again, it went on for more than a year and the problem was that there was never one proposal up until probably -- well, up until the end of 2009, to actually discuss. the issue of a g.e.d. and being forced to get a g.e.d., you're

not just being forced to get a g.e.d., you're being, according to the proposal that passed last night, you have to have a g.e.d. in order to receive unemployment benefits. you know, the idea of doing that when somebody has to pay $75 to get the -- g.e.d. and take the coarse of instruction, just to say to somebody who is unemployed, you have to have a g.e.d. in order to get unemployment benefits, how are they going to pay to get that g.e.d.? that's the kind of analysis i think we need to do. the analysis of the individual mandate in the health care reform bill was pretty exhaustive and i know that's probably the most controversial aspect of the affordable care act, but that was discussed pretty extensively. host: congressman yarmuth, we started our morning by talking with our viewers about the national transportation safety board's proposed ban on handheld and just cell phone use in the cars. what are your thoughts about that? guest: well, that's a very

difficult -- as someone who talks a lot dish must admit -- on my phone in the car. once you provide that kind of technology to the american people and they get used to using it in a certain way, it's very, very hard to rein that in. that's human nature and that's one of the -- i guess the fundamental debates that we have constantly around here now is the heavy hand of government and how much -- when do you impose on individual liberties for a public safety perspective? in kentucky we have -- you can talk on your handheld phone, you can't text or you can't text. and in washington of course you can't talk but i guess you could text. i don't think that's against the law. there probably needs to be some kind of national standard on this but again if you're in

wyoming and you're in the car for six hours driving across the state, a prohibition there might not be the same as a prohibition in washington, d.c. so, again, like everything else we deal with, there's a complexity here that we probably have to -- maybe the ntsb has done, that i'd like to see their analysis before i say this seems like a good idea and justify it or not. host: just to remind our viewers, from that conversation this morning, if you go to facebook.com/see-- facebook.com/cspan, you can vote on that ban. currently 146 votes are in support of it and 63 votes are opposed to it. again, facebook.com/cspan. albany, georgia, thanks for holding. caller: i would like to try and see what congress is trying to tell me. i think that congress is saying, when it comes to people going into the military, they're in

the middle class. when it comes to people paying payroll taxes, it seems that they're trying to say, the middle class should be paying all the payroll taxes. because they don't want to tax the rich. and so forth. so, if the middle class is going to have to put out for the country and break their back, then what do we need the rich for? i don't see why we need them at all. guest: i've had this debate so many times. both in the budget committee and on the floor and in my community and the idea that asking people who make over $1 million a year to pay a little more would in any way affect either their lives or their job creating incentive is really such a phony argument. i come from a family of people who started in small business, i

ran a small business, my father did, both my brothers did. they built theirs into big businesses. and if you ask them, my sister's a small business woman, if ask you them if they ever made a business decision based on what their personal income tax rate was, they would laugh at you. that's not how business people operate. they're concerned about whether or not they can -- whether they can make a profit or not. if you say to them, you may only get to keep 60 cents instead of 65 cents of this $1, that's not the way business people think. so -- but there is a fundamental issue of fairness here and i know people say, what do you consider fair? i don't know what i consider fair. but so far the middle class has made an enormous sacrifice through this last 10 years. their standard of living has declined, their disposable income has declined in real terms and that's been the biggest problem we have in the economy. meanwhile the share of our

national income, the share of national wealth owned by and earned by the top 1% continues to go up. they're doing very, very well and now we're asking of them the lowest tax rate that we've asked of the wealthy in the last 60 years. it seems to me that there is a fundamental issue of fairness here that we ought to ask those very, very fortunate people, and i'm one of them, to pay a little more while everybody else has made a sacrifice and is suffering. host: next call for congressman yarmuth comes from his home of louisville, kentucky. mary on our republican line. hi, mary. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. two things. first of all, the comment about senator mcconnell as far as his eye has been taken off of the state of kentucky and his focus is on herding his senate

colleagues, the issues that he is undertaking are germane to kentucky. number one. number two, something that has always bothered me about the never badge used as far as raising -- verbiage used as far as raising taxes on the rich and the fact that they own a certain share of the wealth in the country. the fundamental issue there is that the total pie, it's not a limited pie. it's constantly growing and growing and growing. what people earn does not take away from other people. it just grows. and that's something that i think that has not been articulated well. it makes it sound like people who earn more are actually taking money from the middle class. we are also small business owners and i disagree totally with what the representative is saying about the fact that people say, well, i don't want to earn more because my next dollar's going to be taxed 60%.

it is a disincentive to tax people an onerous amount of taxes like that. host: we'll leave it there. guest: we have a fundamental disagreement about the tax issue there. and my point on mitch mcconnell was, again, that his focus is now national. obviously everything that the federal government does or most of what it does has an impact on kentucky. but his primary focus is not on the interest of the state right now and hasn't been since it's been on the leadership position. his primary -- most of his energy is spent dealing with national issues and being minority leader of the senate. so, that wasn't a criticism, that's just an observation. but i did say and i think that this is true that when issues regarding kentucky, whether it's our bridge project in louisville

or whether it's -- well, whatever. whether it's g.e. or the ford plants that we were able to help grow in louisville, then we are able to work together, as are the other members of the house delegation and senator paul as well. so, we do work together primarily when kentucky is concerned. host: congressman yarmuth is in his third term. former editor and founder of "leo news weekly." former vice president of a health care firm in kentucky. and university relations at the university of louisville. what was "leo news weekly"? >> guest: this is a free weekly paper in louisville. there's one in most big cities that's called the alternative weekly. and i found that -- founded it in 1990. it's still going 21 years later

under new management. i sold it in 2003. but it's doing well and it's a combination of commentary, news and a guide to what's going on in the city. all these papers evolved from -- originally from "rolling stone" which was a combination of -- it was rock and roll, kind of the revolution of the 1960's and rock and roll and sex and all of those things put together and it's evolved into these i think very, very important alternative newspapers that serve urban areas. so i'm very proud to have founded it. i'm very proud that it's still alive, since the most pubble -- since most publications don't make it a year. and lewow stands for the louisville excentric observer by the way. host: what made you run for congress? guest: i was very frustrated with the bush administration, very much concerned about the iraq war. but primarily my biggest concern

was over the bush tax cuts. and i said, you know, when we're fighting a war and so many people are struggling, this is not the time to give tax cuts to very wealthy people. and so i was expecting a guy named jack conaway, who is now attorney general of kentucky, and ran against rand paul in the senate last year, i thought he was going to run for the seat because he had run in 2002 and had almost beaten rand who was the incumbent then. he decided in late 2005 not to do it and i said, oh, darn. now he's going to have a free pass because there wasn't anybody out there with any name recognition who could take her on. and after a couple of months of agonizing over it, i decided that while i wasn't sure that i wanted the job, that if i could be one of the 15 seats that changed hands back in 2006, from republican to democrat, and would change control of the house, that that would be something that i could be proud to have been a