Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

I rise in opposition to the bill and to the underlying rule.

To put it simply in the minute that I have, this bill needlessly puts in jeopardy the health and safety of workers and residents who live near nuclear weapons facilities. Congressman Visclosky, Congresswoman Sanchez, and I offered an amendment to fix these dangerous flaws. But today's rule will not allow that amendment onto the floor.

Our amendment recognized that these facilities pose unique challenges when it comes to health and safety. They are ultrahazardous. They make plutonium pits, handle bomb-grade uranium, and manage high explosives. If the worst were to happen, the American taxpayer is on the hook for any nuclear event, even if the contractor that operates the facility engages in gross misconduct. To protect workers, residents, and taxpayers, we need to ask that contractors live up to the highest standards of safety. This legislation does not do that.

I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for trying to get this amendment made in order in the Rules Committee. It's an important amendment. We're hearing from workers in these facilities all

across the country that we're removing a critical margin of safety for them, that we're turning this over to contractors and lessening the safety standards across these plants and removing the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy. This bill should be rejected for what it does to these workers.

These are some groups submitting letters opposing changes to nuclear safety protections in H.R. 4310:

1. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

2. Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups

3. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability

4. Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL CIO

5. Metal Trades Department, AFL CIO

6. United Steelworkers

7. Laborers International Union of North America

8. Communications Workers of America

9. National Treasury Employees Union

10. Project on Government Oversight

Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.

Hon. Loretta Sanchez,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee

on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn

House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Sanchez: Thank you for the opportunity

to provide input and comments on HR4310, the FY 2013 National

Defense Authorization bill, particularly with regard to the

sections in Title 32 that affect nuclear safety, and the

Board's oversight mission, operations and budget capacity.

I'm convinced that the legislation, if enacted, will weaken

current independent nuclear safety oversight and enforcement

at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. I have spent my entire

career spanning more than 40 years supporting the national

security programs of the United States. Nothing would sadden

me more than seeing that mission compromised by threats to

public and worker safety resulting from lapses in safety.

As you know, I presently serve as Chairman of the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), having been

appointed by President Bush to the Board in 2006 and later

reappointed as its Chairman by President Obama in 2010. I

have 43 years of experience as a scientist and engineer in

the field of radiation effects science, technology, and

hardness assurance in support of military and space systems.

I was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and

Electronic Engineers and the American Physical Society, and

was selected as one of the most highly cited researchers in

Engineering by the Institute for Scientific Information,

which lists the 250 most highly cited researchers in the

world in given scientific fields. I have been honored with

the 2000 IEEE Millennium Medal, IEEE Nuclear & Plasma

Sciences Merit and Shea Award, R&D 100 Awards, Industry

Week's Top 25 Technologies of Year, and Discover Award, and

many prize-winning papers. I have authored 140 publications

in the open refereed literature, including more than 30

invited papers, book chapters, and presentations.

The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at

DOE's defense nuclear facilities. As Chairman of the Board I

am proud of the safety record of the DOE and the role that

the Board has played over the last 23 years. There is no

question that the defense nuclear facilities complex is in a

safer posture now than when the Board commenced operations in

the late 1980's. However, we cannot ignore the current and

emerging challenges that will define the future of DOE's

defense nuclear facilities, the need for federal stewardship

of this enterprise, and the federal commitment to protect the

health and safety of the workers and the public. Today's

challenges of aged infrastructure, design and construction of

new and replacement facilities, and the undertaking of a wide

variety of new activities in defense nuclear facilities

coupled with ongoing mission support activities require

continued vigilance in safety oversight to assure public and

worker protection. A nuclear safety incident cannot be

tolerated and would do irreparable harm to the stockpile

stewardship and legacy waste missions of the Department of

Energy.

This legislation contains significant changes to the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Act and the

Board's Enabling Statute that would put NNSA and DOE's

national security mission in jeopardy. The proposed changes,

if enacted, would amount to Congress concluding that NNSA

does not need independent safety oversight. It would all but

erase the Board's independence and authority with respect to

safety oversight of NNSA defense nuclear facilities and

activities. Changes to the Atomic Energy Act would lower the

standard used to ensure adequate protection of public safety.

The legislation endorses a strong shift toward contractor

self-regulation, which is not justified based on the present

maturity of contractor assurance systems but, even more

importantly, neuters the inherent responsibility of the

government to ensure public and worker safety. This

responsibility cannot be delegated by NNSA to its

contractors. Finally, the President's ability to direct

NNSA's operations through the Secretary of Energy would also

be much reduced. Let me address a few of these concerns in

more detail.

Section 3113 of the bill gives the NNSA Administrator

complete authority to establish and conduct oversight of NNSA

activities outside of that already established by the

Secretary of Energy. The Administrator develops a system of

governance, management, and oversight, of covered contractors

and ensures that any and all Federal Agencies comply with

this system. Clearly, this vacates the notion of independent

oversight, which should be of grave concern to the Congress.

Other agencies that presently provide oversight include the

Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Environmental

Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and the

Occupational and Safety Health Agency (OSHA). Some examples

of undesirable consequences of the proposed language include:

The Board will be unable to provide effective safety

oversight.

The NRC will be precluded from conducting license-related

oversight activities associated with operation of the MOX

facility.

NNSA itself will be precluded from conducting Operational

Readiness Reviews, Integrated Safety Management System

Verifications, and Nuclear Explosive Safety Studies.

