Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1540) 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 prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; and providing for proceedings during the period from December 16, 2011, through January 16, 2012.

Members of the House of Representatives, this issue has never gone before the House Judiciary Committee--never.

I have a letter dated December 14 that says:

``There has been some debate over whether section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act 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 antiterrorism efforts, including United States citizens arrested on United States soil.

``Please find attached a letter from Judge William Sessions, a former Federal judge and former Director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, explaining that current law on this point is unclear, and that enacting section 1021 of this act would dangerously expand the power for indefinite detention.''

I would like to place in the Record sundry correspondence, including the letter from Judge Sessions.

The Constitution Project,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2011.

Dear Representative McKeon and Fellow Conferees, I am

writing to you with grave concern over the National Defense

Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). It is highly regrettable

that the Senate passed the NDAA without first stripping it of

dangerous provisions regarding the treatment of detainees.

But it is not too late to act; as conferees, it is now your

task to remove these harmful provisions before the NDAA

becomes law. I strongly urge you to do so, and to preserve

both our constitutional traditions and our most effective

tools in the fight against terrorism.

If enacted, these detention provisions would for the first

time codify authority for methods such as indefinite

detention without charge and mandatory military detention,

and would authorize their application--on the basis of

suspicion alone--to virtually anyone picked up in

antiterrorism efforts, including those arrested on U.S. soil.

In effect, the U.S. military would become the judge, jury and

jailer of terrorism suspects, to the exclusion of the FBI and

other law enforcement agencies.

An astounding array of individuals from across the

political spectrum opposes the over-militarization of our

counterterrorism efforts, and for good reason. I have

attached Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration,

organized by The Constitution Project and Human Rights First,

in which I joined with over 140 additional former government

officials and practitioners from across the political

spectrum in explaining that federal courts are the most

effective mechanism for trying terrorism cases, and that

indefinite detention without charge runs afoul of our

Constitution and would harm U.S. interests globally. As a

former federal judge, former U.S. Attorney, and former

director of the FBI, I myself can attest to the competence of

our nation's law enforcement officers and civilian federal

courts, as well as the urgency to preserve these tools for

use in our counterterrorism efforts.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta similarly opposes this

transfer of responsibility to the military. Indeed, virtually

the entire national security establishment--including James

Clapper, the director of national intelligence; Robert

Mueller III, the director of the FBI; David Petraeus, the

director

of the CIA; White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John

Brennan; Lisa Monaco, the assistant attorney general for

national security; and Jeh Johnson, general counsel for the

Department of Defense--has warned that further restricting

the tools at our disposal to combat terrorism is not in the

best interest of our national security. I implore you to heed

their warning.

With regard specifically to Section 1031 from the Senate

bill, some have argued that Section simply reiterates current

law, and by doing so maintains the status quo. That is not

the case. This very dangerous provision would authorize the

President to subject any suspected terrorist who is captured

within the United States--including U.S. citizens and U.S.

persons--to indefinite detention without charge. The

provision does not limit such detention authority to people

captured on the battlefield. Importantly, although subsection

(e) of this provision states that the provision should not be

``construed to affect existing law or authorities'' relating

to detention of ``persons who are captured or arrested in the

United States,'' the reality is that current law on the scope

of such executive authority is unsettled.

In fact, on two occasions when this issue was on track to

come before the U.S. Supreme Court, the executive branch

changed course so as to avoid judicial review. Specifically,

in both the Padilla case in 2005-06 (involving a U.S.

citizen) and the al-Marri case in 2008-09 (involving a legal

permanent U.S. resident), the U.S. government claimed that

the President had the authority to detain a suspected

terrorist captured within the United States indefinitely

without charge or trial. In both instances, however, before

the Supreme Court could hear the case and evaluate this

claim, the Justice Department reversed course and charged the

defendant with criminal offenses to be tried in civilian

court. Thus, this extreme claim of executive detention

authority for people captured within the United States has

never been tested, and the state of the law at present is

unclear. Passage of Section 1031 would explicitly provide

this authority by statute for the first time, thereby

clearly, and dangerously, expanding the power for indefinite

detention.

I firmly believe that the United States can best preserve

its national security by maintaining the use of proven law

enforcement methods and our well-tested traditional criminal

justice system to combat terrorism. By contrast, enacting the

NDAA without first removing the current detainee provisions

could pose a genuine threat to our national security and

would represent a sweeping and unnecessary departure from our

constitutional tradition.

