House lawmakers just passed the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill by a 299-120 vote.
Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) had this to say about the bill's passage:
This year House Republicans have continued to support our men and women in uniform while ensuring the safety and security of this nation. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee I have sought to place an emphasis on a number of issues which are confronting our national security structure including: missile defense, modernization of our nuclear enterprise, and reform of bureaucratic entities such as the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Earlier this year, President Obama lifted the curtain on his 'secret deal' with the Russians. We still do not know the terms of this 'secret deal.' What does he mean that he will have greater 'flexibility' past his 'last election?' The White House has never made clear what deals it has been offering to the Russians, despite requests for such information by myself and my colleagues. The bill the House passed today will ensure this nation is protected from the threat of a missile attack. This includes the study of an East Coast missile defense site in order to prepare us for emerging threats across the globe.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in crafting a final bill which will meet these goals and continue to see that our country remains ready to meet the threats of tomorrow, while providing for our defense today.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA):
This year's defense authorization bill helps meet my priorities as chairman: resolve sequestration, restore strategy and sanity to the defense budget, and rebuild our military after a decade of war.
In an era of austerity, it is critical that we carefully allocate every penny that goes to the Defense Department. This bill mandates fiscal responsibility within the Department of Defense, through sound fiscal stewardship, careful prioritization of resources, and reforming the way the Pentagon interacts with the defense industrial base. We’ve taken steps to ensure that competition is promoted for government contracts, worked to ease stresses on small businesses seeking to do business with the Armed Forces, and evaluated the military’s supply chains for weaknesses.
The bill also postures our Armed Forces for potential future threats. Despite a tough fiscal environment, we have provided our Armed Forces with the tools they need to win the war today and deter against the wars of tomorrow.
I am particularly proud of the fact that this bipartisan bill honors the service of our military personnel, veterans and their families. We have kept faith with our all-volunteer military, shielding our troops and veterans from inflated health care and retirement fees. They paid for those benefits with their service, and I am proud that we were able to protect our wartime military from unfair fiscal burdens.
The FY13 NDAA would not have been possible without the partnership and leadership of my friend, Ranking Member Adam Smith. I am also particularly grateful to our subcommittee chairmen, all the Committee members and our staff for their diligent efforts on behalf of the men and women of our armed services.
Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA):
I want to thank Chairman McKeon, all members of the House of Representatives and staff for their hard work on this important piece of legislation.
Overall, this bill prioritizes our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around the world by ensuring that they have the tools and resources they need to do their job and protect national security. It also provides our troops and their families with the benefits and support that they deserve, including a 1.6 percent pay increase.
It continues to make counterterrorism a priority and makes significant investments in all branches of our Armed Services, ensuring that our military is prepared to meet the threats of today as well as the future. It supports our troops as they continue to fight overseas, invests in new technologies for the future, and protects vital military equipment production capacity here at home.
However, I am troubled by the language throughout the bill that either relies too much on a large and extended combat mission in the case of Afghanistan or, simply, overly confrontational language in the cases of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China, to name a few.
In many cases, the only thing preventing me from voting against this bill is the qualifying language. For example, on Afghanistan, the bill requires 68,000 troops through the end of 2014 but then says “if necessary.” On Iran, it calls for all avenues to be used including military force, but again, only "if necessary."
The language on Russia is particularly troubling. Much of the rhetoric during debate on this bill echoed sentiments from 1982, when we were at the height of the Cold War. We are no longer in the Cold War, and we should not be treating Russia like an enemy.
On North Korea, the confrontational language went so far as to include a study that suggests deploying tactical nuclear weapons to the region. This would be dangerous and reckless and could destabilize the entire region.
If this were binding language, I would have to vote against this bill. Luckily, it is simply a statement of policy by the majority -- policies that I strongly disagree with.
Additionally, given the size of our debt and deficit and growing budgetary pressures, I am concerned the bill supports an overall defense budget that is roughly $8 billion over the Budget Control Act. Congress made a commitment to get our budget under control, and I fully expect that the Senate will honor the Budget Control Act number.
The bill also includes provisions that discriminate against gay and lesbian service members. For years, many members of our Armed Services had to hide who they were to fight for the country they love, and I am strongly opposed to efforts that seek to turn back the clock on the progress we have made in the name of equality.
The bill also takes a big step back on energy, by ending support for many kinds of alternative fuels which undermine our national security policy. Our nation must decrease, if not eliminate, its reliance on imported fuels and maintain our leadership in this area. China and many other nations are seeking to become leaders in this area, and the committee’s actions will set us back and risk our leadership in this arena.
Again, I supported his bill in its current form because we must support our troops while they are in harm's way. We must ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to ensure national security and accomplish missions we ask of them. However, there is still much more work to be done to address many of the issues with this bill. I look forward to reviewing the Senate’s version of this bill and working with my colleagues here in the House to make sure we send the President a final bill that meets the high standards of the United States Armed Services.