Section 3113 of the Bill further directs the NNSA

Administrator to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and

performance-based standards rather than transactional

oversight.'' I am convinced this model is inappropriate for

oversight of complex, high-hazard nuclear operations at

defense nuclear facilities. NNSA defines ``transactional

oversight'' as activities that assess contractor performance

through evaluating contractor activities at the work, task,

or facility level; direct interaction with personnel at any

level within the contractor organization; and direct

independent Federal staff evaluation of activities, physical

conditions, and contractor documentation. [NA 1 SD 226.1A,

NNSA Line Oversight and Contractor Assurance System

Supplemental Directive] Clearly, transactional oversight is

essential at the Pantex Plant where nuclear weapons are

assembled, disassembled, and undergo surveillance. It is

also essential for plutonium operations at the Los Alamos

Plutonium Facility, highly-enriched uranium operations at

the Y 12 National Security Complex, and for complex, high-

hazard nuclear operations at the Nevada National Security

Site, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia

National Laboratories. For these activities, anything

other than transactional oversight is irresponsible and

will jeopardize the NNSA mission. The government cannot

delegate its responsibility to ensure public and worker

safety to its contractors.

I think it is important to understand that a system based

on ``outcomes'' is inappropriate in safety space. The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission uses performance-based regulation to

improve effectiveness and efficiency, but not where failure

to meet a performance criterion can result in an immediate

safety concern. For safety, a system of ``leading

indicators'' to prevent accidents is required. For complex,

high-hazard nuclear operations, a performance-based outcome

approach may appear successful on the surface, but underlying

weaknesses in processes can eventually lead to serious

accidents and unwanted results. A significant body of

information on this subject is available in both the

commercial and academic sectors; it was also explored in the

series of public meetings and hearings that led to issuance

of the Board's Recommendation 2004 1, Oversight of Complex,

High-Hazard Nuclear Operations.

The Board has devoted considerable resources in the past

few years to understand activity-level work planning and

control. We have teamed with the Department and NNSA to

understand the challenges of writing and implementing

procedures that account for hazards in the workplace and the

controls necessary to mitigate those hazards. There are many

challenges to implementing those procedures that must account

for a wide range of human factors. The inescapable conclusion

is that the key to worker safety is the ability to faithfully

and repeatedly execute procedures. A procedure is only the

starting point. A system of transactional oversight is the

only way to ensure the safe execution of work through the

effective implementation of procedures.

I believe one of the contributing factors that lead the

House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee to propose

this legislation was a basic misunderstanding of the

testimony it received at the its February 16, 2012 hearing on

``Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear

Security Enterprise.'' At that hearing, Dr. Shank, Co-Chair

of the Committee to Review the Quality of the Management and

of the Science and Engineering Research at the Department of

Energy's National Security Laboratories, testified about the

scope of this review and its conclusions. One concern and

associated conclusion is embodied in this legislation, i.e.,

the need to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and

performance-based standards rather than transactional

oversight.'' However, when the Board subsequently met with

Dr. Shank, it became clear that his review committee did not

look at defense nuclear facilities at any of the

laboratories. Dr. Shank explained that the committee focused

on management of science, not safety, and not production

facilities. The review was focused on the need for the

laboratories to do research more efficiently and effectively,

and improve morale at the laboratories. The

committee did not review complex, high-hazard nuclear

operations or any high-consequence operations. In my opinion,

this testimony should not be used as the basis to argue

against the need for independent oversight or eliminate

transactional oversight at defense nuclear facilities.

For the record, the Board's staff asked about the

significance of Appendix 3 to the Committee's report,

``Review of Relevant Studies and Reports 1995 2010.''

Appendix 3 is the only part of the report that discusses the

Board. Dr. Shank characterized Appendix 3 as an add-on and

not part of the report. The Board's staff followed up with

Mr. Shaw, Project Director, on April 20, 2012, to understand

this distinction. Mr. Shaw explained that he and his staff of

research assistants prepared Appendix 3 as background

material for the committee. The appendices are a compilation

of lines of inquiry or questions that the Committee members

raised as the study progressed, and items for which Mr. Shaw

and his staff thought they needed to provide more background

information to the Committee members to understand what had

been presented. He informed the Board's staff that, to comply

with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that information

along withal! other such material provided to the committee

were included as appendices to the report. However, he

reiterated that they should not be viewed as the work of the

committee or representative of the Committee's conclusions.

The proposed legislation requires the Board and NNSA to use

a new health and safety standard. More specifically, Sections

3115 and 3202 of the legislation establish a new lower

standard for protection of the public in proximity to DOE's

defense nuclear facilities. (As discussed below, Section 3202

of the bill deals with ``Improvements to the Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board.'') The new standard ``ensures that

risks to . . . the health and safety of the general public .

. . are as low as practicable and that adequate protection is

provided.'' (Please note that in Section 3115 the risks are

``as low as practical,'' while in Section 3202 the risks are

as low as reasonably practical.'') This standard lowers the

protections presently provided to the public by the NRC for

commercial nuclear power and by the Board in making

recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, which is to

``ensure adequate protection of the public.'' The legislation

proposes the Secretary or Administrator can perform a cost-

benefit analysis to determine the need to provide adequate

protection of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, has always been clear that the Secretary must

provide adequate protection to the public and that cost is

not an element of adequate protection. However, cost can be

considered in determining the need for safety margin or

defense in depth, i.e., additional protections beyond the

need for adequate protection. The application of the ``as low

as [reasonably] practicable'' standard is unclear. It has

been used in British and European law as a modified cost-

benefit analysis, but has no standing in U.S. law. It is also

unclear why the public safety should be subjected to

considerations by the Secretary or Administrator of whether

risks are as low as [reasonably] practical.

