Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 841 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about the fact that there are 26 letters in the alphabet, and we have had the first three letters used in discussion here on the House floor today, A, B, and my friend from Worcester brought up the letter C in talking about this. We have what is so-called letter B. And I'm not doing a Sesame Street skit here, Mr. Speaker. Letter B is what we are talking about, Plan B, and I think about Plan A.

Plan A is what the majority in the House of Representatives has been trying for the last 2 years to implement, and it's, very simply, a plan that is designed to put into place something that, interestingly enough, Democrats and Republicans alike say that they support. That plan is meaningful, strong, bold plans for a simpler, fairer Tax Code.

The President of the United States supports tax reform. I'm pleased that the President of the United States strongly supports the notion of taking the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. That, again, is a very positive area of agreement that we have. But I will say that we in the majority have been trying to put into place real, meaningful tax reform that can ensure that people will see reduced rates, and we will generate enhanced gross domestic product growth.

Coupled with that, our Plan A, Mr. Speaker, has been designed to bring about a reduction in the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government. And everyone knows what that means. Everyone knows what has to be done to reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government, and that is real entitlement reform.

So Plan A consists, Mr. Speaker, of two simple things: pro-growth tax reform that will keep taxes low for individuals, job creators, and small businesses in this country so that we can encourage that kind of job creation to which we all, Democrat and Republican alike, aspire; and a reduction of the mammoth size of this behemoth, which, as we all know, encourages a cycle of dependence which has been generational, and it's essential that we turn the core of it.

So just getting our fiscal house in order dealing with the 16-plus trillion dollar national debt is, again, only part of that. But encouraging individual initiative and responsibility, creating pride in individuals by, again, paring back entitlement spending is the right thing for us to do as a nation. That's what Plan A consists of, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if you look at where we are today, we know 11 days from now we are going over the so-called proverbial fiscal cliff. What does that mean? It means that every single American who pays income taxes will see a tax increase go into effect. We also know there will be a massive sequester, which, as we have just passed the rule, and I guess we're going to have a vote on that, as we've just debated the rule on the National Defense Authorization Act, we know it could have a devastating--devastating--impact on our national security.

We know, I think Democrat and Republican alike--not universally, because I know there are some people who do want to go over that cliff, but very few--I think Democrat and Republican alike by and large recognize that increasing taxes on working Americans, in fact, will create a scenario which will impinge on our ability to encourage the kind of gross domestic product growth that is important for us and for our security as well, economic security and our overall national security.

So I think about my former California colleague, the now-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who said to this institution:

Please do what you can to ensure that we don't have that

sequester take effect. Do what you can. Work hard to try and

make sure that we can address abuse that's taken place within

the Pentagon spending, but have what is necessary for our

national security.

So as we look at these issues, we're going through a troubling time. We have divided government, something that those nations that live under a Westminster-type system don't have. We have a Democratic President and a Republican House of Representatives. I happen to believe that that creates an opportunity.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I do believe that having a President of one party and a United States House of Representatives of another party does create an opportunity for us to work together in a bipartisan way tackling entitlement spending.

We know that if my party had won everything, it would have been tough for us. It would have been tough for us because of the political attacks that would have taken place from the other side of the aisle to take on entitlement reform. But working together now that we have, again, a President of one party and a House of Representatives of another party, I believe that we can tackle this issue, and that's really what we desire. I think it's the right thing to do.

We're in the midst of very tough negotiations that are taking place between two people, as we all know: the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. And I want to express my appreciation to

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I've been in the minority. I've served in the minority up until--from 1980 until 1994, 14 years I served in the minority, and from 2006 until 2010, for 4 years I served in the minority. And it's challenging. It's not easy.

But we are, as I said, 11 days away from going over the fiscal cliff, and we feel strongly about the need for this institution to state its position on this. I know that we've heard that the majority leader in the United States Senate, Mr. Reid, has indicated that he doesn't want to bring up, if this bill passes the House of Representatives, this measure, and the President has put out a Statement of Administration Policy that this bill would not gain his signature.

I don't think that anyone is convinced that the bill that we're going to pass here is one that is going to end up being the agreement, but it's very important in the negotiating process for work to proceed and for institutions to stake their position.

We happen to believe that Mr. Boehner has really made some bold steps in working to ensure that we do not go over that fiscal cliff, and I think that we are in a position today where I think that the action that we will take will be a positive step to enhance the chance for a negotiated resolution to this.

I want to say that the process hasn't been perfect, and I'm not claiming that everything that took place upstairs in the Rules Committee last night was perfect. But I will say, look at what it is that we've included: basically a reduction of $238 billion over 10 years in the reconciliation package that passed this House of Representatives earlier this year. The measure that we have before us that is going to be debated separately is one that is actually pared back from the measure that passed the House of Representatives. The only changes that have been made have been made to accommodate the date change, putting in this month of December in place of the earlier month this year when the debate took place.

We know what this is. And for those who might claim that the so- called ``reconciliation package'' that we have is imposing draconian cuts which will be devastating for those who are struggling in this country, I remind them of the alternative, which happens to be the sequester. It's our hope that this reconciliation package, Mr. Speaker, will play a role in ensuring that the sequester that would be devastating--I acknowledge it would be devastating--does not take place. This is the alternative to the sequester, Mr. Speaker.

The package that we have will, in fact, see rate increases for those earning in excess of $1 million. That's .19 percent of the American Federal income taxpayers. That means that all the rest of the Americans, an overwhelming majority, will actually avoid seeing that tax increase go into effect.

I also would like to say that we have to remember that if you look at the '01 and '03 tax cuts that became public law, part of that law, current law, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear that we actually would see those rates with the top rate at 39.6 percent. That's part of the '03 agreement that we had. So any action that we take that is less than that top rate of 39.6 percent, Mr. Speaker, is actually a tax cut, and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing here--and I appreciate again the understanding of the minority--is simply trying to move ahead with this good-faith negotiating process that Speaker Boehner and the President of the United States are in the midsts of. I hope that in light of the balanced approach of this package, that we'll be able--by the way, this package has enjoyed at least statements of support from Democrats in the past from both the House and the Senate--I hope that this can be a positive step as we seek to resolve just as quickly as we possibly can this question.

We all know that uncertainty is the enemy of prosperity; and our goal is, Mr. Speaker, to put into place a policy that will have the kind of certainty that will encourage our job creators and encourage those who are out there seeking to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder to have the kind of opportunity that is necessary.

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

If the measures before us constituted the Republican Plan A, they would be a package of sweeping tax and entitlement reforms. They would provide considerable new revenues through economic growth and a simpler, fairer tax code. They would rein in our ballooning deficit by making our entitlement programs solvent over the long term. Together these critical initiatives would put our economy back on the path toward prosperity and opportunity.

For two years, this Republican Majority has worked tirelessly to enact Plan A. We have passed dozens of bills. Speaker Boehner has spent countless hours negotiating with President Obama. All in an effort to advance our Plan A. I still have hope that we will reach an agreement that will substantially achieve the goals that we have outlined: growth and balanced budgets through meaningful tax and entitlement reform.

