[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7082-7101]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 7083]]

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.
  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

[[Page 7084]]

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 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.

[[Page 7085]]

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

[[Page 7086]]

  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. 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.
  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. 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

[[Page 7087]]

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 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.''


[[Page 7088]]


  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 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.


[[Page 7089]]


  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. I rise in opposition to the bill and 
to the underlying rule.
  To put it simply in the minute that I have, this bill needlessly puts 
in jeopardy the health and safety of workers and residents who live 
near nuclear weapons facilities. Congressman Visclosky, Congresswoman 
Sanchez, and I offered an amendment to fix these dangerous flaws. But 
today's rule will not allow that amendment onto the floor.
  Our amendment recognized that these facilities pose unique challenges 
when it comes to health and safety. They are ultrahazardous. They make 
plutonium pits, handle bomb-grade uranium, and manage high explosives. 
If the worst were to happen, the American taxpayer is on the hook for 
any nuclear event, even if the contractor that operates the facility 
engages in gross misconduct. To protect workers, residents, and 
taxpayers, we need to ask that contractors live up to the highest 
standards of safety. This legislation does not do that.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 
trying to get this amendment made in order in the Rules Committee. It's 
an important amendment. We're hearing from workers in these facilities 
all across the country that we're removing a critical margin of safety 
for them, that we're turning this over to contractors and lessening the 
safety standards across these plants and removing the jurisdiction of 
the Secretary of Energy. This bill should be rejected for what it does 
to these workers.
  These are some groups submitting letters opposing changes to nuclear 
safety protections in H.R. 4310:
  1. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
  2. Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups
  3. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
  4. Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
  5. Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO
  6. United Steelworkers
  7. Laborers International Union of North America
  8. Communications Workers of America
  9. National Treasury Employees Union
  10. Project on Government Oversight

                                        Defense Nuclear Facilities


                                                 Safety Board,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 2012.
     Hon. Loretta Sanchez,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee 
         on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
         House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Sanchez: Thank you for the opportunity 
     to provide input and comments on HR4310, the FY 2013 National 
     Defense Authorization bill, particularly with regard to the 
     sections in Title 32 that affect nuclear safety, and the 
     Board's oversight mission, operations and budget capacity. 
     I'm convinced that the legislation, if enacted, will weaken 
     current independent nuclear safety oversight and enforcement 
     at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. I have spent my entire 
     career spanning more than 40 years supporting the national 
     security programs of the United States. Nothing would sadden 
     me more than seeing that mission compromised by threats to 
     public and worker safety resulting from lapses in safety.
       As you know, I presently serve as Chairman of the Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board), having been 
     appointed by President Bush to the Board in 2006 and later 
     reappointed as its Chairman by President Obama in 2010. I 
     have 43 years of experience as a scientist and engineer in 
     the field of radiation effects science, technology, and 
     hardness assurance in support of military and space systems. 
     I was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and 
     Electronic Engineers and the American Physical Society, and 
     was selected as one of the most highly cited researchers in 
     Engineering by the Institute for Scientific Information, 
     which lists the 250 most highly cited researchers in the 
     world in given scientific fields. I have been honored with 
     the 2000 IEEE Millennium Medal, IEEE Nuclear & Plasma 
     Sciences Merit and Shea Award, R&D 100 Awards, Industry 
     Week's Top 25 Technologies of Year, and Discover Award, and 
     many prize-winning papers. I have authored 140 publications 
     in the open refereed literature, including more than 30 
     invited papers, book chapters, and presentations.
       The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at 
     DOE's defense nuclear facilities. As Chairman of the Board I 
     am proud of the safety record of the DOE and the role that 
     the Board has played over the last 23 years. There is no 
     question that the defense nuclear facilities complex is in a 
     safer posture now than when the Board commenced operations in 
     the late 1980's. However, we cannot ignore the current and 
     emerging challenges that will define the future of DOE's 
     defense nuclear facilities, the need for federal stewardship 
     of this enterprise, and the federal commitment to protect the 
     health and safety of the workers and the public. Today's 
     challenges of aged infrastructure, design and construction of 
     new and replacement facilities, and the undertaking of a wide 
     variety of new activities in defense nuclear facilities 
     coupled with ongoing mission support activities require 
     continued vigilance in safety oversight to assure public and 
     worker protection. A nuclear safety incident cannot be 
     tolerated and would do irreparable harm to the stockpile 
     stewardship and legacy waste missions of the Department of 
     Energy.
       This legislation contains significant changes to the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Act and the 
     Board's Enabling Statute that would put NNSA and DOE's 
     national security mission in jeopardy. The proposed changes, 
     if enacted, would