The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at

DOE's defense nuclear facilities. In addition, the Board has

unique responsibilities under its statute to address ``severe

or imminent'' threats to the public. I would now like to

comment on Section 3202 of the bill: ``Improvements to the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.'' Let me say

categorically that these are not improvements. I believe

these provisions in the bill arise from a total

misunderstanding of the operation of the Board. I feel

strongly that these ``improvements'' to the Board's Enabling

Statute will degrade nuclear safety at DOE's defense nuclear

facilities. Let me once again detail my concerns.

To begin with, the Board is a collegial body composed of

five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the

Senate who are respected experts in the field of nuclear

safety. Since the Board's inception nearly 23 years ago,

every Board letter or recommendation has been voted on and

approved by each and every Board Member. Those familiar with

the scientific discipline will readily understand that this

involves a great deal of respect and camaraderie among the

Board members to enable them to unravel complex technical

issues and forcefully act on safety concerns. One aspect of

these bill's improvements is to allow Board members ``to

employ at least one technical advisor.'' This is unnecessary

on two counts. The first is that Board members have full

access to all the Board's staff. Board members already have

80 technical advisors. The second is that Board members are

technical experts who are able to independently weigh

technical evidence and make decisions important to safety at

DOE's defense nuclear facilities. A system of advisors will

simply place an unnecessary burden on Board resources and

create dissension.

A provision in Section 3202 requires that all Board members

``have full, simultaneous access to all information relating

to the performance of the Board's functions, powers and

mission.'' This provision is simply unworkable and argues

against the public interest and trust. For example, the

Technical Director must inform the Board Chairman about a

serious accident at a defense nuclear facility, even if other

Board members are not immediately available. The Board always

strives to share all available information with all Board

members. The Board members are always collectively briefed by

DOE and Board staff, but Board members sometimes have

conflicting schedules and aren't available for the

``simultaneous'' exchange of information . The origins of

this provision suggest a serious lack of knowledge about the

operation of the Board.

Under this legislation, the Board ``shall consider and

specifically assess the technical and economic feasibility,

the cost and benefits, and the practicability of implementing

[its Recommendations].'' Under its existing statute, the

Board must consider the technical and economic feasibility of

implementing its recommended measures. The Secretary of

Energy may ``accept'' a Board recommendation but make a

determination that its implementation is impracticable

because of budgetary considerations or because the

implementation would affect the Secretary's ability to meet

the annual nuclear weapons stockpile requirements. The

Secretary must report any such decision to the President and

Congress. The Secretary of Energy has never made a

determination that a Board Recommendation cannot be

implemented due to budget impracticability. I believe this is

strong evidence that we have executed our statute in a

faithful and responsible manner.

Issues of cost and benefit have historically been the

purview of the Secretary of Energy and should remain so. It

is important to note that the Board nominally identifies the

problem, but leaves selection of the solution to the

Secretary. In order to provide a cost-benefit analysis, the

Board would need to define a solution, which is inappropriate

and would hamper the Secretary's flexibilities to respond to

a Board recommendation. Mr. Gene Aloise, Director of Natural

Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability

Office, testified at the Committee's February 16, 2012,

hearing on Governance, Oversight, and Management of the

Nuclear Security Enterprise. He said, ``NNSA currently lacks

the basic financial information on the total costs to operate

and maintain its essential facilities and infrastructure,

leaving it unable to identify return on investment or

opportunities for cost savings.'' If NNSA isn't capable of

performing cost-benefit analyses, it's unreasonable to expect

the Board to produce valid estimates of those costs. Needless

to say, the Board would require a significant increase in

budget and manpower to perform any meaningful cost-benefit

analysis.

The Board is very mindful of the need for efficient and

cost-effective solutions to safety problems at defense

nuclear facilities. In evaluating the proper course of action

for existing facilities that do not meet modern industry

standards and design requirements, both the Board and DOE

consider the entire suite of options for mitigating hazards

as well as factors such as the remaining life of the

facilities, schedules for replacing them, and means to

mitigate disruptions to ongoing operations that may result

from recommended safety improvements. However, the Board has

no authority to specify a particular solution; that authority

is the Secretary's.

The proposed legislation also weakens the arm's length

relationship between the Board and Department of Energy

necessary for the Board to provide independent oversight by

requiring the Board to obtain DOE review and comments on

Board recommendations. This proposed requirement will enable

the Secretary to provide comments to Board recommendations

prior to their issuance. Board recommendations are fully

vetted by intense staff-level discussions that typically take

place over months and sometimes years. The Board shapes its

recommendation already fully taking into account the feedback

it has received from the Department. In the final analysis,

the Secretary has the power to accept or reject a Board

recommendation. This provision to require comments from the

Secretary will delay needed safety improvements to ensure

adequate protection of the public at DOE's defense nuclear

facilities and erode public confidence that the Board is

faithfully executing its mission to provide truly independent

oversight.

Under its existing statute, the Board's jurisdiction is

limited to the Department of Energy's defense nuclear

facilities. ``Defense Nuclear Facilities'' are defined to

include production or utilization facilities, and certain

types of storage facilities under the control or jurisdiction

of the Secretary of Energy. Unless this element is met, the

Board's jurisdiction, authority, powers or duties are not

triggered. It does not allow the Board to write

Recommendations to the NNSA Administrator. Under this

legislation, NNSA may become a separate entity. An NNSA

independent from the Department of Energy, where the

Secretary of Energy would have no authority over NNSA, would

defeat (1) the Board's recommendation jurisdiction, (2) the

Board's jurisdiction and duty to report to the President in

the case of imminent or severe threats issuing from defense

nuclear facilities, and (3) the Board's information gathering

jurisdiction. Essentially, the NNSA would have no independent

safety oversight body.