But the measure before us today is not Plan A. It is Plan B. Time is running out. We are 11 days away from the end of 2012. 11 days away from our last opportunity to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. 11 days away from significant tax increases on every single tax payer in America and devastating cuts to our military.

The Members of this body may disagree on many things, but we all agree that the across-the-board tax rates that become effective on January 1 will have a very damaging effect on our frail economy. The first of today's underlying bills is a safeguard against the most detrimental aspects of the fiscal cliff. It extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the 99.81 percent of Americans who make less than $1 million a year. This action protects the middle class and virtually all small businesses. No other single action would go further to mitigate the crisis that is looming before us.

The second of today's underlying bills makes responsible spending cuts that will help to rein in our deficit without compromising national security. Defense Secretary Panetta has tirelessly exhorted Congress to avoid these draconian cuts to our military at all costs. We are absolutely committed to getting our fiscal house in order. But we must do so in a way that does not sacrifice our security. The underlying spending package makes essential cuts, while ensuring that we do not put our homeland and our troops at grave risk.

We of course want to go much further than simply limiting the worst of the damage of the fiscal cliff. We will continue to strive for a comprehensive solution until the tremendous challenges before us are addressed. These challenges will not be resolved in any sustainable way until we substantially reform our tax code and deal with the fundamental insolvency of our entitlement programs. But we would be utterly derelict in our duty to first do no harm if we failed to implement these critical stopgap measures.

It is essential to recognize that current law raises taxes for every single Federal income tax payer on January 1. Every working American, every small business owner, will face a higher marginal rate 11 days from now. That is the current law of the land. Today's underlying tax bill maintains current law for 0.19 percent of taxpayers, while cutting taxes for 99.81 percent. This is not a tax increase. It is a tax cut for very nearly everyone. Without it, we run the real and serious risk of plunging our economy back into recession.

Today's measures represent neither a comprehensive solution nor the end of our efforts to reach one. It is simply action that must be taken to protect our fragile economy and beleaguered workforce until a long- term solution can be reached.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the remarks that my good friend from Rochester has made as it relates to the sequester. I agree with her completely, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that we not let the sequester take place, and I hope and believe that she is right, that we will not see that happen.

Number two, I'd like to associate myself with her remarks as it relates to ensuring that we do not go over the fiscal cliff. That's something that is very, very desired on our part as well.

I'd also like to respond to just one point very quickly, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Roseville and say that I can provide my friend from Rochester, our distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, assurance that we will not be adjourning the Congress today and ending our work. I have said--I said in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker--that we are going to continue with our work.

The action that we are going to take relates to these two measures: again, the reconciliation package, which is designed to ensure, as my friend from Rochester has said, that we don't see sequestration, which we all know would be devastating if it were to take effect. It is a package of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time. It is a very responsible measure that is not going to be gutting programs but is going to responsibly begin to tackle entitlement reform.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York.

If I could reclaim my time, I will say again that I have served as long in the minority as John Dingell. I have served longer in the minority in this House, Mr. Speaker, than the dean of the House, John Dingell, has served, and I understand. I've served 18 years in the minority, and I

understand that it is challenging, and I respect that fact. To say that as we're dealing with the very end of this session that we're not trying to get to an agreement is a mischaracterization of where we are.

I've associated myself with the remarks of my friend from Rochester as it relates to our quest to ensure that we don't see the sequester take effect or that we go over the fiscal cliff, and to say that the package that we have that deals with the reduction of $238 billion over a 10-year period of time is, again, virtually identical to what passed this House. It has actually been reduced by 100 pages. It's much smaller than what was passed in May by this House, and I believe that it's a package that is, again, one that can responsibly be a first step towards something that we all know does need to be done. As I talk to Democrats, there is recognition that entitlement reform has to take place, and so I believe that that is the right thing to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a very, very strong budget hawk, my fellow Californian, Mr. McClintock.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining. It looks like she has a couple at least. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a very hardworking, thoughtful member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

So I think the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) might want to exhaust some of the speakers she has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask my friend to yield? I will yield her an additional 30 seconds.

I just wanted to inquire. I didn't understand this ``there is no sequester here.'' We're dealing with the threat of a sequester, and our idea is $238 billion in spending reductions within the reconciliation bill that passed the House last May is what we're including. So I just didn't understand, if I could just ask my friend.

And I'm happy to yield her an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker.

If the gentlewoman would further yield, let me just say that there is a plan to respond to the sequester, and that is the $238 billion reduction over a 10-year period of time that is the reconciliation bill that was passed by the House last May.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to a very thoughtful colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a great member of the Appropriations Committee, our hardworking friend from Savannah, Georgia, Ann's father, Mr. Kingston.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that we all know we're 11 days away from going over the proverbial fiscal cliff. We are trying our doggonedest to make sure that a sequester doesn't go into place. We all know that Secretary Panetta has said that that would be a devastating thing for our Nation's security.

I think that discussions taking place between the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are very important. I also think it's important for every Member of the House to have an opportunity to state where they stand on these issues.

The bill before us is one which actually has, again, basically enjoyed bipartisan support. I remember when Senator Schumer made it clear that he believed that there should not be any increase for anyone who earns under $1 million. That was a request that he said. I know there was a lot of discussion within the Democratic Caucus as to exactly what that level should be. Well, this is at the level that Senator Schumer had indicated that he supported earlier on.

I've got to say to my friend from Rochester, Mr. Speaker, we are not planning to adjourn. We want to address this issue. We want to do everything that we possibly can, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this just as quickly as we possibly can.

We're just a few days away from Christmas. We are obviously still here working. We're prepared to come back after Christmas. Sadly, many of our colleagues are going to the funeral of Senator Inouye. That service that will take place in Hawaii has created a challenge for us when it relates to the schedule itself.

We understand that this is a difficult time, but we need to work together to put into place pro-growth economic policies. I think that there is, as I said in my opening remarks, a bipartisan quest to do that. I congratulate the President for his call for reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Real tax reform is something we've been trying to do for a while and I think can be done in a bipartisan way. Real entitlement reform that does not hurt our fellow Americans is something that can be done in a responsible way.

So I will simply say that this is not a perfect process, but it's an end-of-the-session process that's going on right now to deal with a tough, tough situation. We don't want our fellow Americans to be hurting, especially at this time of year as we look towards the Christmas holidays. I believe that we can see an agreement which will work to ensure that that does not take place.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the underlying legislation, both the tax issue and the effort to ensure that we don't see a sequester take place to bring about $238 billion, as the House passed it last May, of spending over a 10-year period of time. This is the right thing for us to do to get on a path that can provide certainty, which we all know is necessary.

So I urge support of the rule, and I urge support of the underlying legislation, both bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 840 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 they may revise and extend their remarks.