[[Page 7090]]

     amount to Congress concluding that NNSA does not need 
     independent safety oversight. It would all but erase the 
     Board's independence and authority with respect to safety 
     oversight of NNSA defense nuclear facilities and activities. 
     Changes to the Atomic Energy Act would lower the standard 
     used to ensure adequate protection of public safety. The 
     legislation endorses a strong shift toward contractor self-
     regulation, which is not justified based on the present 
     maturity of contractor assurance systems but, even more 
     importantly, neuters the inherent responsibility of the 
     government to ensure public and worker safety. This 
     responsibility cannot be delegated by NNSA to its 
     contractors. Finally, the President's ability to direct 
     NNSA's operations through the Secretary of Energy would also 
     be much reduced. Let me address a few of these concerns in 
     more detail.
       Section 3113 of the bill gives the NNSA Administrator 
     complete authority to establish and conduct oversight of NNSA 
     activities outside of that already established by the 
     Secretary of Energy. The Administrator develops a system of 
     governance, management, and oversight, of covered contractors 
     and ensures that any and all Federal Agencies comply with 
     this system. Clearly, this vacates the notion of independent 
     oversight, which should be of grave concern to the Congress. 
     Other agencies that presently provide oversight include the 
     Board, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Environmental 
     Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, and the 
     Occupational and Safety Health Agency (OSHA). Some examples 
     of undesirable consequences of the proposed language include:
       The Board will be unable to provide effective safety 
     oversight.
       The NRC will be precluded from conducting license-related 
     oversight activities associated with operation of the MOX 
     facility.
       NNSA itself will be precluded from conducting Operational 
     Readiness Reviews, Integrated Safety Management System 
     Verifications, and Nuclear Explosive Safety Studies.
       Section 3113 of the Bill further directs the NNSA 
     Administrator to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and 
     performance-based standards rather than transactional 
     oversight.'' I am convinced this model is inappropriate for 
     oversight of complex, high-hazard nuclear operations at 
     defense nuclear facilities. NNSA defines ``transactional 
     oversight'' as activities that assess contractor performance 
     through evaluating contractor activities at the work, task, 
     or facility level; direct interaction with personnel at any 
     level within the contractor organization; and direct 
     independent Federal staff evaluation of activities, physical 
     conditions, and contractor documentation. [NA 1 SD 226.1A, 
     NNSA Line Oversight and Contractor Assurance System 
     Supplemental Directive] Clearly, transactional oversight is 
     essential at the Pantex Plant where nuclear weapons are 
     assembled, disassembled, and undergo surveillance. It is also 
     essential for plutonium operations at the Los Alamos 
     Plutonium Facility, highly-enriched uranium operations at the 
     Y-12 National Security Complex, and for complex, high-hazard 
     nuclear operations at the Nevada National Security Site, 
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National 
     Laboratories. For these activities, anything other than 
     transactional oversight is irresponsible and will jeopardize 
     the NNSA mission. The government cannot delegate its 
     responsibility to ensure public and worker safety to its 
     contractors.
       I think it is important to understand that a system based 
     on ``outcomes'' is inappropriate in safety space. The Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission uses performance-based regulation to 
     improve effectiveness and efficiency, but not where failure 
     to meet a performance criterion can result in an immediate 
     safety concern. For safety, a system of ``leading 
     indicators'' to prevent accidents is required. For complex, 
     high-hazard nuclear operations, a performance-based outcome 
     approach may appear successful on the surface, but underlying 
     weaknesses in processes can eventually lead to serious 
     accidents and unwanted results. A significant body of 
     information on this subject is available in both the 
     commercial and academic sectors; it was also explored in the 
     series of public meetings and hearings that led to issuance 
     of the Board's Recommendation 2004 1, Oversight of Complex, 
     High-Hazard Nuclear Operations.
       The Board has devoted considerable resources in the past 
     few years to understand activity-level work planning and 
     control. We have teamed with the Department and NNSA to 
     understand the challenges of writing and implementing 
     procedures that account for hazards in the workplace and the 
     controls necessary to mitigate those hazards. There are many 
     challenges to implementing those procedures that must account 
     for a wide range of human factors. The inescapable conclusion 
     is that the key to worker safety is the ability to faithfully 
     and repeatedly execute procedures. A procedure is only the 
     starting point. A system of transactional oversight is the 
     only way to ensure the safe execution of work through the 
     effective implementation of procedures.
       I believe one of the contributing factors that lead the 
     House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee to propose 
     this legislation was a basic misunderstanding of the 