The Department of Energy has a well-established regulatory

structure, with a significant body of rules, orders, manuals,

and standards. These would have no standing in an independent

NNSA. The set of safety standards to be used in NNSA would

have to be reconstituted. Based on recent experience,

I am concerned that many standards necessary to safely

perform complex, high-hazard nuclear operations would be

automatically deleted as a part of standing up this newly

independent organization. It must be understood that the

Board evaluates safety at defense nuclear facilities based on

DOE's requirements and standards. The Board does not have

separate requirements. Lack of an adequate set of safety

standards would rapidly degrade safety at defense nuclear

facilities.

In summary, I am deeply concerned that the proposed

legislation will diminish both the effectiveness of the Board

and safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. The proposed

changes, if enacted, would all but erase the Board's

oversight independence and authority with respect to NNSA's

facilities and activities. NNSA would become essentially

self-regulating without any significant oversight from the

Secretary of Energy, the Board, or any other Federal entity.

Additional provisions in the legislation encourage the NNSA

in large part to delegate its inherent responsibility to

protect public and worker safety to its contractors.

If I can answer any question or provide additional

insights, please don't hesitate to call. Once again, I

appreciate the opportunity to provide my views on this

legislation.

Sincerely,

Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D.,

Chairman,

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Is the gentleman yielding time to me?

Would you like to start the colloquy, because I really don't have the best answer for you right now.

What I suggest is if the gentleman would reserve the balance of his time, let me say what I have to say about this particular issue, and then we can proceed from that point, if that is okay.

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

There are a couple of different levels on which we need to respond. I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Connecticut, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina, on this issue. I have a great deal of empathy on this issue. There is the technical approach about which this rule deals, as well as the potential of how we can actually solve the problem, and those are two different concepts. I think you alluded to that fact.

The first one, as to the specifics of this, and as I would then obviously claim the time in favor of the consideration of the resolution, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 661? And while the resolution waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute and the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, the committee is not aware of any points of order and the waivers are prophylactic in nature, which means Chairman McKeon has filed an earmark statement regarding his manager's amendment and the statement we will read at some time in the future.

There is the ability, though, of obviously trying to find a solution to a problem that has developed, whether it is from miscommunication or not. From my position as managing this particular rule, I cannot commit to that. But I am aware, and I am sure that the committee is obviously recognizing the fact that we have multiple steps as we go forward. The Senate still has to produce a piece of work, and it has to go to a conference committee. At any of those steps along the way, there is the opportunity of trying to find a good solution to this particular issue. Though I cannot make a commitment on my part at this time, I think we can talk about that in the future.

And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and see if you want to go any further with this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am limited in the kinds of responses I have here. Once again, I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut bringing this issue up. It is a significant issue. We have a great deal of empathy for this particular issue, and I'm sure that as we go along through the process of this bill, this issue and some others may be able to be worked out in other venues.

At this stage of the game, though, there are certain restrictions procedurally on what we can and cannot do with this particular issue. This issue, as I said, has had the statement by Chairman McKeon as to the amendments. His statement was simply as follows:

The amendments to be offered by Representative McKeon to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 under rule XXI.

So with that, there are certain restrictions which we have to do procedurally to go forward with this particular piece of legislation, realizing there are other discussions that will take place before we come to a final conclusion. So in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution so that we can continue on with the 141 amendments that were made in order and then talk about procedurally how to do some others that may be coming down at some other time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

No.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and provides for the consideration of specific amendments that have been made in order pursuant to the rule.

I'm actually pleased to stand before the House on this one, as well as the underlying base bill, which was approved in a rule yesterday and was debated on this floor. It signifies the hard work of the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Smith), and the complex of wide-ranging bills that go to the floor for our consideration or issues.

One of the things that is so nice about this particular issue, bill, and the relationship of this committee is their tradition of working together across the aisle in a bipartisan manner. It was done again this year in committee. I certainly hope that that policy retains itself here on the floor as well.

Much has already been said regarding H.R. 4310. This particular rule now allows amendments to be considered to that.

Realizing that every one of the issues that we will be talking about was handled under regular order in a subcommittee hearing with a subcommittee mark, and then a full committee hearing--which lasted for over 2 days, going way into the early morning hours of the morning--we have now been requested, as the Rules Committee, to consider 240 additional amendments. At some point in the process we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel at every level and go on with the work that moves us forward to a product. The Rules Committee, in an effort to try and be as open as possible, made in order 141 of the 240 requests. Of those 141, 49 were Republican, but 63 were Democrat amendments and 29 were bipartisan amendments.

It's going to be an open process. And it's going to be a process that will allow for a wide range of debate, some of which--and hopefully all of which--will in some way be directed to the purpose of this bill, which is to provide authorization for the military defense of this country and provide what our military shape will appear to be. There may be some efforts to try and go with other issues that are tangentially related but not directly to the core responsibility of this bill, which is to shape the future of our military. But it is a fair rule and it is a good rule, which makes lots of amendments in order and which makes lots of Democrat amendments in order and bipartisan amendments in order, with also a few Republican amendments in order as well.

