[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 71 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2827-H2845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4310, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 661
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. No
further general debate shall be in order.
Sec. 2. (a) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 22. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived.
(b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described
in section 3 of this resolution.
(c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole.
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in
such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the
Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of
the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Point of Order
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order
against the consideration of the resolution. The resolution violates
clause 9 of rule XXI by waiving that rule against consideration of
amendment no. 1 by Mr. McKeon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut makes a point
of order that the resolution violates clause 9(c) of rule XXI.
Under clause 9(c) of rule XXI, the gentleman from Connecticut and the
gentleman from Utah each will control 10 minutes of debate on the
question of consideration.
Following the debate, the Chair will put the question of
consideration as follows: ``Will the House now consider the
resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise to speak on behalf of so many families of our men and women in
service who are in need of our help. I'm proud to be joined on the
floor this afternoon by my dear friend and colleague, Walter Jones.
I think, Madam Speaker, what we have here is just simply--as the line
from ``Cool Hand Luke'' says--a failure to communicate. These things
can happen. But I know that there are honorable people on both sides
who are in agreement with the plight of what happens to the Kenyon
family, that I have pictured here. I use this picture and rise on their
behalf because these are constituents of mine who brought to my
attention a concern that while men and women deployed in our armed
services--and in this case, Sergeant Major William Kenyon, deployed
twice while his daughter, Rachel, deals with autism.
Autism is near epidemic in this country, and for military families
especially, when someone is abroad in the service of their country,
it's hard enough when two parents are at home to deal with autism, but
it's even more complicated when a father or mother is away from their
child. And so we heard from thousands of family members across this
Nation, and in the process we learned how important this was.
What they seek is applied behavior analysis, which, unfortunately for
them, there's a cap that's placed on this. Imagine you're the mother at
home. This loving mother, Rachel, with her daughter, Rachel Margaret,
with caps imposed on them, can't afford or can't get the service.
This amendment is simple and straightforward and has been accepted by
the committee. And what happened in the process--and this is why I say
that there is miscommunication--is that when the agreed pay-for was
asked to be modified, it indeed was, but there was a miscommunication
between Rules and the committee.
I know in my heart that not only Mr. Jones, Mr. Bishop, who is here,
Mr. Sessions, who's part of the committee and the Caucus on Autism, and
the number of like-minded people in both caucuses care deeply about
these results.
As we approach Memorial Day, certainly we want the message to be to
our men and women in the field that we will leave no soldier behind on
the battlefield. We also have to know that we will leave no child
behind at home.
This is a compelling case that the Kenyons make on behalf of all
Americans--men and women who serve in our military--and one that has
been underscored by my dear friend in his experience at Camp Lejeune.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina, Walter Jones.
Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut.
I want to say to both parties, he is exactly right. I have Camp
Lejeune Marine Base in my district. The last 4 years I've met two
different times with Marine husbands and wives and their children with
autism. It is a serious problem. And as Mr. Larson has said, this was
fixed, but somewhere along the way the communication breaks down, like
it does too often here in Washington.
{time} 1240
As Mr. Larson said, let's try to fix this problem today. Let's get it
in the base bill. Let's send it over to the Senate on behalf of all of
our men and women in uniform and the families who have children with
autism.
Please, God, let us fix this for those families.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
North Carolina, for his comments.
This is a pretty remarkable family. And about a month ago I was in
New York City on the Intrepid where we heard from several military
families, families in general that are dealing with the issue of
autism. So many like-minded people in this caucus, and frankly in this
Congress, understand the predicament that the Kenyons face.
Imagine, Sergeant Major Kenyon, having done two tours of duty in
Afghanistan. I rise today on behalf of him and his daughter, who only
ask of this Congress what I know everyone would like to deliver on. We
can't let a miscommunication stand between their getting the relief
that they and so many American families need.
[[Page H2828]]
I would hope, and I'm told through our process that because, as the
resolution was read, that because Chairman McKeon has en bloc
capability, that we are able to work out something and have this
amendment as it was intended, as it was agreed to in the process, and
as the corrections were made that were asked of the majority so that it
could be made in order and placed en bloc, that this may occur for this
family and the thousands others that are like them.
I ask my colleague from Utah, a man of great distinction--and I don't
know that he will use his 10 minutes or if we could enter into a
colloquy--as to how we might proceed on this.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Is the gentleman yielding time to me?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I will gladly yield time to the gentleman
for a colloquy.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would you like to start the colloquy, because I
really don't have the best answer for you right now.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman.
It is my hope and understanding that this may not be a remedy that we
can have through the Rules Committee, and rather than put the body
through a series of votes, if we could work with the committee and the
committee of cognizance, the Armed Services Committee, I know that
Ranking Member Smith is here and certainly will work with and strive to
correct this anomaly that has occurred, and I believe that like-minded
people on both sides of the aisle want to see this succeed.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Utah. I know
that he is a man of great integrity and respect, and I understand the
dilemma that he is placed in in terms of the Rules Committee.
It is my understanding and hope, and we will work with the committee
of cognizance because we do think, with so many people having signed on
to this bill and so many people watching and knowing that there was
good-faith agreements on all sides--and this is not about finger-
pointing or blame. This is about helping these kids out. It's about
helping these families out. I'm not here to obstruct the process,
you're right. I raised the point of order so I would have an
opportunity to talk about the Kenyons, not about the point of order.
But that's the only tool that I had available to me, and I will
continue to proceed down the road. And I know that I will be joined by
Members on both sides, and hopefully we can have the will of the House
be known and not rely on the Senate in the process of conference.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. When I was chairman of Government Reform and
Oversight, we had hearings for about 2 years on the autism issue. And
while I'm not going to speak on this particular motion, I would just
like to say that it is a real tragedy that we are facing in this
country. We used to have one in 10,000 people that were autistic--
kids--and now it is 1 in 88. It is an absolute epidemic, and there's
really not much of a recourse for the parents. These kids are going to
live a normal life expectancy, and it's going to cost the taxpayers of
this country and all the States a ton of money. And so we have to get a
handle on this as quickly as possible.
So I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. I'm not going to be
able to support his position, but if I can work with you in any way to
deal with this problem, I hope you'll contact me.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman, and I believe there
will be a way if we can talk with Chairman McKeon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut
has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
{time} 1250
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point, an amendment to the
resolution
[[Page H2829]]
could be offered by the gentleman from Utah or a Member to whom he
yields for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be amended to include the McGovern-Jones-Smith-Paul
amendment on Afghanistan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Utah yield for a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Is it true that the rule can be amended on the floor?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point, only if the gentleman from
Utah offers an amendment or yields to another Member for that purpose.
Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Is it true that the gentleman from Utah could yield for
the purpose of a unanimous consent request to amend the rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.)
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
[[Page H2830]]
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.
{time} 1300
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.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend for his
superb management of this very important rule.
I'm happy to see my very good friend and very thoughtful colleague
from Washington, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services, here; and I know Mr. McKeon and his team have been here
as well. And I want to extend appreciation to them for their hard work
in putting together a bipartisan package which will deal with what I
argue is the one thing that only the Federal Government can do.
Mr. Smith and I had an exchange in the Rules Committee on this. There
are many things that the Federal Government does that are very good.
There are many things that the Federal Government does that are
important. I argue that most of the things that the Federal Government
does can, not necessarily that they must, but can be handled by other
levels of government or individuals, or charitable organizations or a
wide range of things. But when it comes to our Nation's security, only
the Federal Government has the ability and the responsibility to deal
with that.
I argue that if you look at the preamble of the Constitution, the
five most important words are right smack dab in the middle. They are
``provide for the common defense.'' And that's exactly what we are
doing with this effort.
Again, I believe that we have put together a rule that is not
perfect. I'll acknowledge that it's not perfect; but I do want to
express my appreciation to my friend from Worcester, the floor manager
on the minority side for this rule, in acknowledging that we have made
in order an amendment that will allow for a debate on this issue, the
amendment of my California colleague, Barbara Lee, and he's encouraging
support for that amendment.