I therefore urge you, as conferees, to strip these

dangerous detainee provisions from the NDAA. Thank you for

your consideration.

Sincerely,

William S. Sessions.

Will the gentleman let me recognize him on his own time? I only have 3 minutes.

I would like to remind my colleagues that provisions within the conference report impact our civil liberties and should have been referred to the Judiciary Committee for review. The conference report dangerously expands existing authorizations pertaining to individuals detained by the United States government and the military.

First, Section 1021 grants broad discretionary authority that could permit the indefinite detention of United States citizens, areas of law that should have been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Secondly, Section 1021 is not the current law of the land and instead is new and dangerously extensive detention authority that has its origins in case law that never involved questions of whether American citizens could be indefinitely detained.

Third, Section 1022 violates due process by permitting indefinite military detention without charge or trial.

Next, the conference report ignores the concerns of members of our intelligence community, domestic law enforcement, and former generals who have opposed these provisions because they would undermine the ability of the government to interrogate and prosecute suspected terrorists.

Lastly, the conference report displaces the legal expertise necessary for trying successful terrorism cases.

First, Section 1021 grants broad discretionary authority that could permit the indefinite detention of United States citizens. The indeterminate breadth of conference report provides little or no protection against the indefinite detention of United States citizens. In addition, it threatens our constitutional protections and civil liberties.

I would like to know why an amendment to exempt American citizens from indefinite military detention failed in the Senate. If we were concerned about preserving the civil liberties and constitutional protections for American citizens, why did it fail? In addition, if existing laws prohibit this, why did we not specify this in the bill? Although supporters of this bill continue to claim that this bill would not expand detention authority inside of the U.S., that is just not the case.

There are too many questions that affect our civil liberties in the conference report that should have been referred to the Judiciary Committee for review and clarification. For example, Section 1021 is broad in its definition of ``hostilities'', what constitutes ``directly supporting hostilities in aid of enemy forces,'' and does not address the question of when or how do we determine ``the end of hostilities.''

Former FBI Director under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton and former Judge, Williams S. Sessions, recently wrote to the conferees explaining that ``This very dangerous provision would authorize the President to subject any suspected terrorist who is captured within the United States--including U.S. citizens and U.S. persons--to indefinite detention without charge. The provision does not limit such detention authority to people captured on the battlefield. Importantly, although subsection (e) of this provision states that the provision should not be `construed to affect existing law or authorities' relating to detention of persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,' the reality is that current law on the scope of such executive authority is unsettled.''

With so much ambiguity, this bill could authorize detention--into perpetuity--United States citizens who in some instances--such as making statements protected under the First Amendment--could arguably be considered subject to indefinite detention under this provision.

In addition, Section 1021 does not expressly address whether U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens may be determined as ``covered persons'' subject to detention under the section. Although the conference report includes the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, the conference report leaves definitions that are very broad of who can be detained without charge or trial.

Secondly, let me remind my colleagues that Section 1021 is not the current law of the land. The definition in Section 1021 was used by the Obama Administration to continue to detain indefinitely without charge or trial detainees at Guantanamo Bay, GITMO. This definition was used in court cases dealing with GITMO detainees, NOT American citizens. Thus, the question is whether this Congress wants the same GITMO detainee standard applied to American citizens? Do you want our government treating American citizens that way?

Section 1021 states that ``Nothing in the section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.'' This does not mean that American citizens are protected.

I am very troubled today to have learned that when an amendment came up in the Senate to address these protections for American citizens, members of the Senate stated that they would want room in the law for an American citizen to fall under this new and broad definition.

No one at GITMO is an American citizen and the only cases that deal with this type of indefinite detention without charge or trial are GITMO detainee cases. So there is no good law out there.

Thus, if existing laws do impact the civil liberties of American citizens, then we need to be changing those laws instead of codifying them.

Thirdly, the conference report violates due process and rejects our American values. The United States Constitution grants specific due process rights to citizens that guarantee they will be charged and brought to trial in the event they are apprehended by law enforcement. However, Section 1022 militarizes our justice system and could allow United States citizens to be detained by the military without charge or trail.

We take an oath every Congress to uphold the Constitution and to guard its values and protections for American citizens. Earlier this year, members of this body stood before the American people and read the Constitution. Yet I must inquire whether that was theatrics or did we intend to follow through with our obligation? The broad definitions in 1022 could include American citizens under indefinite military detention, and thus must be opposed if we are to be protectors of the Constitution.

