Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

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.

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

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, although I am not opposed, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I support the manager's amendment. I'm going to speak the balance of my time on the Smith-Amash amendment coming up later. There has been a great deal of distorted information going out. I want to take this opportunity to correct some of it.

First of all, the Gohmert amendment that's being offered does not solve the problem; you will still be subject to military custody and indefinite detention. It is not clear on that point; it leaves open the possibility the President will maintain that authority, and that is what this debate should be all about.

The President, right now, has the authority to go outside of the normal due process, constitutionally protected rights that are part of a court trial, and lock somebody up indefinitely or place them in military custody here in the U.S. That is an extraordinary amount of power to give the executive branch over individual freedom and liberty. I don't think it is necessary to keep us safe. Ten years of successfully prosecuting, convicting, and locking up terrorists under Article III courts has proven that point.

But hands down, the dumbest set of arguments I've ever heard in debating has been circulating that somehow taking away this extraordinary power from the President rewards terrorists. I would like to remind everybody--and particularly Tea Party conservatives--that just because the government arrests you doesn't mean you're guilty. Under their thinking, basically, once the government says you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and we shouldn't have a trial about it. So any effort to make sure that there's a process, to make sure that you actually are a terrorist becomes rewarding them. No; it's the process to make sure they are actually guilty. I cannot believe that Tea Party conservatives want to create a situation where when the government says you're guilty of a crime, that's it--no trial, no process, let's just lock you up and forget about it. That's why we have a court system.

Let's have the real debate here. Does the President need this authority to keep us safe? I don't believe he does. Let's stop these ridiculous arguments about rewarding terrorists and have some respect for the Constitution and due process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Just to respond to the arguments of the gentleman from Texas, if an al Qaeda terrorist comes to the U.S., whether they're an illegal alien or not, frankly, we want them arrested, tried, and convicted. All we want to do is make sure that they actually are a terrorist before we do that, to have a process in place so that the President doesn't have that power to simply lock somebody up without due process and a trial.

And then the argument about how we are bestowing upon illegal aliens constitutional rights. I've got bad news for the gentleman from Texas. We aren't bestowing anything. The United States Constitution bestows upon them those rights.

The United States Constitution says any person in the U.S., not citizen, not legal, illegal, it doesn't matter. So if he has a beef, he has a beef with James Madison and everybody else who supported the Constitution.

And we hear constantly from that side, strict interpretation, the Constitution must be adhered to. The Constitution says any person, not any lawful resident or any citizen. The United States Constitution clearly triggers that. We're not creating anything. In fact, the Gohmert amendment goes outside the Constitution by creating rights that aren't contemplated in here, separating people in this country in terms of who should get what rights. It's in the Constitution: any person.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just point out that Mirandized or not, nobody has to speak, and a ton of information has come out of people after they were Mirandized.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on the amendment by Mr. Turner that addresses safety at defense nuclear facilities, that is considered in this en-block package.

Much reckless damage has been done in this bill that weakens safety for workers at defense nuclear facilities and for the public.

Among other changes, this hill blocks independent oversight by the Department of Energy and weakens the capacity of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. This oversight is critical to keeping people safe, and we should not be cutting corners on safety.

These changes have profound implications and risk imperiling the safety and lives of worker and the public.

It also transfers responsibility for safety to the National Nuclear Security Administrator and to contractors, at a time when NNSA's undivided attention should be focused on maintaining a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent and on the pressing need to make much-needed progress on nuclear nonproliferation to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.

For these reasons, Mr. Miller, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Waxman and I submitted two amendments to undo some of the damage that is done in this bill, and that would have preserved strong safety standards and independent oversight.

My amendment would have restored the authority of the Secretary of Energy over the nuclear weapons complex and nonproliferation programs, whose control has been improperly severed without justification in this bill.

However, the Rules Committee did not make these amendments in order, and so regrettably we are prevented from having this important debate on an issue that affects thousands of Americans who work or live near defense nuclear sites.