I understand that he's disappointed that his amendment was not made
in order. But, Madam Speaker, it's important to note that we had 243
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration of the
Defense authorization bill, and we had the challenge of trying to put
together, which happens under both Democrats and Republicans, putting
together a rule that will allow for a free-flowing debate and an
opportunity for Members to cast up-or-down votes on the issues that
relate to the Defense authorization bill.
[[Page H2831]]
And we have done just that: 142 of the 243 amendments have been made
in order; 66 percent, 66 percent of the amendments that have been made
in order have been offered by Democrats or in a bipartisan way. And so
the notion of saying somehow that the majority is not allowing for
debate on any issue, including Afghanistan, is a mischaracterization of
what this rule does.
I will say that my friend is absolutely right: this has been an
extraordinarily long war, the longest war we've faced. It's a war
that's ongoing. It's a war against radical extremism. We all know that.
People ask, What is it that is our mission in Afghanistan regularly?
And I think that as we point out what that is, to me it's obvious. It's
ensuring that neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda are in a position to
pose a threat to the United States of America and our interests and
peace-loving people around the world. That's what we are trying to
accomplish.
We all know what happened at the end of the 1980s when we saw the
demise of the Soviet Union and we saw, obviously, an effort in the
early part of the first half of the 1990s, we saw the Taliban reemerge,
and we saw threats that existed from an al Qaeda to all parts of the
world: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Nairobi, Kenya; the World Trade Center
attack in 1993. We can go through the litany of these attacks.
We have, as a goal, ensuring that the kinds of threats that we faced
never, ever happen again. That's why it is that we're there.
Now, has it worked out perfectly? Absolutely not. And we know that we
have a Nation that is war weary. I, Madam Speaker, am war weary. I want
to bring our men and women home. But at the same time, I understand why
it is that we are there; and I think, working in a bipartisan way, we
can get where we all ultimately want to be because we do share the goal
of a stable, safe, free, peaceful world. That's the reason that we, as
a Nation, have stood firmly committed to our Nation's defense
capability.
And so, Madam Speaker, I'd just like to say that this is a rule that
is not perfect, doesn't make everyone happy; but it will allow, today
and tomorrow, for us to have a free-flowing debate, move ahead with
this constitutionally very important issue of providing for our common
defense.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.)
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I can't recall in 16 years in
Congress ever speaking against a rule. By and large, I have a great
deal of respect for the fact that the majority has the right to set the
terms of debate. I understand that we cannot endlessly debate every
issue. You have to set a certain amount of parameters on it and move
forward.
{time} 1310
But this rule goes so against the principles of how we are supposed
to debate the Armed Services bill--and I've been privileged to be on
that committee for 16 years--that I have to speak against this rule. It
is not allowing us to have our position on the single most important
issue that faces our country right now on the Armed Services
Committee--the future of the war in Afghanistan. It is not allowing us
to have our position debated and voted on on the floor.
Now, I had an amendment on Afghanistan in the committee, which was
not allowed either because of sequential referral rules. The committee
gets all kinds of interesting sets of rules; and even though the base
bill had a discussion of Afghanistan policy, my amendment was not
allowed. So we said, okay, we'll have the debate on the floor. I worked
with Mr. McGovern, and I worked with a variety of others. I very
specifically told the Rules Committee that this is our amendment on
Afghanistan, and it was not allowed in order. The amendment that was
allowed in order by Ms. Lee simply says: get out. There is a huge
distance between that policy and the policy of the majority, which is:
as many troops for as long as possible. That is the position that Mr.
McGovern and I put forward. I asked the Rules Committee to rule it in
order, and they denied us the right to debate that amendment and to
vote on it.
It is the single most important issue facing our Armed Forces right
now. The minority's position was excluded from this debate. Now, I can
understand why. Close to 70 percent of the country wants us out of
Afghanistan quicker. The majority's position is: more troops in
Afghanistan for a longer period of time. Our position is quite the
opposite: get us out as soon as we responsibly can; meet those
obligations on counterterrorism, but do so without an extended troop
presence. Our position is clearly where the country is. The majority
didn't want to have to vote on that. It didn't want to have to have
that debate, so they froze out our amendment.
There are a lot of debates that when you're in the majority you'd
just as soon not have. I understand that, but that's why it's a
representative democracy, and that's why we have the rights of the
minority. That's why, particularly on the Armed Services bill, I tell
everyone that it's the most bipartisan committee in Congress.
Let me just say that my beef is not with Chairman McKeon. He has
worked with me in an open and honest manner, and he testified at the
Rules Committee that my amendment should be ruled in order, and yet it
was not.
This is a critically, critically important issue. They have denied us
the right to debate it. They have denied us the right to put our
position out on the floor, to have a debate, and to have a vote on the
war in Afghanistan, on the Armed Services bill. There is no more
important issue. They were afraid of the debate--afraid that they're on
the wrong side of the issue--so they denied the people's House the
right to debate it and to vote on it.
I can think of no greater reason to vote down a rule than that. It is
a shameful way to deal with the Armed Services Committee bill. I urge
this body to vote ``no.''
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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).
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I want to thank Mr. Bishop for his leadership on
this and on the issues of our national security.
I am here today to speak in support of this year's National Defense
Authorization Act and this rule. This bill is a reflection of the
committee's aim to both support the defense of our Nation and of our
men and women in uniform. Two provisions in this bill are of particular
interest to me. One relates to the prevention of sexual assault in the
military, and the other pertains to protecting the child custody rights
of our deployed servicemembers.
As the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, Joe Wilson
has been a steadfast advocate for these issues. His commitment is
reflected in this year's bill and in many more preceding it. I would
also like to thank his professional staff, John Chapla and Jeanette
James, who have both been instrumental in this legislation.
This year's bill contains several provisions that aim to improve
military culture and climate as it relates to sexual assault. Included
are provisions that require the disposition of sexual assault cases at
a higher level authority than is currently required. It also requires
the creation of special-victims units that specialize in the
investigation of sexual assault cases. A sexual assault advisory
council will be created, which will bring in experts to advise the
Department of Defense and their Sexual Assault and Prevention Office on
sexual assault policy. These provisions build upon the years of
bipartisan committee work.
Today's military has sustained the longest war in our country's
history and has done so with an all-volunteer
[[Page H2832]]
force. Both men and women have left their families and children at home
and have sacrificed their lives for our country in order to make the
world a better and safer place. Yet many of these same servicemembers
face the terror of sexual assault within their own ranks.
To combat this problem, we included a provision in a past National
Defense Authorization Act to establish a sexual assault prevention
office and to make victim advocates more accessible to our men and
women who are affected by this terrible crime;
We made communications between victims and advocates privileged. In
the past, these conversations could be used against them in court;
We mandated that the SAPRO director have the rank of a general
officer in order to maintain the level of authority necessary to carry
out the responsibilities inherent to the position;
We instituted a law requiring that military protective orders be made
standing orders and that civilian authorities be notified when a
military protective order is issued and affects off-base personnel;
Lastly, we have worked with the Department of Defense to create a
policy that requires a general officer review of any denial of base
transfer to victims of sexual assault.
It is our intent that these news laws empower sexual assault victims
and make the armed services a safer place for all who serve. I want to
thank Mary Lauterbach, from my community, who lost her daughter--
murdered by a fellow marine after she made a sexual assault allegation.
Another issue is of child custody. Servicemembers risk their lives in
support of contingency operations to keep our Nation safe. State courts
should not be allowed to use a servicemember's prior deployments or the
possibility of future deployments when making child custody
determinations. The provision in this bill will amend the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and protect servicemembers against this
injustice by providing national uniform standards. State laws differ on
the question of whether deployment or the potential for deployment can
be used as a criterion by courts, and many States have no laws at all.
I encourage the passage and support of this, and I thank Joe Wilson
for the inclusion of these two important provisions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to my
Republican colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
I want to start my comments with his close. As he closed with the
quoting of President Eisenhower, I would like to begin my comments by
quoting President Eisenhower. When he was leaving office, he said,
``Beware the industrial military complex.''