As is customary for this conference report, this is a closed rule which provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4310, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of the rule as well as the underlying legislation, which was H.R. 4310, and the conference report that accompanies the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

I also have to, at the beginning, thank the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work and his steady leadership on this bill, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, for continuing the time-honored tradition of close cooperation and bipartisanship when it comes to defense and producing this conference report. I also thank the professional staff, which has worked closely together on literally hundreds of very difficult and often very technical issues and has done so cooperatively in an extremely responsible manner.

I'm very proud that the Armed Services Committee produced a bill in a very bipartisan manner. I'm proud of the floor of the House who voted and passed, in a bipartisan way, this bill back in May. The Senate has finally decided to pass the bill in December. That the Senate has passed a bill is commendable. It is unusual, but it is also commendable. The fact that they have done this here gives us an opportunity of passing one of the few bills that must be done in every session of Congress. The Senate's procrastination on this effort is one of the things that is worrisome. I only hope that in the years to come, the Senate majority leadership will return to acting expeditiously, deliberately, and in a more timely manner in something that is this important.

It is actually a testament to the competency and professionalism of the House Armed Services Committee staff, the House leadership staff, and the Rules Committee staff that this enormous and complex conference agreement could be rescued at the end of what is becoming an otherwise contentious lame-duck session.

Mr. Speaker, in our Rules Committee meeting the other day, we had the opportunity of having Mr. Hastings and others refer to the Constitution. It is very significant that in the beginning of the Constitution, the Preamble, that we talked about creating a more perfect Union. A more perfect Union is not a grammatical flaw that was introduced by the Founding Fathers. It had a specific historical context. It also talked about preserving or promoting domestic tranquility, which had, also, a specific historical context which had nothing to do with America being sedate or tranquil. It had something to do with the specific concept of private property. It also talked about promoting general welfare, even though they had a uniquely different idea of the word ``general'' than we have today.

But in providing in the intermediary with all these provisions is also the word that we are supposed to provide for the common defense. It was not unusual that that word was in there, put in by Gouverneur Morris and the rest of them.

When the Founding Fathers met to write our Constitution, they were looking at the historical milieu of the day and the concepts that were going on at that time. They responded in a way to try to make sure that they solved the problems of the day in a way that would never come up again. The concept of providing for the common defense became one of the core constitutional responsibilities that was extremely significant.

We had won the Revolutionary War, but we had also--several of the States--violated the treaty with Britain. The inability of some States to protect Tory property had given the British the reason to continue to have armed British soldiers on American soil or British forts on American soil. We could not, under the Articles of Confederation, control our borders. The British were arming subgroups coming in here to do more than just destroy our domestic tranquility, but also to take down and harm the lives of Americans. It seems some things never change.

But the Articles of Confederation and Congress could not respond to this. They had an Army of only 700 people. There was no Navy to control the shipping or protect our shipping rights. The Articles of Confederation and Congress realized what we should also realize that if we do not have an adequate and strong defense, not only can we not militarily defend this country, but we don't have the ability of diplomatically trying to reach solutions to problems without resorting to military efforts. They realized that this was one of the flaws of America when they wrote the Constitution.

So it is not unusual for them to specifically put in here that one of the responsibilities that this House has is to provide for the common defense. It is not unusual that in article I, section 8, there are 17 clauses. Seven of those 17 clauses, as well as the introduction, talk about the necessity of military defense and military preparedness for this country. They recognized how significant that was, not just for defending militarily, but also for the future and the diplomatic abilities of the future United States.

This bill deals with one of the few core constitutional responsibilities that we had. Fortunately, over the past 51 years, Congress has been able to come together in an amazingly bipartisan way to come up with a Defense authorization bill that provides our Defense agencies the ability to function, to train, to equip our forces, and to provide for our military personnel and their families.

We are betting if we do not do this, that the large-scale threats to our national security will be so far in the future we can just sort of tread water. I hope sometimes that they are right, but that treading would not be what the Founding Fathers would look at as providing for the common defense.

In a real world, there would be what I would consider to be a more significant and effective bill, but we're not dealing with the real world. We are dealing, though, with real-world issues. Part of the issue is that we are looking at a world that is extremely dangerous for us--we do not know what the future enemy will be--and we are also dealing with a world in which we are continually trying to diminish our military presence.

Our Navy is smaller than it has been since 1917. Our Army will be smaller than it was at the beginning of World War II. Our Air Force is the smallest it has ever been in the history of this country, with the oldest planes that we've ever had. Those issues are issues that are significant, they are important, and they must be addressed. And those are going to be ongoing, long-term issues.

This particular bill does not do as much to address that particular problem and give us the security of the future as I wish it could do. That's only because we are not dealing in a perfect world where we can establish the setting that we wish to do. We have to deal with the setting in which we find ourselves.

Having said that, there are a lot of things in this particular conference report and in the House-passed bill which are very, very positive, and they do move us forward. As we continue the discussion of this rule as well as the debate of the conference report on the floor, we will talk about some of those things that are positive and that do move us forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continuing discussion about talking about what is, indeed, in this particular bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

In the cacophonous list of things that this bill does not do, one can even look at some other areas. I mean, there are other areas in which we have problems in the defense of this country and future challenges that are before us, even in the modernization of our weapons system.

Even as Russia has fielded new and modernized nuclear ICBMs, the U.S. land-based nuclear deterrence is in need of future modernization; and yet this administration has cut resources to begin planning for the upgrading and modernization of our ICBMs and related nuclear-based systems that have largely been ignored. This trend simply cannot continue.

But having recognized those problems that are there, it is also time to realize what this bill actually does that moves us, as a Nation, forward:

It will provide $552 billion, which is $2 billion more than the President requested, and that is a plus;

It increases the pay for our all-voluntary forces by 1.7 percent and provides critical bonuses for those who are now working in harm's way;

It keeps the faith with the military retirees and our veterans in regard to TRICARE, and rejects the administration's proposal to increase fees and copayments on them;

It deals with the issue of troop reduction in a responsible way by putting caps on the number of troop reductions that can be placed in a single year;

It has a conscience clause for servicemen and for chaplains;

It implements the Hyde amendment;

It addresses sexual assault with bipartisan, specific new regulations and procedures for combating and prosecuting sexual assaults within the military;

It has a total new program to provide and help with suicide prevention for dealing with those people who have volunteered to represent this country in the military;

It opens up new bipartisan reforms for competition and innovation in the way the Department deals with small businesses and spurs on innovation;

It deals with strategic forces like the NNSA reforms, our nuclear oversight, our missile defense system, the Iron Dome;

Its provisions dealing with Guantanamo Bay, which prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States, are the exact right thing that should be done;

It also looks at retaining our vital systems like our naval cruisers, our airlift capacities, Global Hawk, the anti-armor, and investing in new future capabilities that we need like airborne electronic warfare. The aircraft that we need, the submarines, the destroyers that happen to be there; and,

indeed, it has a section in there dealing with the sanctions on Iran.

All of those are specific and important to us.