     testimony it received at the its February 16, 2012 hearing on 
     ``Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear 
     Security Enterprise.'' At that hearing, Dr. Shank, Co-Chair 
     of the Committee to Review the Quality of the Management and 
     of the Science and Engineering Research at the Department of 
     Energy's National Security Laboratories, testified about the 
     scope of this review and its conclusions. One concern and 
     associated conclusion is embodied in this legislation, i.e., 
     the need to ``conduct oversight based on outcomes and 
     performance-based standards rather than transactional 
     oversight.'' However, when the Board subsequently met with 
     Dr. Shank, it became clear that his review committee did not 
     look at defense nuclear facilities at any of the 
     laboratories. Dr. Shank explained that the committee focused 
     on management of science, not safety, and not production 
     facilities. The review was focused on the need for the 
     laboratories to do research more efficiently and effectively, 
     and improve morale at the laboratories. The committee did not 
     review complex, high-hazard nuclear operations or any high-
     consequence operations. In my opinion, this testimony should 
     not be used as the basis to argue against the need for 
     independent oversight or eliminate transactional oversight at 
     defense nuclear facilities.
       For the record, the Board's staff asked about the 
     significance of Appendix 3 to the Committee's report, 
     ``Review of Relevant Studies and Reports 1995-2010.'' 
     Appendix 3 is the only part of the report that discusses the 
     Board. Dr. Shank characterized Appendix 3 as an add-on and 
     not part of the report. The Board's staff followed up with 
     Mr. Shaw, Project Director, on April 20, 2012, to understand 
     this distinction. Mr. Shaw explained that he and his staff of 
     research assistants prepared Appendix 3 as background 
     material for the committee. The appendices are a compilation 
     of lines of inquiry or questions that the Committee members 
     raised as the study progressed, and items for which Mr. Shaw 
     and his staff thought they needed to provide more background 
     information to the Committee members to understand what had 
     been presented. He informed the Board's staff that, to comply 
     with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that information 
     along withal! other such material provided to the committee 
     were included as appendices to the report. However, he 
     reiterated that they should not be viewed as the work of the 
     committee or representative of the Committee's conclusions.
       The proposed legislation requires the Board and NNSA to use 
     a new health and safety standard. More specifically, Sections 
     3115 and 3202 of the legislation establish a new lower 
     standard for protection of the public in proximity to DOE's 
     defense nuclear facilities. (As discussed below, Section 3202 
     of the bill deals with ``Improvements to the Defense Nuclear 
     Facilities Safety Board.'') The new standard ``ensures that 
     risks to . . . the health and safety of the general public . 
     . . are as low as practicable and that adequate protection is 
     provided.'' (Please note that in Section 3115 the risks are 
     ``as low as practical,'' while in Section 3202 the risks are 
     as low as reasonably practical.'') This standard lowers the 
     protections presently provided to the public by the NRC for 
     commercial nuclear power and by the Board in making 
     recommendations to the Secretary of Energy, which is to 
     ``ensure adequate protection of the public.'' The legislation 
     proposes the Secretary or Administrator can perform a cost-
     benefit analysis to determine the need to provide adequate 
     protection of the public. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
     amended, has always been clear that the Secretary must 
     provide adequate protection to the public and that cost is 
     not an element of adequate protection. However, cost can be 
     considered in determining the need for safety margin or 
     defense in depth, i.e., additional protections beyond the 
     need for adequate protection. The application of the ``as low 
     as [reasonably] practicable'' standard is unclear. It has 
     been used in British and European law as a modified cost-
     benefit analysis, but has no standing in U.S. law. It is also 
     unclear why the public safety should be subjected to 
     considerations by the Secretary or Administrator of whether 
     risks are as low as [reasonably] practical.
       The Board provides the only independent safety oversight at 
     DOE's defense nuclear facilities. In addition, the Board has 
     unique responsibilities under its statute to address ``severe 
     or imminent'' threats to the public. I would now like to 
     comment on Section 3202 of the bill: ``Improvements to the 
     Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.'' Let me say 
     categorically that these are not improvements. I believe 
     these provisions in the bill arise from a total 
     misunderstanding of the operation of the Board. I feel 
     strongly that these ``improvements'' to the Board's Enabling 
     Statute will degrade nuclear safety at DOE's defense nuclear 
     facilities. Let me once again detail my concerns.
       To begin with, the Board is a collegial body composed of 
     five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
     Senate who are respected experts in the field of nuclear 
     safety. Since the Board's inception nearly 23 years ago, 
     every Board letter or recommendation has been voted on and 
     approved by each and every Board Member.