Next, this Congress has ignored the concerns of our national intelligence community. Changes into Section 1022 will undermine the ability of the government to interrogate and prosecute suspected terrorists.

The Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, CIA professionals, along with dozens of retired generals and professional interrogators have rejected this proposal because it is a militarization of our justice system and some have stated that these provisions are unwise and unworkable.

Members of the House claim that out of respect for our military we need to pass this authorization. However, passing this bill ignores

their concerns and will negatively impact operations that preserve our national security. Under the provisions of the conference report, intelligence and domestic law enforcement would lose authority to take further action with terrorist suspects in U.S. custody absent a wavier from the President--which still thwarts the information gathering that is crucial at that time of arrest.

This provision in the conference report will cause controversy and chaos in handling terrorism investigations. Tying the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals would also cause unnecessary delays in justice.

These provisions also harm our national security by threatening the global reputation of the United States. Under President Obama, the image of the United States has been restored as well as the rule of law. However, the conference report rejects our national values of democracy, due process, and justice by authorizing the military's role in domestic law enforcement.

Lastly, the conference report displaces the legal expertise necessary for trying successful terrorism cases. A bi-partisan alliance of our national defense and intelligence community--including retired generals--have spoken out against provisions in Section 1022 that provide for military commissions to conduct terrorism trials.

The military has not even completed 3 percent of the case load that the Justice Department has completed. Military tribunals have completed six terrorism cases, compared to the Justice Department's case load of close to 400 cases with a 90 percent conviction rate to go along with that. To date, there is no record of any federal court unable to convict a terrorist.

This is not a responsibility the military wants, therefore Congress should not insist on the use of military tribunals in order to sound tougher on terrorists. We should not treat terrorists like warriors. Federal courts and our Justice Department can deliver harsher sentences and are better equipped to handle such cases. In addition, Article III Judges and the Department of Justice are more versed in the body of law that covers such cases.

I was also disappointed that the conference report failed to adopt Senate-passed language proposed by Senators Merkley, Paul, and Lee calling for expedited transition of responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Afghan government.

Specifically, this amendment would have required the President to devise and submit to Congress a plan to expedite the drawdown of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerate the transfer of security authority to Afghan authorities.

The conference report amended the amendment's language to change the focus from drawing down our troop footprint to empowering and building up the Afghan security forces. While a worthy goal unto itself, this language changed the focus of the amendment and undermined the the message expressed by the entire Senate through the Merkley Amendment. Including this provision would have sent an important message about our country's commitment to bringing the war in Afghanistan to a responsible end. It is unfortunate that the report does not reflect a position supported by a majority of the American people.

I also support efforts to enhance the ability of Customs & Border Protection to prevent counterfeit goods from being imported into the United States. However, Section 8 of this bill will disrupt the flow of genuine brand name products into the United States.

This is true because many of the goods which CBP inspectors view with suspicion are in fact genuine goods, lawfully moving in distribution streams parallel to the authorized distributors. These transactions are desirable because they provide U.S. consumers with price competition and wider distribution of brand name products.

However, the existence of these transactions is often under attack by trademark and copyright owners who actively seek to control resale pricing and downstream distribution of the products they have already sold into commerce. Section 8 will give anti-competitive companies a new tool by giving them confidential information about competing parallel imports at their times of arrival, while they are still detained by CBP and unavailable to the importer, and without giving the importer an opportunity to prove its goods are genuine, and without even giving notice to the importer that its information has been shared with a competitor seeking to prevent its lawful transaction.

This problem could be minimized if Section 8 is limited to goods raising national security concerns or purchases by the military. I believe that is the intent of this provision of the Department of Defense Appropriation bill.

This problem could also be minimized if this bill or CBP would adopt the safeguards which the Administration proposes be included in the Customs Reauthorization Act. This would be appropriate since Section 8 provides that it sunsets when the Customs Reauthorization is adopted. The safeguards include a requirement that the Secretary find there is a need for disclosing confidential information, and that CBP provide the importer with notice and an opportunity to respond before any confidential information is released to other private parties.

For some reason, we are adopting this provision in anticipation of a more thoughtful approach in the Customs Reauthorization Act. This is not a wise or needed course of action. CBP today can provide redacted samples to IP owners and very often that is sufficient to determine if they are genuine or counterfeit.