Going forward, I will work with the Senate in conference to reverse many of these changes, to improve the outcome in our final bill.

Specifically with regard to the amendment by Mr. Turner in this package, it makes several important improvements but does not go far enough and fail to fix significant problems in the bill.

(1) This amendment does not specifically prohibit a reduction in the safety standards, both nuclear and non-nuclear, compared to the standards we have today for defense nuclear facilities. Nonnuclear safety standards, such as fire protection, quality assurance, chemical, are also important to the safety of defense nuclear facilities.

(2) This amendment reaffirms that the decision on safety standards should be made by the Administrator for Nuclear Security, rather than by the Secretary of Energy and the Dept of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security, which would provide independent oversight of NNSA and the nuclear weapons complex health and safety and security operations.

(3) The core concept of risk and cost-benefit should not be an element of adequate protection. Inserting cost requirements muddles the requirements for safety. At this time, cost is not an element of adequate protection for commercial nuclear power or for DOE's defense nuclear facilities. It also forces the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to pre-

judge NNSA's action and decisions in responding to safety concerns, rather than allowing the Board to focus on identifying and raising safety concerns.

(4) This requirement places obstacles in the Board's path and will make it more difficult to ensure adequate protection of public and worker safety.

(5) These provisions would allow inconsistent safety standards.

I am deeply concerned about these changes and hope to work with my colleagues to remedy the measures that unnecessarily put workers and the public at risk.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I think the gentleman raises a very legitimate point that the exercise of strikes against terrorist targets does need a proper oversight. There are a number of ways in which I think we can have greater transparency in those decisions, frankly, whether they're signature strikes or against individuals.

The bottom line is al Qaeda declared war against us in 1996. They are actively prosecuting that war against us from a number of different locations, many of which we don't have as much information as we would like, but clearly in federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia, they are organizing training camps and they are actively pursuing us. Our Joint Special Operations Command is trying to keep track of those networks and keep them from attacking us.

The ability to hit those training camps is an important part of protecting us from terrorist attacks. As General McChrystal said: It takes a network to beat a network. We need our network to have the ability to stop Al Qaeda's network. They declared war against us. They haven't changed their mind. It is still something that we need to be able to adequately protect this country against. This amendment unduly restricts our military's ability to protect this country.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

We are not ignoring any of that. All of those issues are things we discussed in the Armed Services Committee, are very much aware of and very concerned about. But the bottom line is, as my colleagues have pointed out, regrettably, Pakistan is in a part of the world where we have national security interests.

Pakistan has, at various times, provided critical support to allow us to get the supplies we need to our troops in Afghanistan. They have also assisted us in going after various terrorist groups inside of Pakistan. That help has been maybe 2 percent of what we would like it to be, but that 2 percent, regrettably, is help we cannot turn away.

It is a very problematic relationship. I think the gentleman who offered this amendment described that quite well. But we cannot afford to simply cut it off because of how important that region is to our national security interests. His amendment would do that. And it is bad policy for this country, bad policy for our troops, and bad policy for our national security interests. Therefore, I would urge us to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters:

Project on

Government Oversight,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2012.

Honorable Members,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

POGO's Picks for More Savings, Security, and Accountability in the

National Defense Authorization Act: Nine Amendments To Support

Dear Representative: As you prepare to vote on the National

Defense Authorization Act of FY 2013 (NDAA) and dozens of

proposed amendments, we recommend nine amendments for more

savings, security, and accountability.

The Project On Government Oversight is a nonpartisan

independent watchdog that champions good government reforms.

POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and

conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable,

open, and ethical federal government. POGO recently released

an update to our recommendations for national security

savings with Taxpayers for Common Sense--Spending Even Less,

Spending Even Smarter--which includes $700 billion in

spending reductions. Some of those recommendations are being

offered as amendments to the NDAA.