Madam Speaker, it doesn't make any sense when our kids are dying or
losing their legs that we're going to have a 20-minute debate on
Afghanistan. We ought to be having a full day of debate on Afghanistan,
quite frankly. We've spent $1.3 trillion in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Over 6,400 Americans have died. That's why I rise with my friend Mr.
McGovern.
I will tell you that I will vote against the rule today because it
denies the American people a full debate on why our young men and women
are dying for a corrupt leader named Karzai. Madam Speaker, we can't
even audit the books in Afghanistan. I think about the fact of those
marines I saw recently at Walter Reed over in Bethesda. Two had lost
both legs. They're from my district, Camp Lejeune. One was a lance
corporal who lost one leg.
He said to me, Congressman, why are we still in Afghanistan? I said,
Sir, I don't know. With friends from both sides, I'm trying to get you
out of Afghanistan.
But, no, we're going to stay there because we won't even take the
time to debate Afghanistan on this bill. It doesn't make any sense.
I took the McGovern amendment, and I sent it to my adviser, who is a
former commandant of the Marine Corps.
I said to him, Mr. Commandant, what do you think about this approach
by Mr. McGovern and myself? He emailed me back and said, You're on
track. Bring it up and debate it in the House.
And we can't even do that.
Let me quote a Special Operations officer in Afghanistan today--
today. He emailed this to me yesterday:
If you ask me if it's worth one American life to build
governance here in Afghanistan, I would say ``no.''
They're on the ground, Madam Speaker. They're on the ground and are
fighting for this country. This week, we lost seven American lives in
Afghanistan. We owe it to them to at least debate a realistic future
course for the war. What we are doing today and tonight and tomorrow is
not realistic because there are those in this House of Representatives,
for whatever reason, who want to stay there 15 years and 20 years.
That's why we today owe it to the men and women in uniform, to the
families who have kids who have died and, really, more so, Madam
Speaker, to the kids who came back with their legs gone.
{time} 1320
I've seen five kids at Walter Reed that have no body parts below
their waist, and they're living and they will live.
We owe it to the American people to debate the future course in
Afghanistan, and I'm sorry that many on my own side will not allow this
amendment to get to the floor so we can have an honest debate and we
can say to the American people we care about your $10 billion, we care
about your sons and daughters, and it's time to stop sending them to
give their life for nothing in Afghanistan.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule,
House Resolution 661, which allows for full and fair debate on the
National Defense Authorization Act.
Given that the Federal Government spends over half a trillion dollars
each year through contracts, the Federal procurement market is
incredibly important to small businesses. Improving small business
opportunities for Federal contractors is a triple play. Small
businesses win more contracts, workers win more jobs, and taxpayers win
because small businesses bring competition, innovation, and lower
prices to save the government money.
H.R. 4310 ensures that small businesses have greater opportunities to
compete. It increases the small business goal from 23 percent to 25
percent, which could mean up to $11 billion in new small business
contracts. It improves the quality of the Federal contracting
workforce. It cracks down on deceptive entities hiding behind small
businesses, making it easier to catch fraud and abuse. It simplifies
the rules for small businesses, and it addresses the top complaint I
hear more than anything else, which is unjustifiable contract bundling.
These reforms reflect the work of the Small Business Committee, which
held 10 hearings and two markups on these issues, and the Armed
Services Committee's own efforts to do better by small contractors.
Over 20 trade associations have offered their support to the changes.
I want to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, Mr. Shuster,
Mr. Larson and their staffs for the assistance of bringing these
provisions to the floor.
While the House is seeking ways to expand opportunities for small
businesses, the administration issued a statement opposing the bill's
modest increase in small business goals in the bill's bundling
provisions that make it easier for small businesses to compete.
Ironically, this opposition came the same day that the administration
issued a report seeking ways to move America's small businesses
forward. The best way to move small business forward is to give them
opportunities to succeed. Supporting this significant legislation will
create jobs, save taxpayer dollars, and put small businesses back to
work.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the pro-jobs, pro-
competition, and commonsense reforms in this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to
yield 4
[[Page H2833]]
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding, the
acting ranking member of the Rules Committee right now, who is a
distinguished Member of this body.
I rise in deep disappointment at the treatment he was accorded last
night. It was unworthy of this body, unworthy of the Rules Committee,
and unworthy of the character and integrity of the gentleman from
Massachusetts. I am pleased that there has been an apology for that,
but I did not want it to go unmentioned. This body is better than that;
although, at times, it is not. We ought to all lament the fact when it
is not.
Madam Speaker, the rule to consider this bill is not only unfair but
inconsistent with the majority's stated goal of having an open process.
I will quote the Speaker in just a couple of minutes.
My friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has put forward a
bipartisan amendment--and I want to commend the gentleman from North
Carolina, my Republican colleague, and I hope all Americans, Madam
Speaker, notice the courage and conviction that the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has. He was sponsoring an amendment with the
gentleman from Massachusetts, and they don't always agree. But as the
gentleman from North Carolina said: There is no more important issue
that confronts a country than sending its young men and women in harm's
way at the point of the spear.
Yes, it is to defeat terrorism and to keep America safe, but the
decision to do that and the ongoing discussion, particularly after a
decade, is certainly something the American people would expect, a
full-blown debate and airing of our continuing to keep our young people
and not-so-young people in harm's way. It is certainly germane to this
bill as it concerns our military operations in Afghanistan.
Mr. McGovern's amendment and Mr. Jones' amendment would reaffirm the
strategy laid out by the President and agreed to by the Afghan
President to transition security responsibility to Afghan forces so our
troops can come home.
Today, Al Qaeda has been forced out of Afghanistan and the Taliban is
severely weakened, objectives that I supported. Afghan forces are
taking responsibility for more and more of their country's security,
and we're making strong gains thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of
our troops whom we honor.
With tens of thousands of Americans still deployed in combat, one of
our highest priorities in this year's Defense authorization act must be
to make sure they have a strategy to complete their mission and return
home safely. We owe that to them. We owe that to their parents, their
wives, their brothers, their sisters, their nieces, their nephews, and
to all their neighbors.
Our men and women in uniform have performed everything asked of them
with courage, distinction, and professionalism. We've asked many of
them to return for tour of duty after tour of duty to one of the
world's most deadly war zones, and we owe it to all of them to have a
carefully conceived strategy. Mr. McGovern's amendment would not tie
the President's hands and would help place us in the strongest possible
position to combat terrorism around the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I understand that everybody may not agree on Mr.
McGovern's formulation, but that's what this body is for: to debate
these issues of great importance to the people and resolve them in a
democratic way.
I'm sorely disappointed that this amendment was not made in order. If
it had, I would have voted for it.
In September, Speaker Boehner, himself, said something significant.
Madam Speaker, it's important what the Speaker said, and I agree with
what the Speaker said. He said this:
I have no fear in allowing the House to work its will . . .
I've long believed in it, and I continue to believe in it.
Madam Speaker, the actions of the Rules Committee last night were
inconsistent with that conviction. Let the House work its will. Let's
have a vote on this amendment. Let us send a message to our troops that
we have an exit strategy in Afghanistan, that we'll see them safely
home with their mission accomplished.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. I want to thank Representative McGovern for his leadership
on this issue, commend Ranking Member Adam Smith of the Armed Services
Committee for his work on this amendment, and I congratulate Mr. Jones
for his courage and for his vision.
While you may disagree, you ought not to shut down alternative
opinions.
{time} 1330
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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
[[Page H2834]]
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
[[Page H2835]]
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,
[[Page H2836]]
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.
____
Laborers International Union
of North America,
Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.
Hon. Adam Smith,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn
House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Smith: On behalf of the 500,000 members
of the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA)
I would like to express our opposition to the proposal that
has been under consideration in the House Armed Services
Committee that would seriously weaken worker safety & health
protections at Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons
labs and production facilities. This provision would transfer
worker safety & health responsibilities from the DOE's Office
of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) to the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) and shift these programs to
``performance-based'' oversight. This move would effectively
eliminate current health and safety standards that impose
fines and penalties for violations.