CBP today keeps suspicious goods out of U.S. commerce while it determines if they are genuine. The safeguards proposed by the administration will not put suspicious goods into commerce nor delay the final determination of CBP because there is an existing 30-day requirement that is not altered by any proposed legislation.

We must not be willing to compromise our civil liberties and American values for the false sense of enhancing security. I urge members to vote no on the Conference report and do what is right for America, its people, and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 493 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a standard conference report rule and other end-of-the-year housekeeping provisions.

H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, has been considered in committee. It was debated on the House floor. It included 152 amendments made in order before passing this Chamber, and that was done in May with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority. It went through the Senate. And now we bring to you today a bipartisan conference report.

I have to commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for truly continuing the tradition of bipartisanship and mutual cooperation in the Armed Services Committee and in this particular bill.

There are some times when Congress has a reputation of being somewhat contentious and partisan, sometimes deservedly so. However, I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee myself for several years, and I recognize that they clearly understand Article I of the Constitution, which requires a common defense of our country; and in that particular committee, partisanship really has been checked at the door regarding the product of the Armed Services Committee, which is this annual Defense authorization bill.

In its essence, I think the process has been good, the efforts have been good, and it has made a significant issue that we are bringing here to the floor ready to pass in its final version from the conference committee. There are significant underlying issues that I think we will talk about during the course of the discussion on the rule and perhaps on the bill as well, but those things, I think, will be handled as they appear at that particular time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the issues and accusations that were brought up by the gentleman from Florida will be something that we will address in the course of this debate, but I wish to do this in somewhat of a regular order. There are other issues, as he said, that are significant.

To address the first of those, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

In the year we have been here discussing these things, we have talked a lot about budget problems that we have in this country. It is my contention that our budget is not just that we have been spending too much, but we have been spending on too much.

One of the things, though, that we should be spending on is, of course, military issues. Article I 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 an administration that has decided that there should be some financial restraints in 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 at any time in this country. And to do that, there will at least be 100,000 uniformed jobs that will be cut, destroyed, and reduced.

There are some people who think that simply cutting a few soldiers, a few airmen, and a few sailors will be an easy solution to this issue. That is naive. It will not happen. What it means, though, is that, also, programs must be cut at the same time. We have acquisition which buys new materials for our soldiers, and we have sustainment which fixes it. That means in certain situations our maintenance and sustainment side 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-16s we fly to maintain that air superiority we were flying at 150 percent of their designed capacity when I was first elected to this Congress. And yet this is an administration that, even though we have that deficit, decided not to build any more F-22s and are delaying 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 some kind of 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 equipping them with the oldest products they will ever have to protect themselves, and that old stuff requires massive maintenance if you're 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, and that make that 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 at in the military, both proposed by the Obama administration and if, in effect, they go into effect because of rescission by the failed supercommittee, will be anywhere between 100,000 and a half million civilian employees--and this vital function in this constitutional function-- that will lose their jobs. And if you go to the worst case scenario, it may even be 1 million employees.

Now, I mention that specifically because we have heard often and often, where are the jobs bills. This House has passed a number of jobs 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 they are pillorying this Congress for not passing much bigger and bigger spending to create more and more government jobs in areas which are questionable if we should be there in the first place. But at the same time we are being pilloried for not doing that. We are being presented by the left hand with a proposal that will actually cut existing civilian jobs in areas where we were constitutionally required to have them and to maintain them.

If we don't find that at least inconsistent--and mind-bogglingly inconsistent--it is one of our problems in not facing the reality. We are always told pass more government jobs. And at the same time, the same people who are demanding that are saying, okay, 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 in which we must make those decisions in the future. We must continue to talk about jobs; but we have to realize that 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.

Mr. Speaker, 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 am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I am prepared to close as well.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

This bill has gone through regular order as no other bill has. It went through its committee in regular order and was passed out in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 60-1. It came on the floor with 152 amendments to be considered and was passed out with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It 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. I want this very clear because both Congressman McKeon, who is the chairman of the committee, Congressman Smith, who is 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. Anything in this law that deals with detainees does not change in any way, shape, or form existing law. It does not deny anyone habeas corpus opportunities. That is not waived in any way, shape, or form.

Let me quote from Mr. Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee, when talking about different things, he simply said that there is the possibility of indefinite 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 construed to affect

existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S.

citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any

other persons who are 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 membership, 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.