[[Page 7091]]

     Those familiar with the scientific discipline will readily 
     understand that this involves a great deal of respect and 
     camaraderie among the Board members to enable them to unravel 
     complex technical issues and forcefully act on safety 
     concerns. One aspect of these bill's improvements is to allow 
     Board members ``to employ at least one technical advisor.'' 
     This is unnecessary on two counts. The first is that Board 
     members have full access to all the Board's staff. Board 
     members already have 80 technical advisors. The second is 
     that Board members are technical experts who are able to 
     independently weigh technical evidence and make decisions 
     important to safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. A 
     system of advisors will simply place an unnecessary burden on 
     Board resources and create dissension.
       A provision in Section 3202 requires that all Board members 
     ``have full, simultaneous access to all information relating 
     to the performance of the Board's functions, powers and 
     mission.'' This provision is simply unworkable and argues 
     against the public interest and trust. For example, the 
     Technical Director must inform the Board Chairman about a 
     serious accident at a defense nuclear facility, even if other 
     Board members are not immediately available. The Board always 
     strives to share all available information with all Board 
     members. The Board members are always collectively briefed by 
     DOE and Board staff, but Board members sometimes have 
     conflicting schedules and aren't available for the 
     ``simultaneous'' exchange of information . The origins of 
     this provision suggest a serious lack of knowledge about the 
     operation of the Board.
       Under this legislation, the Board ``shall consider and 
     specifically assess the technical and economic feasibility, 
     the cost and benefits, and the practicability of implementing 
     [its Recommendations].'' Under its existing statute, the 
     Board must consider the technical and economic feasibility of 
     implementing its recommended measures. The Secretary of 
     Energy may ``accept'' a Board recommendation but make a 
     determination that its implementation is impracticable 
     because of budgetary considerations or because the 
     implementation would affect the Secretary's ability to meet 
     the annual nuclear weapons stockpile requirements. The 
     Secretary must report any such decision to the President and 
     Congress. The Secretary of Energy has never made a 
     determination that a Board Recommendation cannot be 
     implemented due to budget impracticability. I believe this is 
     strong evidence that we have executed our statute in a 
     faithful and responsible manner.
       Issues of cost and benefit have historically been the 
     purview of the Secretary of Energy and should remain so. It 
     is important to note that the Board nominally identifies the 
     problem, but leaves selection of the solution to the 
     Secretary. In order to provide a cost-benefit analysis, the 
     Board would need to define a solution, which is inappropriate 
     and would hamper the Secretary's flexibilities to respond to 
     a Board recommendation. Mr. Gene Aloise, Director of Natural 
     Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability 
     Office, testified at the Committee's February 16, 2012, 
     hearing on Governance, Oversight, and Management of the 
     Nuclear Security Enterprise. He said, ``NNSA currently lacks 
     the basic financial information on the total costs to operate 
     and maintain its essential facilities and infrastructure, 
     leaving it unable to identify return on investment or 
     opportunities for cost savings.'' If NNSA isn't capable of 
     performing cost-benefit analyses, it's unreasonable to expect 
     the Board to produce valid estimates of those costs. Needless 
     to say, the Board would require a significant increase in 
     budget and manpower to perform any meaningful cost-benefit 
     analysis.
       The Board is very mindful of the need for efficient and 
     cost-effective solutions to safety problems at defense 
     nuclear facilities. In evaluating the proper course of action 
     for existing facilities that do not meet modern industry 
     standards and design requirements, both the Board and DOE 