We haven't assessed all of the proposed NDAA amendments,

and don't yet know which ones will be made in order. However,

POGO strongly supports the following sensible measures.

1. Prevent Human Trafficking by Government Contractors--Amendment by

James Lankford and Gerry Connolly

The End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012

is offered as a bipartisan amendment to stop U.S. taxpayer

dollars from funding the abhorrent practice of human

trafficking in war zones. In its final report to Congress

last year, the Commission on Wartime Contracting said it had

uncovered evidence of human trafficking in Iraq and

Afghanistan by labor brokers and subcontractors. Commissioner

Dov Zakheim later told a Senate panel that the Commission had

only scratched the surface of the problem. He called it the

``tip of the iceberg.'' Existing contracting regulations to

implement anti-trafficking plans are too weak. This amendment

will strengthen the law and will require companies to closely

monitor and report the activities of their subcontractors

down the supply chain. It also would expand the definition of

``fraudulent recruiting'' to apply to laborers who work on

U.S. government contracts outside the U.S., mandating

responsible labor recruitment practices. It's time to end the

suffering and abuses of our taxpayer-funded ``shadow army.''

2. Restrict Taxpayer-Funded Compensation for Contractors--Amendment by

Paul Tonko and Jackie Speier

This amendment is based on the Stop Excessive Payments to

Government Contractors Act of 2011--part of a bipartisan,

bicameral push for reform--and would lower the existing

contractor compensation cap to $400,000 and apply it to all

defense contractors. Importantly, the provision would also

ensure that the cap is set in such a way that it will stop

the exorbitant growth rate the current formula has enabled.

Taxpayer-funded contractor compensation should be reined in

from the ever-increasing cap that currently well exceeds what

the government pays its own senior executives--including the

President. The current cap for contractor compensation is

$763,029. It's time to stop making taxpayers foot outrageous

contractor payrolls and rein in the growing cost of the

entire government workforce.

3. Reduce Funding for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility--Amendment by Ed Markey, Loretta Sanchez,

and Hank Johnson

This amendment restores the cut already made by

appropriators for a costly and unnecessary plutonium research

facility. It also strikes sections from H.R. 4310 that would

require the completion of the proposed facility and forbid

Congress from funding less expensive alternatives. The cost

of this nuclear boondoggle--known as the Chemistry and

Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR

NF)--has swelled from $375 million to nearly $6 billion

over the past ten years. Earlier this year, the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said it does not

need CMRR NF in order to fulfill its nuclear weapons and

science missions. What's more, there is plentiful

scientific evidence and expert testimony that says that

the increased plutonium pit production enabled by CMRR NF

is not necessary to national security. The President's

budget and House Appropriations have already zeroed-out

the funding, but one member of House Armed Services--

Representative Michael Turner--has ignored the evidence

and sought to send more taxpayer dollars into this nuclear

money pit. Support this amendment to restore sensible

savings.

4. Delay the New Long-Range Penetrating Bomber Aircraft--Amendment by

Ed Markey, Peter Welch, and John Conyers

This amendment delays development of the next-generation

long-range penetrating bomber aircraft through FY 2023 and

reduces funds for the program by about $291 million. The

Administration initially cancelled the program in FY 2010 as

there was ``no urgent need'' for a new bomber because the Air

Force expects its fleet of bombers to be operational for

years to come. According to FY 2013 budget requests, the

program is projected to cost at least $6.3 billion in the

next five years alone, and would likely cost billions more

over its lifetime. Deferring development of this costly and

unnecessary system saves money and is low-risk because of

robust U.S. bomb delivery capabilities that will be available

for decades.