The safety & health of workers is one of LIUNA's highest
priorities. As you know, the work our members perform at
these facilities is, by its very nature, inherently dangerous
and requires the highest possible level of care and
protection. The current program, which this legislation would
destroy, has been developed through years of collaborative
work with successive Administrations and has been integrated
into the work culture at the DOE facilities.
By requiring only ``performance standards'' instead of
those that are currently in place, the legislation would
substitute existing DOE standards with those of Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Unfortunately, OSHA
does not have standards that are appropriate for many DOE
operations which could endanger our members. In some critical
cases DOE's standards are much more stringent than OSHA,
especially with respect to the standard for Beryllium. The
existing DOE programs have been accepted by the workforce and
are essential to a safe and productive workplace.
To disrupt the HSS safety & health program by transferring
it to NNSA is an attack on the men and women who do the
dangerous work at these facilities. These workers deserve
more protections not less. I urge you to reject this ill
advised change.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Terry O'Sullivan,
General President.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2013.
As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, there are many aspects of
this bill that are commendable. First of all, from a Navy point of
view, we are maintaining the cadence of building two fast-attack boats
every year. That has significant implications relative to our
industrial base. Likewise, we are going to be building two destroyers a
year, so we have made some changes to the President's budget there.
We're also requiring that the Navy keeps at least 12 ballistic missile
submarines that are an important leg of our triad.
I would also call attention to a couple of amendments that I have
offered. The first is that we have worked with information that we've
gotten from overseas on the evacuation procedures that are being done
and the speed with which our sons and daughters are being picked up on
the battlefield. There is nothing wrong with the great people who are
working the medevacs. We are concerned with DOD policy, however--that
that policy may be resulting in unnecessary delays.
Secondly, this bill contains an amendment that I offered to protect
First Amendment rights of people in the service and chaplains, in
particular. Unfortunately, it seems that this is against what the White
House, many Democrats, and The New York Times all seem to want. The
heart of the amendment is to say that if you are a chaplain, you are
not going to be forced to perform ceremonies that you think are wrong.
It protects what we call ``free speech,'' the First Amendment, and also
the right of religious freedom. It does the same thing for our
servicemembers.
And it seems ironic that there is opposition to affording First
Amendment rights to our sons and daughters who are fighting for our
First Amendment rights. So this seems like it should be very
noncontroversial, allowing people to follow the dictates of their own
conscience. But it seems to be meeting stiff resistance, nonetheless.
Lastly, I wanted to make sure that in this bill, we make absolutely
clear that there's nothing in this bill which gets in the way of our
habeas corpus rights in America and that no American citizen can be
unlawfully detained, and that the right of habeas corpus, as a
constitutional right, is in no way abridged by this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.)
Mr. GARAMENDI. This morning in California, in Marysville, a young
soldier will be laid to rest, one of many. The most important issue
facing this Nation--the Afghanistan war--continues on. We have 10
minutes to debate our view of how that should end.
Ranking Member Smith proposed in committee an amendment that would
rationally bring down and end this war. He was refused the
opportunity--the ranking member, refused the opportunity to even be
heard in committee.
And now we are faced with the language in the bill that extends this
war indefinitely at a cost this year of $88 billion and at the same
level interminably into the future. This deserves a robust debate. What
is the role of America in Afghanistan? How long are we to continue
there? Unfortunately, that debate is truncated and will be terminated
by the majority in an unsuccessful way that extends the war. Why would
we do that? Apparently for reasons that are not understood.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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).
Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
As a Small Business subcommittee chairman, I know how important small
businesses are to the future of our great Nation. They are the engine
of this economy and the key to pulling America out of this economic
recession.
But, Madam Speaker, small businesses are also vital to our armed
services. Over $500 billion in Federal contracts are awarded each year,
and 70 percent of those dollars are awarded by the Department of
Defense. It is vital for taxpayers and the military that small
businesses compete for these contracts. Small business entrepreneurship
will provide our brave servicemen and -women with the equipment that
will best enable them to defend this country and our families.
It is clear that the Armed Services Committee shares this dedication
to small businesses. I am proud that they have chosen to include the
bipartisan Small Business Protection Act in the NDAA. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and I introduced the Small Business
Protection Act to guarantee that American small businesses are not
driven out of the competition for government contracts.
I cannot stress enough the vital role American small businesses play
in the success of our military and the future
[[Page H2837]]
of our country. It is imperative that my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle come together and support American entrepreneurship and small
business.
{time} 1340
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
There's one agency of the Federal Government that has never been
audited--and is unauditable. It happens to be the Department of
Defense.
Last year, Representative Garrett and I snuck up on them with a
little amendment in the appropriations bill to require an audit of the
Pentagon. It's not too much to ask when they spend $600 billion a year,
none of which they can meaningfully account for according to the GAO.
They can't reconcile their books. It was stripped out in the conference
committee. Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire got one in the
authorization bill. It was stripped out in the conference committee.
Now this time they're acting proactively. They're prohibiting us from
bringing an amendment to the floor of the House that would require--and
we're letting up on them a little bit--that 3 years from now the
Department of Defense--that's $1.8 trillion from now--should have to
pass an audit. And they're saying no, no, no, no. They can't be
required to do an audit until they spend $3.6 trillion in the year
2017.
This is an abuse of the American taxpayer and an abuse of our
servicemen and -women. The waste that goes on at the Pentagon has to
stop. We need a meaningful audit.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Well-known as ``Military City,'' San Antonio has
accomplished a traumatic but successful conversion of Kelly and Brooks
Air Force Bases. Now the Pentagon is recommending that we have another
round of closures. Let's first guarantee that we apply the same
rigorous base review standards to military facilities outside the
United States as would apply inside the United States.
Today, I offer an amendment acceptable to the committee, similar to
the approach recommended by Senators Tester and Hutchison that requires
the Department of Defense to thoroughly examine the potential benefits
and savings realized by closing outdated or excess overseas military
bases. Both the Government Accountability Office and Congressional
Budget Office say that maintaining these facilities overseas is far
more expensive than our stateside operations. So while many of the 585
military bases that we have around the world may be necessary, let's
ensure that the Department thoroughly scrutinizes each of them and
verifies that each is essential to our national defense. This was not
done adequately in the last round.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and ensure that the
Pentagon carefully considers the cost of these overseas installations.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
It is a failure when Congress will not allow debate on the most
important issue in this bill, and that is the policy in Afghanistan.
Congress has been failing the American people. We haven't paid for
that war. We haven't even debated how to pay for that war. It's been on
the credit card for 10 years--over a trillion dollars. And by refusing
to allow us to debate the McGovern amendment, which is about the
policy, we now won't even debate the policy. So we don't pay for it and
we don't even debate the wisdom of the policy. That's a grave mistake.
The reality is the war in Afghanistan is over. It's time for Congress
to end it. The President has set a date: 2014. What's magic about that?
The Afghans have to step up and assume responsibility for their
future, and we have to have a debate as to whether or not we should
bring those troops home sooner than 2014. We owe it to the American
taxpayer; we owe it to the American men and women who are serving, and
we owe it to our own responsibility to debate the important public
issues of our time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. To start the war in Iraq, Congress was lied to. To
start the war in Afghanistan, Congress was misled. To start the war in
Libya, Congress was ignored. To start the war in Iran, language has
been hidden in the NDAA.
The NDAA prepares for war against Iran. It is a declaration of
policy, which includes military action. It has a plan to pre-position
aircraft, munitions, and fuel for air- and sea-based mission. It has a
plan for maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region to launch a
sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and
military targets. This bill prepares for war.