With that, as I'm sure we'll have more time to discuss this rule, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as we discuss the amendments that we've made to a bill whose purpose is to shape the future of our services and how they will function, not necessarily every kind of tangential issue, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the full Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, at some point, I will make some comments as to the history of what we are trying to do, but I would like to get a few of the other issues before us--which are amendments-- covered before we collapse into what appears to be the direction in which we are going.

Because of that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to one of the members of the Armed Services Committee, who, indeed, is the chairman of one of the subcommittees and who does yeoman's work, especially with our missile defense system, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

I yield myself 2 minutes at this time.

I am somewhat perplexed at the idea that what is happening here is not being fair, according to the standards that we've had in the past. This particular rule makes 141 amendments--two-thirds of them Democrat or bipartisan amendments--in order. Last year, the rule made 152 amendments in order. Yet when the other party was in control of this body, on this same bill, they made in order 82, 69, 58, and 50 in each of the 4 years in which they were in control. The idea of tripling the number of bills that are being made in order to be debated on this floor has to be considered as one of those things that's fair.

The issue that supposedly is not allowed--even though it will be debated because there is an amendment, and it will be part of the discussion here--was not totally ignored. In fact, some of the statements that have been made on how we're not talking about this at all--it was addressed in the committee as well. And the committee voted on a bipartisan vote of 56 5.

But this is where I have some difficulty because all I can do is know what I'm reading. And in section 1216 of the bill, it clearly says the United States military should not maintain an indefinite combat mission in Afghanistan and should transition toward a counterterrorism and advise and assist mission at the earliest practical date consistent with conditions on the ground. It's what the committee went through. They talked about it. It was part of the discussion.

It can be part of the discussion in alternative bills other than this particular one, which we have to have if, indeed, you want to fund the military and pay their salaries and pay their health care and provide the shape of the future military. That's what the purpose of this bill is. To say that we are denying any kind of access just does not meet with the reality of what is in the base and what has been done and what will be done in other particular venues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, a person who has worked very hard on this for his entire career here in the House.

Madam Speaker, I urge the gentleman to read page 544 in the base bill to answer his question.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I said others were coming down here. I do not know whether that happens, so when the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close, I will be ready to close at whatever time that is.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of coming down here and presenting the particular rule on the amendments. I take a little bit of umbrage with the idea that the amendment process that we are authorizing in this rule is not necessarily fair. I would remind people that it took 3 years under the prior Speaker before they authorized as many amendments as we are authorizing just this year alone in this particular bill. It's 141 amendments covering a vast variety of issues.

Sometimes I get the impression from some of the comments that were made that we're not going to be talking about Afghanistan; that's sorely wrong. There is an amendment made in order about that issue. It's given twice the amount of time on that issue as any other issue that's before us here. It is there. The debate will take place. The debate will happen. It may not be the actual verbiage or the pride of authorship that some wished, but it will be there.

Indeed, in this hour of discussion, we've talked about that as well, as was done in the Rules Committee, as was done in the base committee. There is a section, page 544, which does talk about the President's proposal in Afghanistan.

One of the things we have to remember is why we're doing this bill at all. This is one of those significant issues. We talk about a lot of stuff on the floor of the House, and we introduce a lot of bills on the floor of the House which have very little to do with our core constitutional responsibilities. This is not one of those.

During the Articles of Confederation time, the United States was in a situation where we had fewer than 800 men in our military capacity. We had no Navy to protect our shipping. Since we had not paid off the Tory debt, we were in breach of the peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. Therefore, British troops were on American soil. There were British forts on American soil. There was a military force on our northern border which was threatening us, and the British were plying with impunity weapons to Native Americans who were opposed to the Government of the United States. What the United States could do about it was absolutely nothing. We couldn't do squat.

Therefore, when the Constitution was actually debated, I don't think it is any insignificant issue that over half of the issues and powers granted to Congress in section 8 dealt with the defense of this country. Indeed, the Constitution was in major part about how we defend this country.

This issue before us today, this bill, is on how we shape the military of the future and the military of the present, how we defend this country.

I would remind people that before World War II started, we had made a decision in this country we didn't need fighter jets any more and so we cut production of them. And when the war started, we were unprepared. Our fighter bombers suffered enormous casualties in those first runs in Europe. In fact, we suspended our bombing runs until we could produce the fighters to accompany those bombers that were necessary to protect our young men and women who were fighting in World War II.

We don't have the luxury of being unprepared in the future, and that is the core of this bill. This bill is about talking about the infrastructure that we have for our military so we are prepared for whatever the future may bring.

The base of this bill restores approximately $4 billion in authorization of necessary Department funding that was recommended by the President for deletion.

Sometime ago, Secretary Panetta went on the record publicly saying the possibility of sequestration would hollow out and have catastrophic impacts on the Department of Defense; it must be avoided. We agree. This bill attempts to do that.

Unfortunately, the Secretary pointed the finger at Congress saying that we were to blame for this situation. In all due respect, the Secretary was half right. We share in the situation. And we share the need for a cooperative administration--and very particularly, a cooperative President and Commander in Chief--to fix the immediate threat to our national security that could come back by sequestration. We don't need threats of vetoes and any attempt to roll back the sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense.

This is an alarming situation. Many of us in Congress would encourage Secretary Panetta to communicate the urgency of this need to his boss, the President, and try to persuade him not to oppose what we are attempting to do in this particular piece of legislation.

We have some military construction replacement projects that were needed yesterday and are being deferred year after year--pushed so far into the future as to render them meaningless. We can no longer make those kinds of mistakes as we did prior to World War II.