We have a responsibility to make sure that this core constitutional responsibility of ours is done efficiently. I want it to be known that those who are in the military uniform must respond to the higher-ups which they are dealing with. The Secretary of Defense must deal with walking a line of talking about what they have to do and what they wish they could do. In no way does anyone in uniform say that things that are put in this budget is something that they do not need or do not want.

We have cut the military in this country when we were cutting nothing else. While we were running up stimulus bills, we were still cutting the military. We cut them in the last 2 years of the Bush administration. Under Secretary Gates, it was a $400 billion cut. All told, the cuts that this Congress has put on the fence when it has not cut other areas is between $800 billion and $1 trillion, and that doesn't even count what could happen within sequestration.

We seem to forget, as we're looking, and we take some of the things we have here for granted. The United States has had air superiority since the Korean War, which means our men on the ground, when they hear something overhead, don't have to worry about whose insignia will be on that plane; they know it is ours. But if, indeed, we do not upgrade and innovate and improve our air capacity, we don't have that in the future.

And what we do now is not just simply what we can do today; what we are authorizing in this bill is what we can do 20 years from now. If we don't start the research and development today, we will not have that capacity.

I reject those who say, Look, the F-35 is too expensive; let's just build more F-16s--even though Third World countries have planes that have the same capacity technologically as our F-16s and our F-15s. What we need is a new generation, so if our men are put into a fight, it will not be a fair one.

And we have the technology, the new generation of technology to make sure that we are in the forefront and to make sure that we maintain that air dominance into the future. It is something that we have had for so long and we have had so many people work so hard to maintain that we here, today, seem to sometimes take it for granted. And we ought not. This is our future. This bill is about our future, and we cannot--we cannot--simply go back because we wish to change the milieu of what is happening here. This is a good bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I always hate to try and say we ought to learn lessons of history; but the Founding Fathers, when they made that our core constitutional responsibility, clearly understood that if you do not have a military capacity, you do not have not only the ability to defend the country, but you do not have the ability to make diplomatic efforts in any of those areas.

It is interesting that our allies in NATO are spending far more of their GDP on military defense than we are. But obviously, and ironically, those who are are almost always those countries which experienced firsthand what it was like to live under the domination of the Soviet Union. They understand the significance of this particular proposal and these particular kinds of bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to recognize the soon-to-be- retired chairman of the Rules Committee who has done so much in his tenure here in the Capitol. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

There are several things I wish to address that have been brought up in the last speech. The first one is, I was just informed that by all means we probably will be here tomorrow and voting, which really hurts my feelings. In one respect, I don't have an upgrade on tomorrow's flight, so maybe it's a good thing that we will be, but there are other times that we will be dealing with these issues.

People have talked about the amount of money that's going here. I hope Members of the House realize that 50 percent of all the cuts that have been made by this administration have been made on the backs of the military, even though the military defense represents less than 20 percent of the Federal budget. Military has, over the past years, been cut and cut and cut again.

This increase over what the President's budget request was is only 0.3 percent higher than the President's budget, and it is less than last year's authorization. I say that only as a fact, not something I think is good because I think we need to be spending more on what these people have to do.

To say that the people in uniform don't want or don't need the programs that are in here is unfair to them. They have to say a specific line in the positions they are in. But the idea that you wouldn't take the cruisers that are going to be expended in here and continue to keep those even though they were scheduled to be mothballed decades before their life span is over, or that you are using these funds to restructure the force structure of the Air Force, which is critical to this country so that we maintain the air superiority we have had since the Korean conflict, that is a ridiculous concept.

This bill is about people. The gentleman from Massachusetts has an air base, Hanscom, in his State--probably not in his district, but his State. I have air complexes. I have people who are working on these issues. We have not modernized our equipment, which means we have to have people working on our air complexes to try to take our antiquated equipment and restore it so it can be useful, so that those who are put in harm's way defending this country at least have the vehicles and the resources available to defend themselves and present the possible outcome. These are the people that are going to be helped. These are the jobs that are going to be helped by the passage of this particular bill. These are the people who get TRICARE, which was given to them either as a bonus to sign or given to them in lieu of salary increases. And it is unfair for the President to say they should have an increase in their copay.

These people who are working at these bases, they're not making $50,000 a year in a pension--they'd be lucky if they make that much money as part of their salary. Those are the people that we need to look after. It is the people who make sure that we have a military that functions, not just those on the front line, not just those in uniform, but also those who provide their services and provide the material that they need to maintain this stuff. This bill moves that forward.

I hope that we do not have as a body a myopic approach to the need for the securing of this country, and we understand how significant this is. This is one of the few responsibilities Congress has to do this year and every year.

I want to just say one thing about the potential previous question. It's not an issue of when we get a chance to vote on it. We have voted on the previous question that the Democrats would like to put in place of this. On August 1, we did have a vote, the Levin of Michigan amendment. It was defeated in this House in a bipartisan manner, with 19 Democrats voting ``no'' on the amendment. Another vote on this at this time is a redundancy; it's been done. Now let us move on to do what this bill is supposed to do, the conference report that solves the problems and puts us moving forward in our defense authorization so that we actually do come up with the programs we need, not just for today but also for the future. It's a good conference report. It's a good underlying bill. We need to move forward.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to support this rule, which is--I misspoke earlier, it is a standard rule for all conference reports. I urge them to support the underlying provisions of this conference report and of our bill because it is essential for our Nation's defense. It is our core constitutional responsibility, and we should not in any way, shape, or form shirk that.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, the National Defense Authorization bill.

I recognize and appreciate all of the hard work that went into crafting this conference report--on both sides of the aisle. I commend Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and all their staffs for all of the work that they have done. I especially appreciate that the final version of the bill includes a modified version of the Merkley amendment on Afghanistan that was approved by the United States Senate, but unfortunately, the final product contains policies that I simply cannot support.

The bill increases funding--beyond the Pentagon's request--for several programs, including a new missile defense base on the east coast. The bill also denies the Pentagon the opportunity to save money with its failure to include a cut to the contractor comp cap, its failure to include a round of base closures, and its failure to implement end-strength troop reductions even though we are supposedly ending our involvement in two wars.

At a time when Congress is being asked to look for savings, even considering cutting vital programs like Social Security, it is unconscionable to me that we would continue to mandate wasteful funding that the military has said it does not need and does not want. How can we look into the eyes of a senior citizen who is living off of Social Security and tell him that his cost-of-living adjustment will be smaller so that we can buy weapons that the military doesn't even want?

Also very troubling to me is that this bill continues to prevent the President from fulfilling his commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp by imposing unnecessary and ill-advised transfer restrictions. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as the cochair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. We constantly and appropriately criticize other countries for their lack of transparency and adherence to the rule of law. The continued existence of Guantanamo undermines our standing around the world. The President has said repeatedly that he wants to close Guantanamo. There is broad bipartisan support among national security experts for him to do so. Congress just needs to get out of the way.