Some will say, Well, it doesn't authorize for war. This bill prepares
for war. Even if it's amended, it prepares for war. And we need to vote
this bill down because it prepares for a war with Iran, which would be
devastating to this country's interests.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Lodged in between our commemoration of
Memorial Day and our fallen loved ones and heroes and Flag Day, which
we stand proudly to wave the flag, I really stand here as a friend that
is deeply saddened by something that I think has never occurred, and
that is to allow Americans, through the McGovern-Smith amendment, to
really speak to all of our Members.
And I think America would agree: None of us should be challenged with
our patriotism. But if we raise the question of what are the next steps
in Afghanistan, it is not a diminishing of the service of our men and
women. It is not the eliminating of our responsibility to be able to
assure the safety and security of the Afghan people. It is to allow
Members of Congress to represent their constituents on both sides of
the aisle to raise the question: What are the next steps and how will
we bring our troops home safely?
This amendment should be allowed to be discussed, just as we're
discussing the potential removal and where we are eliminating the
language and the ability to remove citizens and to hold them
indefinitely.
It is the American way, Madam Speaker. I beg of us to do this in a
bipartisan way and to allow the McGovern-Smith amendment to go forward.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support my amendment to H.R. 4310 ``National
Defense Authorization Act,'' which would require the Secretary of
Defense prior to the awarding of defense contract to private
contractors, to conduct an assessment to determine whether or not the
Department of Defense has carried out sufficient outreach programs to
include minority and women-owned small business.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that
promotes diversity. I stand proudly before you today to call for
renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective policies that
will make the United States the most talented, diverse, effective, and
powerful workforce in an increasingly globalized economy.
This amendment will require the Department of Defense to consider the
impact that changes to outsourcing guidelines will have on small
minority and women owned business by requiring them to engage with
these businesses.
Promoting diversity is more than just an idea it requires an
understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure
the inclusion of minorities and women in all areas of American life.
Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they
represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent
of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and
provide three out of four new jobs in this country.
Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to
keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to
loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their
businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services.
The Small Business Administration, SBA, a federal organization that
aids small businesses
[[Page H2838]]
with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to
small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent
of all long-term small business borrowing in America.
I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize
their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development
programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's
Business Center programs.
These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas,
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
My amendment would require the Department of Defense to assess
whether their outreach programs are sufficient prior to awarding
contracts. The Department of Defense should investigate what impact
their regulations have on minority and women owned small businesses.
Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from California, the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
his leadership year in and year out to clarify what our mission is and
to make sure that we honor our troops--and ``honor them'' means not
having them stay in harm's way any longer than is necessary for our
national security.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I do so
with some level of sadness; because when we're talking about the
defense of our country and the oath we take to protect and defend the
Constitution, I would have hoped, under this bill, we could have had,
on the floor, the appropriate discussion of what is happening in
Afghanistan.
I rise today, just having returned with a bipartisan, all-women
congressional delegation to Afghanistan. It's our traditional Mother's
Day visit to our troops who are there in combat. We've recently been
going to Afghanistan, and Iraq before that. The purpose of the trip
this time was to have a conversation with the President of Afghanistan,
President Karzai, as the first congressional delegation into
Afghanistan following the signing of the Strategic Partnership
Agreement between President Obama and President Karzai.
But our main purpose of the trip was to visit our troops and to thank
them for their service and their sacrifice to keep America's families
safe on Mother's Day and every day in the year. The further purpose was
to thank, in particular, our women who are in service there--other
mothers in combat and, believe it or not, our grandmothers who are in
the war zone.
We met a Mom who has a baby that is just 16 weeks old. I had the
honor of pinning a ribbon on a newly appointed woman captain who has
six children, age 4 to 14, in the 10th month of her 1-year deployment
in Afghanistan.
Our women in the military serve our country very well. They
strengthen our national security. We are grateful to them and their
families, and we are grateful to all of our men and women in uniform.
{time} 1350
They are the 1 percent that we should care the most about and focus
on. You hear a great deal about the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Well,
this 1 percent is less than 1 percent of our men and women in uniform,
a little higher than that, when they come home. What we say in the
military is on the battlefield, we leave no soldier behind. And when
they come home, leave no veteran behind. We will be meeting with our
veteran service organizations today as this bill is being debated.
So I wish that the rule would have allowed for the consideration of
the McGovern amendment. I was surprised, frankly; and I'm rarely
surprised around here. But I was surprised that that discussion could
not take place on this floor in the form of approving that amendment
because it is in furtherance of what is happening in the strategic
partnership.
I can tell you this on the basis of our trip, and we have to be
careful when we return as congressional delegations from a trip that we
don't read too much into our own observations, but what we did hear
that was different from before, going every year, is that our troops'
leadership is fabulous. General Allen is so great, as are the other
generals and commanders who serve with him. They are preparing for the
timetable spelled out in the President's strategic partnership
agreement signed by the two Presidents.
On the civilian front and what we are doing with USAID and our
Americans who are serving there, as well as the coalition forces and
friends who are helping in Afghanistan, are working along the path of
this strategic partnership, and then the civilian part to go beyond
that.
So, really, I come home more encouraged than ever that it is possible
for us to accomplish our mission, which is the protection of the
American people, to do so in a way as it comes to an end. And it is
never over, our protection of the American people is an endless
commitment, but at least the commitment of that many troops on the
ground in that country is one that we can say that soon we will bring
our troops home safely. And that hopefully will be soon.
So the timetable that Mr. McGovern has in his amendment is in sync
with what that partnership is. There is other language in the bill
which I think, frankly, confuses the issue; and that is why the clarity
of debate would have been helpful.
I am glad that the amendment by Mr. Smith, the ranking member, which
is a bipartisan amendment, will be able to come to the floor. It
addresses the detention issue, and we will have a fuller discussion of
that when that amendment comes to the floor. But to recall, President
Obama, when he signed last year's bill, did a signing statement that
said that he would not enforce that part of the bill. Hopefully, today,
we can remove that part of the bill because it flies in the face of our
commitment to protect the American people and to have the proper
balance between security and liberty and freedom. And that is our
responsibility.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, to vote ``no''
on moving the previous question unless we can take up the McGovern
amendment. And, again, I salute the President for the strategic
partnership agreement. But most of all, I support our men and women in
uniform and their families for their service, their sacrifice, and
their patriotism for our country.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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
[[Page H2839]]
extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question. I urge my Republican colleagues to join
with us in a bipartisan way to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
we can have a real debate on Afghanistan. That's what your constituents
want; that's what we should have here. And barring that, Madam Speaker,
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
{time} 1400
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.
[[Page H2840]]
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters:
Building and Construction
Trades Department--AFL CIO
Washington, DC, May 4, 2012.
Rep. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn HOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The House Armed Services Committee has
adopted legislation that would seriously weaken worker safety
& health protections at Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear
weapons complex. The legislation would not only transfer
worker safety & health responsibilities from the DOE's Office
of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) to the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), but would also shift the
entire safety & health program to ``performance-based''
oversight thereby effectively eliminating current health and
safety standards that impose fines and penalties for
violations. This would be a terrible mistake and we are
strongly opposed to any such tinkering with the lives of our
many members working at these facilities.
For years the BCTD has made the safety & health of these
workers one of our highest priorities. We have worked with
successive Administrations to develop the current program
that the proposed legislation would now effectively destroy.
As you might imagine the work that our members perform at
these facilities is, by its very nature, inherently dangerous
and requires the highest possible level of care and
protection.
According to a recent report by the Project on Government
Oversight; unlike the private sector, nuclear weapons
facilities are ultra-hazardous, have very large radioactive
waste legacies, excess cancer and beryllium disease among its
employees, a long history of safety problems, and contractor
mismanagement enabled by self-regulation. For more than 20
years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has listed
DOE's nuclear weapons program on its high risk list of
programs most vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.
By eliminating the role of the DOE's HSS for oversight and
enforcement of safety & health and requiring only performance
standards, the legislation would substitute existing DOE
standards with those of OSHA. In some critical cases DOE's
standards are more stringent than OSHA especially with
respect to the standard for Beryllium that this change would
eliminate. DOE's Beryllium worker exposure standard is 10
times as protective as federal OSHA's. The legislation would
now turn over Beryllium protection to the tender mercies of
the National Laboratories and other DOE contractors even
though, in 2010, DOE fined the Livermore Lab (LLNL) some
$200,000 for a series of Beryllium violations.