Our ICBM fleet will be aging out in the next 12 to 15 years; and as of yet we do not have an adequate replacement policy, nor have we provided the research and development funding needed to a follow-up replacement system. Instead, we are urging what will amount to unilateral nuclear reductions on our part, while China, Russia, India, and others are developing and fielding new and modernized ICBM nuclear systems for their countries as well. Those are the situations which we need to face. That is what is significant. That's what this bill addresses.

This bill addresses the funding and infrastructure needs of our military, and we should never lose sight of that core reason for this bill. And amendments--all 141 of them--either have to add to that concept of making the infrastructure viable, or we're talking about tangents. This is not the avenue for those particular places to be.

In short--I wasn't short, but in long, then, Madam Speaker, that's the purpose of the National Defense Authorization Act. That's what the base bill does. That's what the bulk of the 140 amendments we have authorized do. We need to proceed without getting lost in the purpose and the intent of this particular process and why it is so important. It is our core constitutional responsibility, and we need to take it seriously.

All the other issues that were talked about will be addressed. The issue of our policy in Afghanistan--which has multiple opportunities to be addressed--will be addressed on the floor. There will be an amendment made in order. There will be twice the amount of time in debate on that as any of the other significant issues of how we shape our military forces. The reason it is so significant is because we're not talking about what the military will be in the month of August of this year. The decisions we make on the infrastructure of the military today influence what our military will be in 15 to 20 years. It also influences what diplomatic capacities and opportunities we may have 15 or 20 years from now. That's why it is so significant. We cannot lose track of what is the purpose of this bill, and any amendment that distracts us from that is not productive in what we are trying to do.

I'll say this one more time: this is a fair rule. We have made 140 of the 240 amendments that were proposed in order. It covers a great variety of issues, issues that perhaps should have been covered in the committee as well, but they will be covered again here on the floor, including what we are doing as a policy in Afghanistan.

I urge adoption of this particular rule because it is a fair rule, one that makes more amendments than we did in years--and in years past when the other side was in charge of this. It's a good bill. It's a fair rule. I urge its adoption.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, how can I go about amending the resolution such that the amendment that I and Congressman Walter Jones authored to H.R. 4310 regarding the war in Afghanistan could be made in order?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended to include the McGovern-Jones-Smith-Paul amendment on Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it true that the rule can be amended on the floor?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it true that the gentleman from Utah could yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to amend the rule?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Is it true that the gentleman is continuing to prevent the House from debating and voting on the McGovern-Jones amendment simply because the Republican leadership is afraid it will pass?

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by commending the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, and the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, for their hard work on this bill. As has been mentioned, these two gentlemen demonstrate that despite strong differences of opinion they can work together in a bipartisan manner, and that is to be commended. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the same cannot be said of the Rules Committee, and I strongly oppose this rule.

Last night, late at night, the Rules Committee made in order several amendments to the defense bill--we have a long list of them here--but many other amendments on important, substantive issues were denied an opportunity for debate. Among those was a bipartisan amendment on Afghanistan submitted by my Republican colleagues, Congressman Walter Jones and Ron Paul, my Democratic colleague, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Smith of Washington, and myself. In fact, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee asked that an amendment he had on Afghanistan be withdrawn so that he could support the amendment that Mr. Jones and I brought before the Rules Committee.

In brief, it would have required the President to fulfill his commitments to transition all combat operations to Afghan authority no later than the end of 2013 and complete the transition of all military and security operations by the end of 2014. Anything beyond 2014 should be authorized by Congress.

The McGovern-Jones-Smith-Paul amendment would have replaced section 1216 in this bill, which retains at least 68,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2015, and then advocates a robust military presence beyond that date. Madam Speaker, that seems like an important issue that deserves a serious debate, but the Rules Committee said no. They refused to make our amendment in order. And why not, Madam Speaker? What is the Republican leadership afraid of? Are they afraid that a bipartisan majority of this House will vote to follow the will of the American people and change our Afghanistan policy?

Madam Speaker, we have been at war in Afghanistan since 2001. This is the longest war in American history. By the end of this year, we will have gone into debt to the tune of nearly $500 billion to finance the war in Afghanistan--all of it borrowed money, all of it on a national credit card; not a single penny of it paid for, and that includes the $88.5 billion in this bill.

Over 15,000 of our brave servicemen and -women have been wounded, and the death toll of our troops in Afghanistan has now reached 1,968. That number continues to grow as U.S. forces receive less cooperation from Pakistan and they are subject to increasing attacks from Afghan Government troops serving alongside them. And the death toll numbers do not include the soaring rates of suicide by our returning war veterans. But the Republican leadership of this House does not think we should debate an amendment that advocates a different approach. That is simply outrageous, Madam Speaker.

Every single one of us, every single one of us in this Chamber, is responsible for putting our brave servicemen and -women in harm's way, and to disallow an amendment, to disallow this kind of debate that would help change our policy, I think is outrageous.

I'm glad that the Rules Committee finally made in order the one Afghanistan amendment submitted by the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee. This amendment calls for the safe, orderly, and expeditious withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan, and it will finally allow Members of this body to vote on whether it is time to bring all of our troops home right now from Afghanistan.

Last night, the chairman of the Rules Committee told me that I should be happy because they were making that one amendment on Afghanistan in order, and it was going to receive a whole 20 minutes of debate--20 minutes for a debate on the war in Afghanistan, just 10 minutes for those of us who have concerns about the war. Are we really supposed to be happy about that? Are the American people supposed to be happy about it?

Poll after poll reveals that a majority of Americans--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike--now support ending U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and bringing our servicemen and -women home. Winding the war down as quickly as possible is a bipartisan issue.