Mr. Speaker, while I support a great deal of this bill, especially programs and services for our veterans and military retirees, I cannot support a bill this large when we are in the middle of negotiations on the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' The Pentagon is more willing than this Congress to look at the defense budget and make thoughtful but significant reductions. This bill continues to show that, when it comes to defense spending, Congress is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I would like to insert into the Record an article that appeared in today's Washington Post by Walter Pincus, entitled, ``Military funds to spare?,'' in which he quotes Secretary of Defense Panetta in a speech. He said that the committees here in the Congress ``had diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need.'' That is from the Secretary of Defense.

I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the President that was sent to Members of Congress as well, urging that he veto the National Defense Authorization Act because it extends restrictions on transferring detainees out of the Guantanamo prison.

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude my opening here by saying that I want a defense second to none. I believe that we need to do whatever we need to do to protect the citizens of this country, but just throwing more money at the Pentagon doesn't mean that you're getting a stronger defense. Expanding the bloat and the waste in the Pentagon does nothing to enhance our national security. We need a new definition of ``national security,'' one that includes things like jobs for our citizens, one that includes access to a good quality education, one that includes a strong infrastructure, one that includes good health care for everybody in this country, an end to homelessness, and an end to hunger in the United States of America.

I say this because, after we debate this rule, we're going to take up another rule dealing with the so-called ``Plan B'' and ``Plan C,'' and maybe there's a Plan D and a Plan E, who knows. What is particularly troublesome to me is that, in the tax version of what the Republicans are going to bring to the floor later, it includes things like ending programs that benefit middle-income families and poor families.

Under their proposal, 25 million working families with tens of millions of children will pay an average of $1,000 more in taxes. That's not fair. That undermines the economic security of that family.

Under their proposal, 11 million families would lose a tax credit that helps pay for college. How is that in our security? We're told time and time again by all of the experts that, in order for us to continue to be an economic global power, we need a well-educated workforce. So what are they proposing? That 11 million families lose their tax credits to help pay for college.

Fifty million seniors and other Medicare enrollees' health care would be jeopardized as doctors face a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments under this proposal. That's just the tax version of what they're proposing. We haven't even gotten to what they're proposing in terms of spending cuts.

So here we are, talking about a Defense Authorization Act that is more money than our Pentagon wants, that is more money than our Joint Chiefs of Staff want, that is more money than the Secretary of Defense wants. As we're doing this, we're telling the American people that we have to lower your cost-of-living adjustment on Social Security, that we have to lower your quality of health care, that we have to cut some money from housing programs, that we have to cut SNAP and food stamps so that you won't have enough to eat.

This is crazy. This is crazy. So, yes, we're all for a military and a defense second to none, but I will tell you that some of our biggest threats are not halfway around the world--they're halfway down the block. We have to start paying attention to what's happening in this country, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 19, 2012]

Military Funds to Spare?

(By Walter Pincus)

Congress and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta showed this

week that there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of

loose dollars in the Pentagon's budget that can be shifted

around without apparent harm to national security.

In a speech Wednesday at the National Press Club, Panetta

voiced his frustration at changes the House and Senate armed

services committees had made in the fiscal 2013 defense

authorization bill. At one point he said that the committees

``had diverted about $74 billion of what we asked for in

savings in our proposed budget to the Congress, and they

diverted them to other areas that, frankly, we don't need.''

He spoke about ``pressure on the department to retain

excess force structure and infrastructure instead of

investing in the training and equipment that makes our force

agile and flexible and ready.'' Without specifying programs,

Panetta mentioned having to keep ``aircraft, ships, tanks,

bases, even those that have outlived their usefulness, [but]

have a natural political constituency.''

As if on cue, just two hours after Panetta's speech, the

chairmen of the Senate and House armed services committees--

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Rep. Howard P. ``Buck''

McKeon (R-Calif.)--released summaries of the House-Senate

conference report on the fiscal 2013 defense bill that

contained funding changes illustrating some of what Panetta

had been complaining about.

For example, the conferees approved more than $500 million

to continue the Global Hawk Block 30, high-altitude, long-

endurance unmanned aircraft that have integrated imagery,

radar and intelligence sensors. The Pentagon had decided to

risk terminating this version of Global Hawk (there are

others in use and being built) and noted that it would save

$800 million in fiscal 2013 and $2.5 billion over the next

five years.

Two other congressional add-ons illustrate members' desire

to keep plant production lines open--and jobs filled. They

were $136 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank and $140

million to modify the M2 Bradley armored vehicle. And $45

million was added to funds to purchase F-18s to hold open

``the option of buying more'' in fiscal 2014. In the nuclear

area, Congress added $70 million toward construction of a

$3.7 billion building for research on plutonium at the Los

Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico that the

administration wanted to delay for two more years.

Two other congressional favorites got boosts beyond what

the Pentagon approved. One was an added $152 million for

missile defense; the other, for $143 million, went to Special

Operations Command for an imagery intelligence program its

commander wanted but higher-level officials vetoed. The

conferees' message: What Special Ops wants, it gets.

One compromise reached over the past month involved the

administration's controversial plan to reorganize military

air transport assets that affected Air National Guard bases

around the country, a step that mobilized opposition not just

from Congress but from governors of the states involved. The

solution was to halt the retirement of 26 C-5A aircraft,

``holding the strategic airlift total at 301 aircraft, until

the Defense Department completes a comprehensive study of air

mobility requirements,'' according to the House committee. In

addition, the Air Force will maintain an additional 32 C-130

or C-27J tactical airlift aircraft, some of which were going

to be retired.

As he has in the past, Panetta said that health-care costs

for the military were growing fast and had hit $50 billion

this year. The need was for some cost controls, but the

conferees blocked any increase in fees for the Defense

Department's heath-care program, known as TRICARE, or any

effort to establish new ones.

Meanwhile, the conferees took steps to cap the rate under

which the Army and Marine Corps reduce force numbers over the

next five years. And somehow they found excess funds to

provide provisions to ease the blow to the roughly 100,000

service personnel that are let go. Those individuals will be

permitted to reside in military housing with their families

for six months after their date of separation and use

commissary and exchange stores for two years after

separation.

There was one $188 million reduction that neither Panetta

nor the conferees touched--the one for military bands.

The Army maintains 99 bands, many of them National Guard-

based, and intends to spend $221.1 million on them during

fiscal 2013. That's up $3.3 million from fiscal 2012. The

Navy has 14 bands that will cost an estimated $55.6 million

next year, while the Marine Corps has 12 bands that will cost

$53.6 million in 2013. The Air Fe has 12 active-duty and 11

Air National Guard bands. Together they cost an estimated $58

million.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

First of all, we have air superiority over every country in the world. We have the strongest military in the world, and I'm proud of the men and women who serve in our military.

But, you know, we have to make choices here. I mean, do we really need all these troops deployed in Europe that have been there basically since World War II? I mean, I don't think Germany is going to invade France any time soon or Russia is going to invade Poland, but yet we have a huge amount of deployed American forces in Europe. Maybe we need to have a discussion about whether or not we need that, whether or not we can afford that expense, whether or not it does anything to enhance our security.