Moreover, the bill eliminates the ALARA radiation exposure
standard (As Low As (is) Reasonably Achievable) and reverts
back to a worker radiation concept used 40 years ago called
ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable); a time when workers
were exposed to outrageous levels of radiation. This is
completely unacceptable, and our members at the weapons
facilities will simply not stand for it.
Since its creation, we have worked closely with HSS in
developing its worker safety & health program including the
Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program and ALARA
radiation exposure standard that have been integrated into
the work culture at the DOE facilities. These programs have
been accepted by the workforce and are essential to a safe
and more productive workplace.
To now seek to disrupt the HSS safety & health program by
transferring it to NNSA and weakening the current standards
of protection makes no sense. Other than to satisfy the
demands of the National Laboratories and contractors, there
is little or no justification for this proposal and we appeal
to you to stop it. The health, safety and lives of the men
and women who do the dangerous work at these facilities
demand no less.
Sincerely,
Sean McGarvey,
President.
____
Metal Trades Department,
AFL CIO,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2012.
Representative Adam Smith,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Armed Services, Rayburn
House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Smith: The House Armed Services
Committee has recently proposed legislation that would
seriously weaken worker safety and health protections at
Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex.
The legislation proposes to transfer worker safety and
health responsibilities from the DOE's Office of Health,
Safety and Security (HSS) to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) and would also shift the entire safety
and health program to ``performance-based'' oversight thereby
effectively eliminating current health and safety standards
that impose fines and penalties for violations.
The House bill limits the occupational safety and health
standards that may be applied to the NNSA facilities to those
promulgated under section 6 of the OSHAct. This not only
excludes stronger protections afforded by DOE rules, it also
excludes protections provided under OSHA regulations issued
under section 8 of the OSHAct. These regulations include the
OSHA 1904 recordkeeping rules, the 1977 regulations on anti-
retaliation and the 1903 inspection rules which set out the
rights of workers and unions to participate in inspections.
We are strongly opposed to these changes. It would endanger
the lives of the many members we have working at these
facilities.
For years, the Metal Trades Department has made the safety
and health of our nuclear workers a top priority. As you
might imagine the work that our members perform at these
facilities is, by its very nature, inherently dangerous and
requires the highest possible level of care and protection
and it has taken us years of work with past Administrations
to develop the current safety and health program that this
legislation would destroy.
According to a recent report by the Project on Government
Oversight, unlike the private sector, nuclear weapons
facilities are ultra-hazardous, have very large radioactive
waste legacies, excess cancer and beryllium disease among its
employees, a long history of safety problems, and contractor
mismanagement enabled by self-regulation. For more than 20
years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has listed
DOE's nuclear weapons program on its high-risk list of
programs most vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.
By eliminating the role of the DOE's HSS for oversight and
enforcement of safety and health and requiring only
performance standards, the legislation would substitute
existing DOE standards with those of OSHA. In critical cases,
DOE's standards are more stringent than OSHA especially with
respect to the standard for Beryllium that this change would
eliminate. DOE's Beryllium worker exposure standard is 10
times as protective as federal OSHA's. The legislation would
now turn over Beryllium protection to the tender mercies of
the National Laboratories even though, in 2010, DOE fined the
Livermore Lab (LLNL) $200,000 for a series of Beryllium
violations including:
Failure to identify and inventory beryllium contamination
facilities to control worker exposures to beryllium;
Failure to perform hazard assessments for buildings
identified in the beryllium baseline inventory;
Failure to implement proper hazard control and prevention
measures to eliminate or abate the hazards associated
beryllium;
Failure to ensure that potential airborne beryllium
exposures were accurately measured;
Failure to control materials and equipment located in
beryllium contaminated work areas;
Failure to evaluate cases of beryllium sensitization and to
identify workgroups at increased risk of chronic beryllium
disease; and,
Failure to effectively train employees to perform work
within beryllium contaminated areas.
Since its creation, we have worked closely with HSS in
developing its worker safety and health program including the
Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program that have been
integrated into the work culture at the DOE facilities. These
programs have been accepted by the workforce and are
essential to a safe and more productive workplace.
Transferring the current safety and health program to NNSA
is a terrible decision and it's unjustified. The health,
safety and lives of the men and women who do the dangerous
work at these facilities depend on you to stop this proposal.
Sincerely
Ronald E. Ault,
President.
____
The National Treasury
Employees Union,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2012.
Dear Representative: The National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU) represents employees at the Department of Energy (DOE)
including those in the Office of Health, Safety and Security
(HSS) that enforce health and safety rules at DOE nuclear
weapons facilities. NTEU is strongly opposed to a provision
negatively impacting worker health and safety at these
facilities included in Title XXXI of the National Defense
Authorization Act as reported by the House Armed Services
Committee. We understand that an amendment has been filed by
Representative George Miller to modify that section. We ask
that the Miller Amendment be made in order by the Rules
Committee.
Section 3113 and 3115 of Title XXXI in the bill would
severely weaken worker health and safety protection at DOE
nuclear weapons facilities. It would transfer worker safety
and health responsibilities from DOE's Office of Health,
Safety and Security (HSS) to the National Nuclear Security
Administration, while eliminating the current standards that
impose fines and penalties for violations. The work done at
these facilities is extremely hazardous and there is a long
history of safety problems. Given this work involves the most
dangerous substances and weapons in the world, it is probably
the last workplace that should see reduced health and safety
standards and inspections.
The employees of the Office of Health, Safety and Security
are uniquely skilled, trained and experienced at protecting
worker life and health at these facilities. Transferring
their functions to bureaus without such experience or
expertise would be a reckless act and endanger those
employees that serve our country's defense in these
facilities.
I appreciate your consideration of our views on this
important worker health and safety issue. If you or your
staff have any
[[Page H2841]]
further questions, please feel free to contact Kurt Vorndran
at 202.572.5560 or [email protected]. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
Ms. WOOLSEY. 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
[[Page H2842]]
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 [email protected].
Sincerely,
Angela Canterbury,
Director of Public Policy.
Ms. FUDGE. Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letter:
Pittsburgh, PA, May 8, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: On behalf of the United Steelworkers
(USW) union, I write to express our strong concern with
language included in the House Armed Services Committee's
FY13 National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA). As we
understand it, the language will necessitate a change of
worker health and safety enforcement at Department of Energy
(DOE) weapons complex sites from the DOE's office of Health,
Safety and Security (HSS) to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). In addition, this legislation would
shift the entire safety and health structure to performance-
based oversight based on Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards. Performance-based oversight
effectively eliminates the current DOE specific health and
safety standards that provide the means for protections to be
implemented at these facilities and also removes the
enforcement mechanisms that are vital to ensure worker and
public safety.
The USW represents workers at several DOE facilities. Our
members at these sites are exposed to a variety of
radioactive and toxic materials. Many of the operations of
these facilities are completely unique to the DOE. These
unique hazards have resulted in specific worker safety orders
being issued to provide requirements for the contractors to
follow, and for the workers to understand proper workplace
protections.
Some of the protections that will be stripped from workers
are those included in DOE Order 850. DOE Order 850 provides
specific worker protections for exposure to beryllium.
Beryllium is an extremely toxic and dangerous compound. It
causes a devastating lung disorder called chronic beryllium
disease. The DOE Order is significantly better than the
current standard for beryllium from OSHA including an
exposure limit that is 10 times less than OSHA's. The OSHA
standard for beryllium was adopted in 1970; the beryllium
industry itself acknowledges that it is woefully inadequate.
In contrast, the DOE beryllium standard is far more
protective. Another example is the DOE's Order 851, which
requires the sites to have defined, proactive safety and
health programs. There is no equivalent OSHA rule. Most
important, the DOE can order a contractor to correct a hazard
immediately. OSHA can do so only in the most extreme cases.