It has bipartisan support in this House, and it has been granted just 20 lousy minutes of debate.

Well, I'm not happy with that, Madam Speaker, and I can't imagine that any Member of this House thinks that 20 minutes is enough time to debate the life-and-death issues of the war in Afghanistan.

We spend 40 minutes in this House on bills naming post offices, 40 minutes on naming post offices, and that's fine. But the longest war in U.S. history only warrants half of that? Talk about misplaced priorities.

As the only amendment on the war in Afghanistan made in order, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Lee amendment. Otherwise, this bill calls for our uniformed men and women to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, and my colleagues need to be clear on this. This is a bill that would mandate that our brave men and women in uniform stay there indefinitely.

The Rules Committee also denied Congressman Garamendi's amendment to strike the funding to construct an east coast Star Wars fantasy base. The defense bill provides $100 million in start up money for the east coast base, and to bring it into operation by 2015 will require another projected $5 billion.

Just last week, Army General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the site is not needed. The Pentagon doesn't want it, Madam Speaker. And I actually think $5 billion is lowballing the cost. A similar base on the west coast has now cost us upwards of $30 billion.

Why shouldn't we have such a debate on an expensive proposal like that? Or is all the Republican talk about cost-cutting and putting our fiscal house in order as big a fantasy as this silly Star Wars proposal?

And where are all these extra billions and billions of dollars coming from, Madam Speaker? Well, we know where it's coming from. We had that debate just last week. It's coming from programs to help hardworking families. It's coming from the safety net that keeps those families from falling into poverty, especially in these hard times. It's coming from programs that make sure seniors and the working poor can at least put food on the table and take their kids to a doctor when they're sick. SNAP, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, Medicare, health care for women and children, education infrastructure--in short, it's taken from programs that are the very lifeblood of our cities, States, and our towns.

Madam Speaker, this bill costs $642.7 billion. But too many amendments to reduce some of the more outrageous costs in this bill were denied by the Republican Rules Committee. In real terms, defense spending is now more than 20 percent higher than the average Cold War budget and double the amount we were spending a decade ago.

Madam Speaker, we have, and we will continue to have, the greatest, strongest military on the face of this Earth. But at some point, national security means more than throwing billions of dollars at pie- in-the-sky Star Wars programs that will never actually materialize.

It means taking care of our own people. It means educating our children. It means an infrastructure that isn't crumbling around us. It means clean air and clean water and a health care system that works. It means creating jobs so that our local communities can thrive and our veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan can actually find decent work when they return home. These must be our priorities.

Madam Speaker, let me conclude by quoting President Dwight Eisenhower in a speech he made in 1953:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every

rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those

who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not

clothed.

His words resonate with us today. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of this House refuses to heed them.

I urge my colleagues, especially those who are concerned about this war in Afghanistan, vote this rule down. This is an unfair, unfair rule. It doesn't deserve to go forward. We ought to have a real debate on Afghanistan, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will stand with me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to my Republican colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 4

minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more speakers he has because I'm the final speaker on our side.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer the bipartisan McGovern- Jones-Smith-Paul amendment.

By denying debate on this amendment, the Republican leadership has ensured that there will be no debate or challenge to sec. 1216 in the bill, a section that calls for retaining 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan until 2015 and indefinitely beyond that.

We did everything right with this amendment. We worked in a bipartisan way. We drafted it carefully. The ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee withdrew his own amendment on this issue and joined as a cosponsor of this amendment. We deserved the courtesy of a debate and a vote. It's the right thing to do. It's the decent thing to do.

But more important than that, the American people deserve a full and substantive debate on the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. They deserve to know where their Member of Congress stands on this issue of critical national importance. They deserve a Congress that focuses on the issues that matter most.

The Republican leadership's refusal to allow a full debate on our amendment shows how far they will go to make sure that a policy of staying in Afghanistan until the end of time remains untouched and unchallenged.

Madam Speaker, 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.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge my Republican colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan way to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have a real debate on Afghanistan. That's what your constituents want; that's what we should have here. And barring that, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the gentleman have further speakers?

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

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

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

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

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

Given the continuing threat posed by groups like al Qaeda

in the Arabian Peninsula, the affirmation was a critical step

in reinforcing the military's legal authorities to combat

terror.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2012.

Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4310, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This legislation

contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the

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

consideration of this important legislation, the committee

waives consideration of the bill.

The Budget Committee takes this action only with the

understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests

over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or

altered.

The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment

to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and

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

would appreciate your including this letter in the

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Ryan,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the committee members, and the staff who, once again, did an outstanding bipartisan job in putting together this bill.

One of the paramount duties of our Congress is to provide for the common defense and, most importantly, make sure that our men and women who serve us in uniform have all the support they need to fulfill the missions that we ask them to do. I believe this bill meets that standard.

I thank the chairman for his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion with me and my staff. I believe we have upheld the tradition of this committee and have shown that Congress can, in fact, work together to get things done, and I always appreciate that opportunity.

Most importantly, this bill prioritizes supporting the warfighter. We still have around 70,000 U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting the war. We need to make sure they have the equipment and support they need to do that. I believe this bill meets that mission.

This bill also recognizes the threats we face and adequately funds the need to meet those threats, most importantly, the threat from terrorist and nonstate actors like al Qaeda and their affiliates. We have strong support for the Special Operations Command as well as for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance to make sure that we can continue to defeat the terrorist networks that would threaten us. Those are the top priorities.