Again, I want a military that is the best in the world. I want them to continue to be that way. I want them to be second to none. I want to make sure that we have all that we need, but I don't want to be investing in things we don't need. And when the Joint Chiefs of Staff and when the Secretary of Defense and all of the experts tell us that they don't need something, and we here appropriate money to keep something going that is unnecessary, that is unwanted, at the same time while you're trying to cut the benefits of some poor old lady on Social Security, there's something wrong with this equation. We have to start thinking about the security of people here in this country as well.

What we're going to do right after this is take up a rule that is going to gut a whole bunch of programs that, quite frankly, keep people from falling through the cracks--everything from food stamps to child nutrition programs to education programs. Anything that helps anybody who's in need is going to get walloped after the next rule is passed, with a tax plan that is so blatantly unfair that I can't even believe that my friends are bringing it to the floor of the House for a debate.

So, you know, let's talk about what we need to do to maintain the security of our people in this country. We need a strong military. We need to meet the challenges abroad, but we also need to meet the challenges here in the United States of America. We need to focus on things like jobs and affordable housing, making sure that people have the ladders of opportunity so they can succeed. So that's where I object.

This bill is more than the people at the Pentagon want. We're just throwing more money at this, and I think it's a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, this is a moment of opportunity for us to get serious about dealing with our budget deficit by eliminating the bloat and the waste in the Pentagon's budget.

What we have before us has some very good provisions in it, but it also has some very bad provisions in it. The gentlelady from California mentioned the language on Guantanamo, which is unfortunate. But this bill also reflects more money--more money--than the Pentagon even wants, more money than the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants. So we're throwing more money into this Pentagon budget even though they haven't asked for it and they don't want it.

At the same time, my friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing measures--which are going to be taken up in the next rule--to decimate the social safety net in this country, to make it more difficult for middle-income families, to make it more difficult to send your kids to school, to make it more difficult to get affordable housing, or to get access to food and nutrition if you are in desperate times.

So it just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, the idea that we're giving more money to the Pentagon than they want, but at the same time we're taking away from our people right here at home.

National security has to mean the quality of life and the standard of living for the people of the United States of America. It has to mean things like jobs and financial security for our families.

I regret very much that my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to not care about what happens to people here in this country because their budgets and their tax bills go directly after middle- income families and constitute an all-out war on the poor.

There was an article in The Washington Post on December 19: ``John Boehner's Plan B Would Raise Taxes on the Poor.'' Really? I mean, is that how you're going to balance the budget, by sticking it to people who already are in vulnerable times? This is wrong.

My friends talk about the debt and the deficit, but what they don't talk about is that we have fought two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we haven't paid for it, all on our credit card. We send our young men and women into harm's way, and we ask them and their families to sacrifice, and we do nothing. We just put the bill on our credit card.

A few months ago, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, said it's about $1.3 trillion--I think he's lowballing it--but $1.3 trillion on our debt, and nobody over there says a word. They all go after programs like Social Security and Medicare and food stamps.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment that will allow the House to have a chance to vote on a bill passed by the Senate to extend middle class tax cuts, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 15. Also, the amendment would prevent this House from adjourning until we have averted the fiscal cliff and the President has signed legislation to prevent tax increases on the middle class.

There is a rumor out there that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to try to pass Plan B and C and run out of town and just leave for vacation. I want to get home for Christmas as much as anyone else, but the bottom line is that we are facing a crisis--an artificial crisis that my friends helped create, but we need to avert it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat

the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I would again remind my colleagues that national security and national defense also has to mean the quality of life for people here in the United States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since both the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Washington signed the conference report, it is clear they are supporters of the conference report. So I claim the 20 minutes that is allotted for someone in opposition when both majority and minority are in support.

I intend to reserve most of the time for myself, but I have shared with the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, who's done a very good job and had some commitments, and I'm yielding to some people as a proxy for him, but I will begin by yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, continuing to yield according to the arrangements of the gentleman from Washington, the ranking member, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the chairman of the full committee, I would now yield 2 minutes to him. I believe he intends to conduct a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on all sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I have some differences with particular provisions here, I would agree with the gentleman from New York, but that's not my major reason. That's not my reason at all for commandeering the time of this debate, and I apologize to those on the committee who worked so hard and who had an expectation to be able to talk about this specifically. I tried to accommodate that some, but here is my dilemma: it's partly the structure of this institution and of our rules and of our task.

The committee does a very good job of operating within the given parameters of America's military engagement. They discharge very well their obligation to fund that level. What we don't have in our structure is a form in which to debate the most important question we face as a country: What level of worldwide military engagement should we be committed to pursuing? Because that level of military engagement dictates the funding.

Members have said this is a good bill because it supports the men and women who we send into battle and into harm's way. Of course it does. It would be immoral to do anything less for them. The question is not whether having made a decision to be engaged on a worldwide basis we fund them adequately, but whether we are asking them to do too much. I would say my general principle in part is this.

We have a superior military, wonderful men and women, very well- equipped thanks to this House and this Senate and the administration. They do very well what a military can do. A military can stop bad things from happening.

Where we make the mistake is of asking these wonderful people to do something that militaries are not good at: make good things happen, take on roles in societies, quite literally and metaphorically, foreign to us and deal with the deepest human problems of religious and cultural disagreements.

I would be morally conflicted if I thought those kinds of interventions could be successful. I would like to alleviate the people in Afghanistan who suffer from some of these problems or in Iraq or elsewhere, but the point is we can't do that. The best trained and armed 30-year-old Americans can't resolve the problems that rack those societies. They can repel enemies, but they cannot create good societies.

Beyond that, we are suffering, I believe, from cultural lag. Sixty- seven years ago, at the end of World War II, America needed to be there for virtually every society in the world outside of the vicious Communism presided over by Joseph Stalin. The nations of Western and Central Europe had been weakened by World War II. They were vulnerable to Stalin.

Russia had been weakened, too, but he was able to use the brutal force of his system to put whatever resources he had into a military that not only threatened, but ate up freedom in many European countries. And Harry Truman, to his credit, with the bipartisan support from Congress said, No, no further, and inserted American troops and American money to keep the weak nations of Western and Central Europe from being overrun by Stalin.

Stalin, thank God, is dead, and the terrible system over which he presided has crumbled. That does not mean that I believe Russia is a wonderful place to live. I continue to be grateful to my grandparents for getting the heck out of there, but it's not a threat to the United States' competence.

On the other hand, the European nations that we went in there to protect are now strong and prosperous. We no longer have weak nations in Central

and Western Europe, and there is no longer a belligerent threat to them. One thing that hasn't changed is we're still there, with tens of billions of dollars of American money protecting the strong nations against a nonexisting threat.

Japan was disarmed 67 years ago because of understandable fears. Japan, today, is a very different country, and an American policy that insists on subsidizing the defense of Japan because of what happened 67 years ago is a disservice to the American people.

I want us to be the strongest nation in the world, Mr. Speaker. Some of my liberal friends say that sounds xenophobic. It's very simple. Somebody's going to be the strongest nation in the world by the process of elimination. I look at the candidates, and I'm for us.