     consider the entire suite of options for mitigating hazards 
     as well as factors such as the remaining life of the 
     facilities, schedules for replacing them, and means to 
     mitigate disruptions to ongoing operations that may result 
     from recommended safety improvements. However, the Board has 
     no authority to specify a particular solution; that authority 
     is the Secretary's.
       The proposed legislation also weakens the arm's length 
     relationship between the Board and Department of Energy 
     necessary for the Board to provide independent oversight by 
     requiring the Board to obtain DOE review and comments on 
     Board recommendations. This proposed requirement will enable 
     the Secretary to provide comments to Board recommendations 
     prior to their issuance. Board recommendations are fully 
     vetted by intense staff-level discussions that typically take 
     place over months and sometimes years. The Board shapes its 
     recommendation already fully taking into account the feedback 
     it has received from the Department. In the final analysis, 
     the Secretary has the power to accept or reject a Board 
     recommendation. This provision to require comments from the 
     Secretary will delay needed safety improvements to ensure 
     adequate protection of the public at DOE's defense nuclear 
     facilities and erode public confidence that the Board is 
     faithfully executing its mission to provide truly independent 
     oversight.
       Under its existing statute, the Board's jurisdiction is 
     limited to the Department of Energy's defense nuclear 
     facilities. ``Defense Nuclear Facilities'' are defined to 
     include production or utilization facilities, and certain 
     types of storage facilities under the control or jurisdiction 
     of the Secretary of Energy. Unless this element is met, the 
     Board's jurisdiction, authority, powers or duties are not 
     triggered. It does not allow the Board to write 
     Recommendations to the NNSA Administrator. Under this 
     legislation, NNSA may become a separate entity. An NNSA 
     independent from the Department of Energy, where the 
     Secretary of Energy would have no authority over NNSA, would 
     defeat (1) the Board's recommendation jurisdiction, (2) the 
     Board's jurisdiction and duty to report to the President in 
     the case of imminent or severe threats issuing from defense 
     nuclear facilities, and (3) the Board's information gathering 
     jurisdiction. Essentially, the NNSA would have no independent 
     safety oversight body.
       The Department of Energy has a well-established regulatory 
     structure, with a significant body of rules, orders, manuals, 
     and standards. These would have no standing in an independent 
     NNSA. The set of safety standards to be used in NNSA would 
     have to be reconstituted. Based on recent experience, I am 
     concerned that many standards necessary to safely perform 
     complex, high-hazard nuclear operations would be 
     automatically deleted as a part of standing up this newly 
     independent organization. It must be understood that the 
     Board evaluates safety at defense nuclear facilities based on 
     DOE's requirements and standards. The Board does not have 
     separate requirements. Lack of an adequate set of safety 
     standards would rapidly degrade safety at defense nuclear 
     facilities.
       In summary, I am deeply concerned that the proposed 
     legislation will diminish both the effectiveness of the Board 
     and safety at DOE's defense nuclear facilities. The proposed 
     changes, if enacted, would all but erase the Board's 
     oversight independence and authority with respect to NNSA's 
     facilities and activities. NNSA would become essentially 
     self-regulating without any significant oversight from the 
     Secretary of Energy, the Board, or any other Federal entity. 
     Additional provisions in the legislation encourage the NNSA 
     in large part to delegate its inherent responsibility to 
     protect public and worker safety to its contractors.
       If I can answer any question or provide additional 
     insights, please don't hesitate to call. Once again, I 
     appreciate the opportunity to provide my views on this 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                      Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D.,