You can't just go out and pick people off the streets. There has to be a standard. And everyone still gets habeas corpus rights in all of these events.

Let me quote again from the law, from the report, the bill that we are debating and discussing and voting:

``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 a lawful alien of the United States.

Only in this section, and in both sections, do you have to meet certain very restrictive criteria which are not different than what we are currently doing, which simply means in the past history of this United States, especially in some of our war times, there have been Presidents who we jokingly say used to throw people in jail who were opposed to them.

President Obama could still do that under existing statute, but he can't do it with this language in this particular bill. There are specifics that are set forth. There are specific protections written for American citizens, specific protections written for illegal aliens of the United States. It is only a very restricted authority and a very restricted power, and it doesn't affect habeas corpus. It doesn't change existing law.

In essence, those people who worked in the committee on this bill have done a yeoman's work in coming up with a good bill. Those people who worked in the conference did a yeoman's work in coming up with a good conference report.

This is a good rule, which is a standard conference report rule. And 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 destroying 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.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 493 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting

of the text of the amendment printed in the Congressional

Record dated December 13, 2011 pursuant to clause 8 of rule

XVIII and numbered 1, which will bear the title ``to support

the middle class and create jobs, and for other purposes''.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective

designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered

for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section of the

bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not--apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 6 of this

resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Washington opposed to the conference report?

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

It's been a decade since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are in danger of losing our most precious heritage, not because a band of thugs threatens our freedom, but because we are at risk of forgetting who we are and what makes the United States a truly great nation.

In the last 10 years, we have begun to let go of our freedoms, bit by bit, with each new executive order, court decision and, yes, act of Congress. The changes in this bill to the 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 legal scholars tell us that 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 will hear that 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 the 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, committed, or aided the 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 ``substantially supported'' al Qaeda and the Taliban or ``associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.'' 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 someone who has ``directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.'' It doesn't, as does our criminal law, say ``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 that this is just the same as the AUMF. If it were, there would be no need to pass this law; we have it already. Courts, in reading legislation, operate on the very sensible assumption that Congress doesn't write surplus language, that it must have intended to do something. Here it is pretty clear that we are expanding the reach of the AUMF beyond the 9/11 perpetrators and those who aided and harbored them. Whoever it reaches--and we don't know--but whoever it reaches, the government would have the authority to lock them up without trial until ``the end of hostilities,'' which, given how broadly the AUMF has been used to justify actions far from Afghanistan, might mean forever.

And who will be taken out of the civilian justice system and imprisoned forever without a trial? The bill says anyone who ``is determined'' to be covered by the statute. It doesn't say determined by whom or what protections there are to ensure that an innocent person doesn't disappear into a military prison. That's not America.

We also need to be clear that the so-called ``Feinstein amendment'' does not really provide the protection its sponsor intended to provide. The Feinstein amendment says that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.''

So what are ``existing law and authorities''? As former FBI Director William Sessions has recently written: ``The provision does not limit such detention authority to people captured on the battlefield. The reality is that current law on the scope of such executive authority is unsettled.'' Director Sessions goes on to point out that the two cases where the Supreme Court might have decided the question of detaining a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident, the U.S. claimed that the President had the authority--the administration claimed that the President had the authority to detain a suspected terrorist captured within the United States indefinitely without charge or trial.

In both these cases, Padilla and al-Mari, the government changed course and decided to try them in civilian courts in order to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on that question, and that question remains undetermined.

So when the Feinstein amendment references ``existing law,'' you should not assume that means that current law clearly deprives the President of this dangerous power. I hope it does, but it is still, legally, an open question. 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 terrifying 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 an additional 30 seconds.

We do not need to do this. We should not do this. And because of this momentous challenge 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve until it is time to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are told, and this seems to be one of the

principle issues 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 confirmed 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. 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 to 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 is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the authorization for use of military force.

Well, that directly contradicts what I just read, which is a very specific provision. And since the rules of statutory construction always say that the specific controls the general, this provision, frankly, insofar as it contradicts the first, is meaningless. It provides no protection whatsoever. The same is true of the Feinstein amendment, for similar reasons.

Now, we have disagreement 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 disagree on what this language means. The President's chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, said that the bill mandates military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects, and since it would apply to individuals inside the U.S.--which we have 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 a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, saying that this is a terrible expansion and change of existing law.