I will be honest with you, if Denmark had the possibility of being the strongest nation in the world, I would be pretty relaxed about it, but they can't handle it. It's either going to be us or some country I'm not that crazy about. But we can be the strongest nation in the world much less expensively than we are.

Let me read from some who are critical because this President hasn't gone far enough. And a couple of my colleagues have praised the bill for putting more weapons into play than the Pentagon wants for objecting to their retirement of these weapons; in other words, it's more money than the Pentagon wanted in some cases. Here's the viewpoint that I think is being expressed here.

In an article in The Wall Street Journal on November 7, the day after the election--hope springs eternal for some people--Mr. Jack David and Michael Dunn wrote an op-ed piece. Mr. David was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration; Mr. Dunn had the former presidency over the Air Force Association. Here's what they say in support of more aircraft, part of which the committee appeared to be responding to. It wasn't directly, but it was in consonance with it. They complain that the Air Force has been a victim of its success. They say:

Ironically, the inattention and repeated cuts that have

taken a toll on this branch of the military haven't received

the public attention they deserve because the Air Force has

been so successful. No U.S. soldier has been killed by enemy

airpower since 1953. For six decades, the Air Force has been

able to deny operational airspace to adversaries, so U.S.

ground forces have operated with little fear of enemy

aircraft attacking their positions.

This is in The Wall Street Journal, written by a former Bush Assistant Secretary of Defense and the head of the Air Force Association.

But they say it's not enough to have had no American killed since 1953--for which I'm very pleased--and have totally dominated every battlefield for six decades. Here's what we have to do, they say:

But the U.S. relies on the Air Force to do much more than

that--including to hold at risk any actual or potential enemy

target, anywhere in the world.

At a time when I'm being asked--I'm not going to do it--to cut back on the cost of living for Social Security, when we don't have adequate funds for health research, when we have had cities lay off police and fire--you're worried about the safety of Americans? Let's give the cities the resources not to lay off police and fire--I don't want to vote money to hold at risk any actual or potential enemy target anywhere in the world.

By the way, we have to do this ourselves, because the next thing we have to do is ``protect the ground forces of friends and allies.'' Why can't some of our allies protect their own ground forces? Is there something about Germany and Italy and France and Spain and England and Japan that renders them genetically incapable of having their own air forces? I know we were told we have to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan because they don't have their own air force, but neither do the people attacking them.

The next thing we are told is ``to protect the U.S. from a nuclear attack.'' I agree. We have a nuclear capacity that far exceeds any potential combination of enemies. We had, during the height of the Cold War, the triad. We could destroy the Soviet Union in a thermonuclear war, and they had the capacity to go after us by missiles, submarines, or strategic air command.

I have a proposal that sounds like I'm kidding. Sometimes I'm kidding; this time I'm not. Can we not go to the Pentagon and say, You know what? Now that there is no Soviet Union, there is a much weaker Russia--and I agree, Russia won a war against Georgia. They won a war against the country of Georgia. I think the way that we have armed the State of Georgia, I'm not sure what the outcome would be if that was the war. But Russia does not have anything like the capacity it had at the height of the Cold War. We still have the capacity to destroy them. Can we not say to the Pentagon, You know those three ways you have for destroying the Soviet Union? Please pick two. Would we not be very secure against a Soviet nuclear attack if we had two instead of the three and can save billions of dollars?

Now we're told, also, we must ``provide navigation through its global positioning systems.'' We have to protect, I'm told, the trade routes everywhere in the world, we have to protect them against China.

Mitt Romney got something right in his debate with the President when he said he's not afraid of toughening sanctions against China for currency manipulation because, he says, people say they're going to cut off their trade.

They make an enormous amount of money out of that trade. Why would they cut it off? Agreed. Why would the Chinese shut down the navigation route over which they make an enormous amount of money? It's like Dominos decided to tear up the street so they couldn't deliver the pizza. We are spending money on the Navy that protects every shipping lane everywhere in the world as if we were the only ones who had that interest.

Now let me give this one--surprising from conservatives--which is to airlift humanitarian aid anywhere in the world. I wish we were doing more in Haiti, and I wish we were doing more to stop children from dying of illness in Africa--but we have to give humanitarian aid anywhere in the world to our wealthy allies and others? Frankly, I wish we were better able to deliver humanitarian aid to New Jersey than to rich countries elsewhere. I don't say that as an isolationist. I wish we were doing more in some ways. I regret the attack on the International Monetary Fund--that I hear from my Republican colleagues--which would destabilize Europe. I would like to increase economic aid. I would like to do more to fight AIDS and malaria. I would like to do it in a more effective way.

Now, I'm told, in part, well, it's bad for jobs if you cut the military. That is a head-swiveling degree of inconsistency. I am told by many of my Republican colleagues, when the Federal Government provides aid to cities to keep firefighters on the job, when it builds roads, when it builds housing for the elderly, that somehow that's just something called ``stimulus,'' which doesn't add to the economy; but apparently, when we spend money to maintain bases in Germany or in Okinawa, when we build weapons that aren't needed, and even more when we maintain a nuclear arsenal we don't need, that somehow, magically, that creates jobs. It's as if Keynes were only right if he were armed. It's military Keynesianism.

The government does not help with the economy. Of the people who have said no government stimulation of the economy, how can they, Mr. Speaker, then turn around and say, We've got to do this for jobs? By the way, I think there is a government role in stimulating the economy. Defense tends to be, on the whole, the least efficient way to do it. The largest percentage of it is spent overseas. If we close down bases in NATO, it's going to hurt some people--but not here--and people who can afford it. Now I'm told, Well, that's mean because you're allies, and you're supposed to have troops where your allies are. Then how come I never saw any Belgian troops at the border in the United States? It's a one-way street.

Now, let me say of the President--and he has done a very good job, and I appreciate his withdrawal from Iraq and his resisting of some of the pressure, but he should go further. I did note--and the country is ready for this--that during that memorable moment when Clint Eastwood lost the debate to a chair that one of the things

he said that got enormous applause at the Republican convention was, Let's get out of Afghanistan right away. The American people understand we have long since stopped doing a lot of good there. That's not because there is any lack of bravery or skill on the part of those wonderful young people who are there. It's not their fault that we have put them in a place they no longer ought still to be. We ought to withdraw them.

I have one difference with the President, let me say in closing. On this, he says--however he's the President, and when you're the President, they all tell you these things--that America is the indispensable Nation. We were in 1945. We should not consider ourselves to be the indispensable Nation today. We are not indispensable to the defense of Germany and Italy and England, and we act as if we are. We're not indispensable in keeping open sea lanes for other countries. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to urge wealthy nations that face no significant threat to dispense with us from the standpoint of our military activity.