An employer who contests an OSHA citation can delay abatement
until he or she exhausts every appeal up to the U.S. Supreme
Court, a process that can take years.
We are also extremely concerned with the consequences this
legislation would have on worker radiation safety. The
current standard within the DOE is to provide protections to
workers that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
This legislation would strip away the gains in radiation
safety that have been made over the past half century and
instead implement lesser protections that are as low as
reasonably practicable (ALARP). We know that ALARP
protections will increase the radiation exposure to workers
in these facilities. This will result in today's workers
being our next generation of occupational disease victims.
We urge you to remove this language from the FY13 NDAA as
it will serve to weaken critical health and safety protection
for workers. We stand ready to meet with you or other members
of the committee to explore this matter further and provide
information from the USW as a stakeholder in this process.
Sincerely,
Leo W. Gerard,
International President.
____
Alliance of
Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups,
May 14, 2012.
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives,
Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon: The Alliance of Nuclear Worker
Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) has learned that language is included
in the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA)
that will reduce the protection of workers exposed to
radiological hazards from the current standard of ``as low as
reasonably achievable'' (ALARA) to ``as low as reasonably
practicable'' (ALARP). This amendment also allows the
protection standard for other hazards to meet the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's instead of
the current policies implemented by the Department of Energy
(DOE). This language is not acceptable.
ANWAG monitors the implementation of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as
amended, (EEOICPA) and advocates for the workers and families
under EEOICPA who were damaged performing nuclear weapons
work. EEOICPA was legislated in part because employees of the
DOE's nuclear weapons facilities contractors placed those
workers in harm's way by not providing adequate protection to
their daily exposure of the unique toxic brew of potentially
hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials present at
those facilities. In fact, Congress found,
Sec. 7384. Findings; sense of Congress
(a)Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Since World War II, Federal nuclear activities have
been explicitly recognized under Federal law as activities
that are ultra-hazardous. Nuclear weapons production and
testing have involved unique dangers, including potential
catastrophic nuclear accidents that private insurance
carriers have not covered and recurring exposures to
radioactive substances and beryllium that, even in small
amounts, can cause medical harm.
(2) Since the inception of the nuclear weapons program and
for several decades afterwards, a large number of nuclear
weapons workers at sites of the Department of Energy (DOE)
and at sites of vendors who supplied the Cold War effort were
put at risk without their knowledge and consent for reasons
that, documents reveal, were driven by fears of adverse
publicity, liability, and employee demands for hazardous duty
pay.
(3) Many previously secret records have documented
unmonitored exposures to radiation and beryllium and
continuing problems at these sites across the Nation, at
which the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies
have been, since World War II, self-regulating with respect
to nuclear safety and occupational safety and health. No
other hazardous Federal activity has been permitted to be
carried out under such sweeping powers of self-regulation.
Substantial costs now being incurred are an undeniable
consequence of the negligence in the past. Does Congress want
to repeat the mistakes made 60, 40, even 20 years ago?
ANWAG fears that if this language remains in the NDAA the
workplace environment at the nuclear weapons facilities will
revert back to the ``profit over protection'' philosophy.
This would result in, once again, workers needlessly placed
in harm's way. Great strides have been taken by DOE to better
protect their workers from exposure to radiation and chemical
hazards, such as exposure to beryllium. While immediate
radiological illnesses are not anticipated with this proposed
change in the protection standard, it is known that the
effects from long term low dose exposure to ionizing
radiation produces serious and sometimes fatal illnesses
after a lengthy latency period.
It is unconscionable that the current dedicated and
patriotic workforce would be unnecessarily exposed and
subjected to increased hazards because of this proposed
change in protection standards. Knowledge of the serious pain
and suffering incurred by the workers through lax policies of
the past should lead any ethical politician to vote to
protect the life and health of these nuclear weapons workers.
ANWAG urges you to keep these workers safe by deleting this
language from NDAA. Do not consider language which will
increase the possibility that these workers could contract
debilitating and sometimes fatal diseases. Do not let the
families of these workers share in the nightmare of watching
their loved one die from a disease that could have been
prevented if the worker had the proper protection.
If you require further information on the history of
EEOICPA and its implementation, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups: Harry
Williams, ANWAG Founding Member; Terrie Barrie, ANWAG
Founding Member; Scott Yundt, Staff Attorney, Tri-
Valley CAREs; Paul Mullens, Union Local #5 689; Deb
Jerison, Director, Energy Employees Claimant Assistance
Project; Faye Vlieger, Advisory Committee Member, Cold
War Patriots; David M. Manuta, Ph.D., FAIC, President,
Manuta Chemical Consulting, Inc; D'Laine Blaze,
TheAeroSpace.org; Laura Schultz, President, Rocky Flats
Support Group; Jan Lovelace, Advocate, ORNL
Firefighters; Ann Suellentrop, MSRN, Kansas City
Physicians for Social Responsibility; Dr. Kathleen
Burns, Director, Sciencecorps.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters:
May 9, 2012.
Re Workers and Nuclear Safety Protection in the Department of
Energy FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (HR
4310).
Hon. Howard McKeon,
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives Washington, DC.
Hon. Adam Smith,
Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith: On behalf of
the Communications Workers of America (CWA), I write to
express CWA's strong concern with language
[[Page H2843]]
included in the House Armed Services Committee's FY 2013
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As introduced, key
sections of Title XXXI of the NDAA will weaken worker and
nuclear safety protections for affected employees and
community members living near facilities operated by the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Section 3115 of the proposed legislation will transfer
responsibilities for worker safety and health enforcement at
DOE weapons complex sites from the DOE's Office of Health,
Safety and Security to the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Unfortunately, this will result in
worker safety standards being limited to those issued under
Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
Further, nuclear facility safety would be based upon ensuring
the safety and health of workers of NNSA and its contractors-
as well as the general public- are as low as practicable (as
opposed to achievable) and that adequate protection is
provided. This new standard will provide a lower level of
protection than that used by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for commercial nuclear power plants. As such, this
weakening of workplace and worker safety and health
protections will result in today's workers becoming the next
generation of occupational disease victims.
Under the legislation, there would be a drastic shift in
the entire safety and health structure to a performance-based
oversight system based on Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards. Such performance-based
oversight will effectively eliminate the current DOE-specific
safety and health standards that provide the means for
adequate safety and health protections to be implemented at
covered facilities and remove the enforcement mechanisms
vital to ensuring worker and public safety. This change
represents a dramatic shift towards contractor self-
regulation and all but eliminates the government's role in
ensuring the protection of workers and members of the public.
CWA represents several thousand workers at three of the
targeted facilities, i.e., Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory, and Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Our members at these facilities
are exposed to a variety of radioactive and toxic materials.
Many work operations at these facilities are unique to the
DOE resulting in the issuance of specific worker safety
orders setting requirements for contractors to follow and
providing guidance helping workers to understand proper
workplace protections.
As noted, the proposed legislation would eliminate such DOE
safety orders including important provisions of DOE Order 850
which provides specific worker protections for beryllium
exposure. Beryllium is an extremely toxic, life-threatening
compound which causes a devastating lung disorder--Chronic
Beryllium Disease. Further, the DOE Order provides
significantly more protection than the OSHA beryllium
standard--including an exposure limit which is ten times less
than the OSHA standard.
In addition, the harmful legislation would eliminate
coverage of DOE Order 851 which requires DOE facilities to
have defined, proactive safety and health programs.
(Unfortunately, there is no equivalent OSHA rule); eliminate
DOE's current authority to order an employer to immediately
correct a workplace hazard. (OSHA has limited authority to
require such action of employers); and, as provided in the
OSHAct, allow employers to delay workplace hazard abatement
until lengthy legal procedures/appeals are exhausted.
CWA urges you to reject HR 4310 and any other efforts to
weaken critical safety and health protections for DOE
workers. As a stakeholder in this process, we are prepared to
meet with you and/or other members of the committee to
further explore and discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Shane Larson,
Legislative Director,
Communications Workers of America.