We also make sure that our troops get the 1.7 percent pay raise they need and get the support for both the individual troops and for their families that are necessary to continue to serve us. We must always remember that we have an all-volunteer military. We are dependent upon the willingness of people to volunteer. We must make sure that we honor that service. We have done that, and we have done it quite well, to the point where we have the finest military the world has ever seen, and the support from this Congress is critical to maintaining that.

While there is much in this bill that I think is excellent and that I support, I will note just one caution as we go forward: Our bill is $8 billion over the Budget Control Act. It is over what the Senate is going to mark up. At some point, we are going to have to rationalize that and figure out how to make our national security strategy and our defense budget work in an era where our budgets are coming down.

We have a sizable deficit, and I believe it's critical that we put together a strategic plan and plan for the future. It's not enough to go year by year. We don't want to wake up 2 or 3 years from now and find out that we've funded more programs than we can afford to complete. We need a strategic vision, and we're going to have to work to get to that number and get to that cooperation with the Senate.

I also want to emphasize the importance of an amendment that I plan to offer that would change how we handle indefinite detention in military custody. I do not believe the executive branch should have that power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people captured or arrested here in the U.S. I believe the United States Constitution and our due process system provides plenty of protections. We have arrested and convicted over 400 terrorists using that system. We have not used the indefinite detention in military custody power given to the President, and we have been able to protect ourselves. It's important that we protect the Constitution and that amendment is ruled in order, so I would hope that the full House would pass it.

I am very pleased with the bill. Again, I thank the chairman for his outstanding work in making sure that this bill supports the men and women in uniform who so bravely serve us. I believe it meets that objective. And I appreciate working with Mr. McKeon, all of his staff, and all of the members of the committee.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis) ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, can you give us an update on the time left on each side.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

There are no additional rights contained in this amendment. We have the rights that are in the Constitution that are the due process. The gentleman's comment that additional rights are being granted by this is patently false. The Constitution is clear. It provides all persons in the United States the same rights. All we are doing is going back to the Constitution and repealing the authority of the President to circumvent those rights and reduce them. That's a very critical point that we will talk further about tomorrow.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

We do not have further speakers at this point, and I believe we're prepared to close.

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

First of all, I want to again thank the chairman and thank the folks who worked on this bill. As you see from the debate, there are a lot of controversial issues that wound up in this bill, issues of enormous importance, from our policy towards countries like Afghanistan and Iran, to civil liberties and on. It takes a great deal of work on behalf of the staff and a great deal of commitment to a bipartisan spirit to work through that, have fair debates, have the votes, carry on, and always remember that underlying it all is

making sure that we fund the defense of this country, and we fund the troops who are tasked with protecting it. I think our committee and our staff do an outstanding job of dealing with those challenges.

I want to talk again about the indefinite-detention issue. The gentleman who spoke a couple of minutes ago raised some concerns, and I think it gives us a pretty good preview of what some of the opposition to that amendment is going to be tomorrow. I just want to counter those arguments.

The first notion that ``additional rights'' are being granted as a result of this is quite simply absurd. What this says is: the due process that's in the Constitution is what you get if you are arrested. What we have done in this body is empowered the President to get rid of those rights in certain cases and indefinitely detain people without charge in many instances and without trial. What we're saying is that it is an enormous amount of power to grant the Executive, and it is not necessary. President Bush did not use that authority for the last 5 years he was in the administration, President Obama has not used it, and yet we have protected this country. To give away that basic due- process right, if you are arrested--that you have the basic rights in the Constitution--is no small thing, and it is not necessary.

Lastly, I want to talk about this argument that somehow this will incentivize terrorists to come to the U.S. I've heard a lot of arguments. That has got to be the dumbest one I've ever heard. First of all, it is sad to say there are many terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda who are trying very hard to come here and inflict harm on us right now. That's why we have all kinds of efforts in this bill and in Homeland Security to stop them. They are not going to become any less incentivized to do that whether this bill passes or not. Sadly, we must deal with that.

Second of all, they are certainly not going to want to come here and operate as opposed to operating in someplace outside of the U.S. where we don't have as much reach. That argument has nothing to do with this amendment. This is a very straightforward argument I think we should have. Is this a power that the President needs to have to keep us safe? It is not. It is undeniably an enormous amount of power to go outside of the Constitution, to go outside of due process, and empower the executive branch to indefinitely detain somebody without the due process that we've developed over the course of 230 years. That is an enormous step for this Congress to take.

We have to ask ourselves the question: Is it necessary? It clearly is not. We have arrested, prosecuted, and stopped countless terrorist attacks over the course of the last 8 years. Over 400 terrorists were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in this country, such as Abjulmutallab, who was the underwear bomber in Detroit in December of 2008. He was stopped, arrested, interrogated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison.

We have a justice system and a law enforcement system in this country that is more than adequate to meet the threat. We do not have to undermine the Constitution to do that. That will be the core of the argument. I look forward to those who are opposed to it arguing why that doesn't keep us safe. I think it will be a great debate, and I'll urge people to vote for it. But I hope we'll have that public debate on the floor tomorrow. It is an incredibly important issue no matter which side of it you're on. It is an important issue that is worthy of this full House having a full and robust debate, and I look forward to doing that tomorrow.

Again, I recognize all of the important things that are in this bill. I'm confident when we come to the amendment process, we will have a bill worthy of support of this House, and I will then urge Members to support it so we can fund the defense of this country and fund the brave men and women who serve our country in the Armed Forces, and make sure they have all the support they need to do what we ask them to do in defending this country.

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