So that's my objection to this bill. It does a reasonable job--with some disagreements some of us would have--of funding the current level of commitment, but the current level of commitment far exceeds any rational definition of ``national security.'' It's zero sum. It comes at the expense of every other program we try to maintain to promote the quality of life in the United States. I hope the bill is defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we're watching an attempt to perpetuate a hoax. To everybody watching, I want to say to you don't bother to take notes, no need to call the family to see history being made here. Just move along. There's nothing happening here. We've got this plan that doesn't come anywhere close to being a solution to the fiscal cliff. It's a political gimmick, and all of us recognize that it has no chance whatsoever of becoming law.

The process that has brought us here has been equally shameful, more befitting a developing country than the greatest democracy on Earth. It has been absolutely painful to watch the otherwise responsible Members of the majority play their assigned roles, pretending that what we did last night was normal and legitimate. Last night we saw one of the greatest miscarriages of the democratic process in my time on the Rules Committee. Facing the impending fiscal cliff that could devastate our economy and harm millions of Americans, the majority decided to cobble together last-minute legislation on a wing and a prayer.

Last night, the Rules Committee spent most of the evening debating legislation that we've barely seen. We were told that there would be two bills. Two bills actually were filed at midnight on Tuesday. One of them disappeared. And in the waning hours, even while the debate on the rule was taking place, a third was dropped into our laps. It turned out to be a warmed-over bill that went through the House of Representatives in May destroying health care, food stamps, and almost every other possibility of people in the country to survive. That's how the majority wants to solve the greatest economic threat facing our Nation.

With nothing less than millions of jobs on the line, does the majority really believe that passing a bill in less than 24 hours that will do absolutely nothing is responsible governing?

Today we're prepared to vote on this legislation and, I think, possibly adjourn for the final time this year. If this is the majority's final attempt to reach a compromise, then our Nation does indeed face frightening times. If no compromise is reached, we may face the greatest displacement of workers since 1929 as sequestration takes effect and forces countless layoffs. How devastating is that to a recovering economy? Every American knows we cannot let this happen; and, frankly, I believe that every Member of Congress knows that we never would let it happen. But after last night, I'm not so sure.

This is not a serious solution to avoid economic catastrophe. It's just one last attack on the poor and the middle class right before we tumble off together over the fiscal cliff. Today's bill contains many dangerous provisions. I mentioned part C that we got last night, the old warmed-over bill providing an average tax cut of $50,000 for millionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile, the 25 million working families would pay an average of $1,000 more on taxes; 11 million families would lose a tax credit that helps to pay for college; drastic cuts would be made to Medicare; and the important provisions of the Affordable Care Act would be no more. They simply could not adjourn this year without one last attempt to destroy the health care bill that will provide health care for millions more Americans, many covered by insurance that they have never been able to have before.

During my last election, which occurred last month, I met more than one person who told me that they had been born--there is one person who sticks out in my mind--she had been born with cerebral palsy, Mr. Speaker. She told me that her whole life, while she brought up a family, lived her life driving a car, cooking, moving, everything that we all do and take for granted in life, she had to do without any health insurance because having been born with cerebral palsy, she had a preexisting condition that prevented it. It was not until she was 65 and was able to get Medicare did she have the peace of mind that most of us take for granted that she was eligible to be covered. Why in the world do we keep trying to be the only industrial country that does not take better care of its people than that?

Finally, 2 million Americans would lose their unemployment assistance right here at the holiday time. As I said before, the nutrition assistance program would be gutted. Those unjust cuts would leave millions struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table.

The Americans that we're talking about, those that will be suffering, are not the ones that caused the problem in this country. They had nothing to do with financial services and the shenanigans that were played that brought us to our knees. Yet, continually, this House asks them through the majority side to pay the price.

Enough already. They're not to blame, and they should not be put on the block.

Sadly, just days ago--Tuesday, in fact--it appeared that President Obama and Speaker Boehner were close to a fiscal cliff compromise. President Obama had made concessions, some that, frankly, as I pointed out, our side is not that crazy about, but in the blink of an eye, the House majority decided to walk away in 51 seconds, announcing what they were going to do in a take-it-or-leave-it manner and introduce this political hoax that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, don't anybody be fooled. The American people know better. They see through this. They know that a compromise means that we must meet in the middle. Unfortunately, the majority continues to think, if they pass extreme legislation and then run for the hills, the rest of us will be forced to give in.

We've seen similar antics from the majority throughout the 112th Congress--from holding the full faith and credit of this Nation hostage for the first time in its history and losing our credit rating to voting 33 times to repeal health care reform. The majority has continually advanced a cynical and partisan agenda at the expense of our Nation's welfare. Given this, there is little surprise that the approval rating for Congress is at an all-time low and that historians have said it is the least productive Congress in our history.

Mr. Speaker, in the election just last month, the American people made their voices heard. When asked to choose between an extreme agenda that took care of the millionaires and billionaires at their expense, they said ``no'' in that they wanted not to be going over a fiscal cliff, and they have made that very clear.

I think of what we have done to just the economic future of this country by debating this fiscal cliff as long as we have, but I don't believe, as I said, that we will actually go over it, except I'm not really clear on what we're doing here today unless that is to cut and run. Yet, in the process, the majority has presided over a shameful legislative circus not worthy of this institution. When our Nation is in desperate need of serious solutions, the majority is doing everything in its power to avoid finding the answers.

I strongly oppose this hoax before us. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate your yielding.

I appreciate your giving us your assurance, but I do recall that Mr. McGovern and I, both in our turns, asked last night for assurance that the bill that we were looking at was the bill we were going to vote on, and all we got was doublespeak. So, while I appreciate your giving me your assurance, I think I'll give it back to you.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

I'd be happy to tell you. We expect four. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlelady another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it has been said here before that the bill that mysteriously appeared last night had passed the House in a bipartisan way. Let me point out it was bipartisan opposition. No Democrat voted for it and 16 Republicans voted ``no.''

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I can't say it enough, today's legislation is a step backwards in the effort to find a fiscal cliff compromise. Plan B, Plan C, neither one of them are serious proposals but a gimmick designed to get headlines. By using the Halls of Congress to play political games, the majority is making it harder to find a commonsense and bipartisan solution to the impending fiscal cliff.

The time for these games is over. It's time that the majority comes to the table with a serious proposal that reflects the wishes of the American people.

Nobody wants to see the taxes raised on 25 million working families. As I said earlier, they seem to be called upon to pay the price for the fiscal irresponsibility of the financial district.

The American people don't want to see hundreds of thousands lose access to nutritional programs, and I sure can tell you that they don't want to see Wall Street reforms repealed and the historic health care law dismantled, but all these things would happen if this bill before us became law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the gimmick proposal before us today and return to the serious work of balancing our budget while protecting the poor and the working class.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to make in order an amendment which will allow the House to have a chance to vote on the bill passed by the Senate to extend the middle class tax cuts to all persons making less than $250,000, which has been introduced in the House as H.R. 15. Also, the amendment would prevent the House from adjourning until we have averted the fiscal cliff and the President has signed legislation to prevent tax increases on the middle class.

Mr. 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.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and vote ``no'' on the rule and certainly on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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