____
May 16, 2012.
To: House Military Staff
From: Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
Subject: Protect Nuclear Safety Oversight--Support Miller-
Visclosky-Sanchez Amendment to FY13 National Defense
Authorization Act
The House Armed Services Committee mark of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contains several provisions
that, if enacted, will adversely affect safety oversight at
nuclear weapons facilities. Representatives Miller,
Visclosky, and Sanchez are wisely offering an amendment to
strike these provisions. Please support this important
amendment that would protect workers at and communities
surrounding nuclear weapons facilities.
These onerous provisions include:
Moving away from the ``adequate protection standard'' that
has been the cornerstone of nuclear safety oversight for over
25 years.
Moving away from the existing ``transactional'' model of
oversight to the more reactionary ``performance-based''
model.
Removing independence from nuclear weapons oversight,
making all oversight agencies subservient to the
Undersecretary for Nuclear Security.
Adding layers of unnecessary bureaucracy to the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
If these provisions are included in the final NDAA, our
nuclear safety will be significantly imperiled.
Talking Points:
This bill would overturn the ``adequate protection
standard'' that has guided nuclear safety oversight for over
two decades. The adequate protection standard has been
defined through legal precedent as not allowing cost
considerations to impact safety recommendations. This
standard would be muddled by a new ``low as reasonably
practicable'' standard, an imprecise measure undefined by
statute and almost certain to favor cost-cutting measures
over public safety.
The NDAA would mandate that ``performance-based oversight''
replace ``transactional oversight'' for regulators. Right now
nuclear oversight is ``transactional'', meaning that it
prescribes best practices for contractors to follow in the
hopes of avoiding an accident. ``Performance-based''
oversight is the style used by the National Transportation
Safety Board, which would only investigate an airline's
safety procedures after a plane crash, based on an airline's
performance.
The NDAA would degrade the independent nature of oversight
organizations such as the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board (DNFSB) and OSHA. The bill would make these previously
independent agencies subservient to the head of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) while conducting
oversight activities. The stunning thing about this is that
the NNSA is already free to disregard advice offered by
agencies such as the DNFSB. The NDAA's new requirement would
go further and allow the Undersecretary for Nuclear Security
to directly interfere in investigations.
By enshrining contractors' role in determining how to
achieve safety standards, the NDAA moves closer to allowing
our nation's nuclear weapons labs to oversee themselves. The
bottom line for these contractors is profit, not community or
worker safety and they require appropriate oversight. We saw
the result in Fukushima, Japan when nuclear oversight took a
backseat to profits.
There is no reason to saddle the DNFSB with additional
reporting and staffing requirements. DNFSB members are all
appointed for their technical expertise and have a dedicated
staff at their disposal; there is no reason to require that
all Board members employ personal technical assistants or to
micro-manage how information is communicated to and among
Board members.
The Board should maintain primary responsibility for
technical safety evaluations, allowing the Department of
Energy to decide how best to implement DNFSB recommendations.
Cost should not be the primary factor driving safety
measures, the DNFSB should base its decisions on science and
what's best for workers and communities. It should be the
NNSA's responsibility to consider cost restrictions and
determine implementation steps.
Thank you,
Katherine Fuchs, Program Director, Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability (NM, SC, DC); Roger Herried, Abalone
Alliance Clearinghouse (CA); Katie Heald, Coordinator,
Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World (CA); Renee
Nelson, President, Clean Water and Air Matter (CA);
Mark Donham, Coordinator, Coalition for Health Concerns
(IL); Bob Kinsey, Co-Chair, Colorado Coalition for the
Prevention of Nuclear War (CO); Joni Arends, Executive
Director, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (NM);
Gar Smith, Co-Founder, Environmentalists Against War
(CA); Lisa Crawford, President, Fernald Residents for
Environmental Safety and Health (OH); David Culp,
Legislative Representative, Friends Committee on
National Legislation (PA, DC); Jean Mcmahon, National
Committee Delegate, Green Party of Oklahoma (OK); Tom
Carpenter, Executive Director, Hanford Challenge (WA);
Gerry Pollet, JD, Executive Director, Heart of America
Northwest (WA); Donald B. Clark, Network for
Environmental & Economic, Responsibility--United Church
of Christ (TN); Rick Wayman, Program Director, Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation (CA); Ralph Hutchison,
Coordinator, Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
(TN); Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action
Education Fund (MD); Jon Rainwater, Executive Director,
Peace Action West (CA); Jerry Stein, Coordinator, Peace
Farm (TX); Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director,
Physicians for Social Responsibility (DC); Ann
Suellentrop, R.N., President, Kansas City Physicians
for Social Responsibility (MO); Robert Gould,
President, San Francisco-Bay Area Physicians for Social
Responsibility (CA); Lewis E. Patrie, M.D, M.P.H.,
Western North Carolina Physicians for Social (NC); Jay
Coghlan, Executive Director, Nuclear Watch New Mexico
(NM); Glenn Carroll, Coordinator, Nuclear Watch South
(GA); Gene Stone, Coordinator, Residents Organized for
a Safe Environment (CA); Judith Mohling, Coordinator,
Nuclear Nexus Project, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Center (CO); Linda Seeley, Vice President, San Luis
Obispo Mothers for Peace (CA); Liz Woodruff, Executive
Director, Snake River Alliance (ID); Don Hancock,
Director, Nuclear
[[Page H2844]]
Waste Safety Program, Southwest Research and
Information Center (NM); Marylia Kelley, Executive
Director, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive
Environment (CA); Kathy Crandall-Robinson, Public
Policy Director, Women's Action for New Directions (MA,
DC); Bobbie Paul, Executive Director, Georgia Women's
Action for New Directions (GA).
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 661 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 6 shall be in
order as though printed as the last amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
McGovern of Massachusetts or a designee. That amendment shall
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 6. The amendment referred to in section 5 is as
follows:
Strike section 1216 and insert the following:
SEC. 1216. COMPLETION OF ACCELERATED TRANSITION OF UNITED
STATES COMBAT AND MILITARY AND SECURITY
OPERATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN.
(a) In General.--In coordination with the Government of
Afghanistan, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member
countries, and other allies in Afghanistan, the President
shall--
(1) complete the accelerated transition of United States
combat operations to the Government of Afghanistan by not
later than December 31, 2013;
(2) complete the accelerated transition of United States
military and security operations to the Government of
Afghanistan and redeploy United States Armed Forces from
Afghanistan (including operations involving military and
security-related contractors) by not later than December 31,
2014; and
(3) pursue robust negotiations leading to a political
settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in
Afghanistan, to include the Government of Afghanistan, all
interested parties within Afghanistan and with the observance
and support of representatives of donor nations active in
Afghanistan and regional governments and partners in order to
secure a secure and independent Afghanistan and regional
security and stability.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
should the President determine the necessity to maintain
United States troops in Afghanistan to carry out missions
after December 31, 2014, such presence and missions should be
authorized by Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed so as to limit or prohibit any authority of the
President to--
(1) modify the military strategy, tactics, and operations
of United States Armed Forces as such Armed Forces redeploy
from Afghanistan;
(2) attack Al Qaeda forces wherever such forces are
located;
(3) provide financial support and equipment to the
Government of Afghanistan for the training and supply of
Afghanistan military and security forces; or
(4) gather, provide, and share intelligence with United
States allies operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308 311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution [and] has no substantive legislative
or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what
they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership
Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House
of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the
Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own
manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the
rule because the majority Member controlling the time will
not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I yield back the balance of my time
and move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the rule, if ordered: and
motions to suspend the rules with regard to H. Res. 568 and H.R. 5740.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 182, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 259]
YEAS--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
[[Page H2845]]
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--182
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Amodei
Costello
Filner
Holden
Issa
Miller, George
Nunnelee
Pascrell
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Slaughter
Southerland
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1427
Messrs. LOEBSACK, COSTA, SHULER, and Ms. HOCHUL changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LONG, MILLER of Florida, and DUFFY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 259, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
____________________