Now the fact of 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 of these other people--experts, legal experts, military people, counterterrorism experts--can say it goes way beyond existing law, shows why it is dangerous to have this kind of provision affecting 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 asked: What does this provision mean? How should it be changed? Does this provision contradict that provision, and what does it really mean? Does it go beyond existing law, and, if so, how can we change that?

In 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, and pass the bill without this provision in a couple of days. We are going to be here. There is no reason we shouldn't do that. And then next year--which is only a couple of weeks away--give proper consideration to these detention provisions if people feel 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 percent certain what this does. And when you are 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 of days, and that's the safe way to safeguard our liberties and to do what we have to do for our military security.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from Utah for yielding the

time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's been more than 10 years since the attacks of September 11. We have fought two wars and have engaged in military action in numerous other countries. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, and many more have been wounded. We have spent more than $1 trillion. Osama bin Laden is dead, and the Obama administration officials have declared that al Qaeda is ``operationally ineffective.''

Here at home, we've reformed our national government, compromised our civil liberties, spent billions on a surveillance state, and created a culture of paranoia in which, even in the last few days, a reality TV show about Muslim Americans is subjected to a campaign of hate and intolerance.

Before proceeding, let me commend the chairman and the ranking member of the relevant committee of jurisdiction that put this package together. I am fundamentally opposed to many aspects of it, but I am in tremendous agreement with their bipartisan efforts and the staffs of both of them and the other committee members for putting forth the effort to bring us to this point of discussion.

We should take this opportunity at this moment in our history to seriously and carefully deliberate our Nation's counterterrorism efforts. We ought to consider which policies are effective and which, in the end, only create more anti-American sentiment. We ought to consider which policies align with our national values and which, instead, undermine them. We ought to consider whether we should continue using the full thrust of the United States Armed Forces in country after country or whether a more nuanced approach might better serve our needs.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not attempt to answer these questions. Instead, it commits us to dive even further down the road of fear. It commits us to more war and more wasteful spending, and it commits us to ceding our freedoms and liberties on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. This legislation erodes our society and our national security by militarizing our justice system and empowering the President to detain anyone in the United States, including American citizens, without charge or trial, without due process.

If this is going to continue to be the direction of our country, Mr. Speaker, we don't need a Democratic Party or a Republican Party or an Occupy Wall Street party or a Tea Party; we need a Mayflower party. If we are going to undermine the foundational principles of this great country, then we might as well sail away to someplace else.

This legislation establishes an authority for open-ended war anywhere in the world and against anyone. It commits us to seeing a ``terrorist'' in anyone who ever criticizes the United States in any country, including this one. The lack of definitions as to what constitutes ``substantial support'' and ``associated forces'' of al Qaeda and the Taliban mean that anyone could be accused of terrorism. Congress has not tried to curtail civil liberties like this since the McCarthy era; but here we are today, trying to return to an era of arbitrary justice, witch-hunts, and fearmongering.

While this measure includes an exemption for United States citizens, it does not protect them from indefinite detention. In one fell swoop, we have set up a situation where American citizens could have their Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights violated on mere suspicions. And by placing suspected terrorists solely in the hands of the military, these provisions deny civilian law enforcement the ability to conduct effective counterterrorism efforts.

The fact of the matter is that our law enforcement agencies and civilian courts have proven over and over again that they are more than capable of handling counterterrorism cases. I had the distinct privilege in this country of serving as a Federal judge shepherding cases and protecting the interests of the United States and vital security interests during that period of time. And in every one of those cases--some 11 over the period of 9\3/4\ years--all of the defendants were found guilty, and that is before 2001.

More than 400 suspected terrorists have already been tried in the Federal courts of the United States of America. We should not break something that already works. The idea that the executive branch's current powers are inadequate to fight terrorism is proven false by 10 years of successful counterterrorism efforts. The idea that the President--any President--needs a whole new expansion of his--and I hope one day soon--her powers is just wrong.

Most national security experts, Democrats and Republicans, are telling us not to adopt this language. Many officials responsible for our homeland security are telling us not to adopt this language. A lot of our military leaders are telling us not to adopt this language, Mr. Speaker. This legislation goes too far.

We spend billions of dollars every year on counterterrorism, but we weaken those efforts by tossing aside our own system of justice. We tell the American public that we are fighting overseas in order to protect our freedoms, but then we pass legislation that undermines those very same freedoms here in the people's House and at home.