5. Stop the Rollback of Oversight of Nuclear Weapons Laboratories--

Amendment by George Miller, Peter Visclosky, and Loretta Sanchez

This amendment would restore oversight over the nuclear

weapons laboratories by modifying Section 3113 and striking

Sections 3115 and 3202 of H.R. 4310. These sections pose

dangerous rollbacks of health, safety, security, and

financial oversight at the Department of Energy's nuclear

weapons laboratories. Section 3113 gives the NNSA's

contractor-operated labs the ability to self-report and self-

regulate their performance, despite the fact that the

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included these

labs on its list of programs that are at ``high risk'' for

waste, fraud, and abuse for over 20 years. Section 3115

lowers the bar for health and safety standards at the labs by

shifting oversight from the Department of Energy to the NNSA

and its contractors. Section 3202 would weaken the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in its role as independent

adviser to the nuclear weapons laboratories. Ever since the

Board was created in reaction to serious safety issues at

nuclear sites, the Department of Energy has been required to

accept Board recommendations or give a reason for their

rejection, but section 3202 requires the Board to submit

drafts of its recommendations to the Department first, which

would strip the Board of its complete independence. Section

3202 also increases the amount of time the Department has to

respond to recommendations, which could undermine public

health and safety. We need more oversight of the contractors

at our nuclear laboratories--not less.

6. Replace the Costly Variant of the F 35 with Super Hornets--Amendment

by John Conyers and Keith Ellison

The Marine Corps' variant of the F 35 fighter plane is the

most expensive variant of the most expensive DoD weapon

program ever, and has been plagued by cost overruns and

schedule delays. This amendment would replace the 6 Marine

Corps F 35s the DoD plans to buy in FY 2013 with proven F/A

18E/F Super Hornets, which have many capabilities that rival

the F 35 and cost far less to buy and operate. This amendment

will save taxpayers $1.7 billion in FY 2013 and millions more

in operating costs over the life of these planes.

7. Improve Service Contractor Inventories--Amendment by Jackie Speier

Currently, service contract inventories released by the

Pentagon provide little, if any, useful data about service

contracts. Moreover, those inventories do not provide the

agency with any information that allows it to make informed

personnel decisions that will save taxpayer dollars. The

offered amendment, which falls in line with Pentagon efforts

to increase the data reported in the inventories, would

require DoD to collect additional data about the labor,

hours, and costs of service contract workers that can be used

for comparing the cost of the civilian, military, and

contractor workforces.

8. Redefine ``Commercial Item'' for Contracts as Proposed by DoD--

Amendment by Leonard Boswell

This amendment mirrors the DoD's legislative proposal and

would result in improved oversight of billions of dollars'

worth of so-called ``commercial'' goods and services. It

would narrow the definition of a ``commercial item'' to mean

goods or services that are actually sold to the general

public in like quantities. This would be a huge improvement

over the current definition, which includes good or services

``of a type'' that are ``offered'' for sale or lease. POGO

has promoted such a change to the definition since 1999, and

now have been joined by DoD, the Department of Defense Panel

on Contracting Integrity, and the Acquisition Advisory Panel.

Since the mid-1990s, the government has been buying so-called

``commercial'' goods and services that are not actually sold

in the commercial market. Making matters worse, these

purchases are often without any government review of the cost

data that leads to the final price the contractors are

proposing. Would you buy a car if the dealer told you that

you couldn't see the window sticker? We doubt it, and the

government shouldn't either.

9. Right-Size the Bloated Top Ranks--Amendment by Mike Coffman

This amendment would cap the number of General/Flag

Officers at ``0.05 percent of the combined authorized

strengths for active duty personnel.'' In other words, for

every 2,000 troops there can be no more than one General or

Admiral. This amendment will reduce the General and Flag

Officer ranks by less than 5 percent. At the end of FY 2011,

the military was more top-heavy than it had ever been in U.S.

history. While the enlisted ranks have been shrinking, the

top ranks

have grown. Since 2001, the very top ranks, 3- and 4-star

General/Flag Officers, have grown faster than any other

personnel group at the DoD. It's time to right-size the top-

heavy top ranks.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other

national security issues with you. For more information,

please contact me at 202 347 1122 or acanterbury@pogo.org.

Sincerely,

Angela Canterbury,

Director of Public Policy.