And we tell the rest of the world to emulate our democratic traditions and our rule of law, but we disregard those values in a mad rush to find out how we can pretend to be the toughest on terrorism.

We won't defeat terrorism by using the military to lock up innocent people for the rest of their lives on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing. We will not defeat terrorism by claiming the entire world as a battlefield. And we will not defeat terrorism by replacing our rule of law with reckless, uncontrolled, and unaccountable powers.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a more considered debate about the best way to conduct our defense and counterterrorism policies. This bill contains over $600 billion in spending, runs to over 1,000 pages, and is coming to the floor less than 48 hours after it was filed.

While the detainee provisions in this legislation might have received the most attention in the last few days, there are plenty of other critical provisions that Members may have opinions about, and that's why on these kinds of measures we should have open rules.

I realize that I've said that Congress--and we are proving it at the end of this session--has a bad case of deadline-itis. But my friends in the Republican majority don't only have deadline-itis, they have deadline-ophila.

Yesterday we considered a poorly conceived extenders package that will harm the middle class and weaken our economy. Today we are considering controversial language in a defense bill that sets a dangerous precedent and will potentially harm the civil liberties of American citizens.

I appreciate that the Republican majority, many of whom are my friends, don't want their holiday season ruined by having to work. But that doesn't mean we have to ruin everyone else's holiday season by passing bad laws.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

After my good friend from Utah spoke, I guess I say, Wow. Last night I reminded him that military people are government workers also. 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 at 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 lines I think we will 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 am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform us as to the amount of time remaining on either side.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished woman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this 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 the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Hahn).

I would advise my friend from Utah that I am going to be the last speaker if he is ready to close.

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

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 Kafka wrote about it years ago, and it has been known as Kafkaesque.

Ten years after the attacks of September 11--10 years of war, of runaway defense spending, of the PATRIOT Act, torture, and extraordinary rendition--and we're 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 Barack Obama may not 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 branch of our government and to the legislative branch of our government. This legislation goes too far.

If the Republican majority was serious about having this body carefully consider our Nation's defense policies, Members would have had more than 2 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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

No, I am not. I support the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I, too, want to thank the chairman, Mr. McKeon. We always say that 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 for 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 legislate together, and something that I think could be emulated by many more committees and on many more issues.

So, thank you, Buck. It's been great working with you on this. I think we've produced a good product.

I want to, upfront, address the issue that most people have focused on in the rule and elsewhere, and that is the issue surrounding detainee policy. I have never seen an issue that was more distorted in terms of what people have 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 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, and current law is something we've been debating ever since 9/11. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have taken the position that indefinite detention is an option. In two cases before the Supreme Court, the Hamdi case most notably, a U.S. citizen was briefly subject to indefinite detention. The Fourth Circuit Court 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, and we defeat endless support programs that are absolutely vital to their doing their jobs. And I don't think I need to remind this body that 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 is talking about, not this bill. We put language in on 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 that created that problem.

I urge support for this bill.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

One issue I want to address is the issue of 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, Guam, and other places. One thing I want to make clear is that Guam is a critically important part of our Asia presence. They have presence of our military there now. The language in the bill is not meant to cut off existing military construction projects or indeed other ones that may not be related to this. I want to make sure that that's clear.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a very important member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Will the gentleman yield for a point of clarification?

That person----

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Reyes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), ranking member on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Yes. That was a huge priority for me in the conference committee. We worked hard to make sure that that happened, and we absolutely protect those rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

I am also going to reserve until it is time to close. We are down to our last speaker.

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

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've 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. and 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 III courts? I disagree with that and have spoken out publicly and strongly and in many cases even when popular support has been on the other side of issues like closing of Guantanamo.

I care deeply about this issue; and from the very start, I fought hard to protect precisely the things 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. That, again, has nothing to do with this bill. There are court cases ongoing; there are habeas corpus cases continuously happening as a result of Guantanamo; and it's being interpreted by courts and also by the executive branch. I want to make it also clear that the judiciary and the executive branch would always rather that we do nothing. They would always rather forget that we are supposed to be a coequal 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 have said about the AUMF and to make absolutely clear--and this language is not ambiguous--that military custody in the U.S. does not apply to U.S. citizens and does not apply to lawful resident aliens.

Again, the problems that people have--and I share some of them--are 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 and 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 that 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's 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 troops.

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 and worked hard by a lot of folks. It deserves an overwhelming ``yes'' vote.

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