                                                         Chairman,
     Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
                                  ____

                                      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

[[Page 7092]]

     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. 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 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

[[Page 7093]]

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 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

[[Page 7094]]

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 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

[[Page 7095]]

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.
  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

[[Page 7096]]

     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 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

[[Page 7097]]

     amendment to stop U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding the 
     abhorrent practice of human trafficking in war zones. In its 
     final report to Congress last year, the Commission on Wartime 
     Contracting said it had uncovered evidence of human 
     trafficking in Iraq and Afghanistan by labor brokers and 
     subcontractors. Commissioner Dov Zakheim later told a Senate 
     panel that the Commission had only scratched the surface of 
     the problem. He called it the ``tip of the iceberg.'' 
     Existing contracting regulations to implement anti-
     trafficking plans are too weak. This amendment will 
     strengthen the law and will require companies to closely 
     monitor and report the activities of their subcontractors 
     down the supply chain. It also would expand the definition of 
     ``fraudulent recruiting'' to apply to laborers who work on 
     U.S. government contracts outside the U.S., mandating 
     responsible labor recruitment practices. It's time to end the 
     suffering and abuses of our taxpayer-funded ``shadow army.''


2. Restrict Taxpayer-Funded Compensation for Contractors--Amendment by 
                      Paul Tonko and Jackie Speier

       This amendment is based on the Stop Excessive Payments to 
     Government Contractors Act of 2011--part of a bipartisan, 
     bicameral push for reform--and would lower the existing 
     contractor compensation cap to $400,000 and apply it to all 
     defense contractors. Importantly, the provision would also 
     ensure that the cap is set in such a way that it will stop 
     the exorbitant growth rate the current formula has enabled. 
     Taxpayer-funded contractor compensation should be reined in 
     from the ever-increasing cap that currently well exceeds what 
     the government pays its own senior executives--including the 
     President. The current cap for contractor compensation is 
     $763,029. It's time to stop making taxpayers foot outrageous 
     contractor payrolls and rein in the growing cost of the 
     entire government workforce.


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

       This amendment restores the cut already made by 
     appropriators for a costly and unnecessary plutonium research 
     facility. It also strikes sections from H.R. 4310 that would 
     require the completion of the proposed facility and forbid 
     Congress from funding less expensive alternatives. The cost 
     of this nuclear boondoggle--known as the Chemistry and 
     Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF)--
     has swelled from $375 million to nearly $6 billion over the 
     past ten years. Earlier this year, the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration (NNSA) said it does not need CMRR NF 
     in order to fulfill its nuclear weapons and science missions. 
     What's more, there is plentiful scientific evidence and 
     expert testimony that says that the increased plutonium pit 
     production enabled by CMRR NF is not necessary to national 
     security. The President's budget and House Appropriations 
     have already zeroed-out the funding, but one member of House 
     Armed Services--Representative Michael Turner--has ignored 
     the evidence and sought to send more taxpayer dollars into 
     this nuclear money pit. Support this amendment to restore 
     sensible savings.


 4. Delay the New Long-Range Penetrating Bomber Aircraft--Amendment by 
                Ed Markey, Peter Welch, and John Conyers

       This amendment delays development of the next-generation 
     long-range penetrating bomber aircraft through FY 2023 and 
     reduces funds for the program by about $291 million. The 
     Administration initially cancelled the program in FY 2010 as 
     there was ``no urgent need'' for a new bomber because the Air 
     Force expects its fleet of bombers to be operational for 
     years to come. According to FY 2013 budget requests, the 
     program is projected to cost at least $6.3 billion in the 
     next five years alone, and would likely cost billions more 
     over its lifetime. Deferring development of this costly and 
     unnecessary system saves money and is low-risk because of 
     robust U.S. bomb delivery capabilities that will be available 
     for decades.


  5. Stop the Rollback of Oversight of Nuclear Weapons Laboratories--
    Amendment by George Miller, Peter Visclosky, and Loretta Sanchez

       This amendment would restore oversight over the nuclear 
     weapons laboratories by modifying Section 3113 and striking 
     Sections 3115 and 3202 of H.R. 4310. These sections pose 
     dangerous rollbacks of health, safety, security, and 
     financial oversight at the Department of Energy's nuclear 
     weapons laboratories. Section 3113 gives the NNSA's 
     contractor-operated labs the ability to self-report and self-
     regulate their performance, despite the fact that the 
     Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included these 
     labs on its list of programs that are at ``high risk'' for 
     waste, fraud, and abuse for over 20 years. Section 3115 
     lowers the bar for health and safety standards at the labs by 
     shifting oversight from the Department of Energy to the NNSA 
     and its contractors. Section 3202 would weaken the Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in its role as independent 
     adviser to the nuclear weapons laboratories. Ever since the 
     Board was created in reaction to serious safety issues at 
     nuclear sites, the Department of Energy has been required to 
     accept Board recommendations or give a reason for their 
     rejection, but section 3202 requires the Board to submit 
     drafts of its recommendations to the Department first, which 
     would strip the Board of its complete independence. Section 
     3202 also increases the amount of time the Department has to 
     respond to recommendations, which could undermine public 
     health and safety. We need more oversight of the contractors 
     at our nuclear laboratories--not less.


6. Replace the Costly Variant of the F-35 with Super Hornets--Amendment 
                   by John Conyers and Keith Ellison

       The Marine Corps' variant of the F-35 fighter plane is the 
     most expensive variant of the most expensive DoD weapon 
     program ever, and has been plagued by cost overruns and 
     schedule delays. This amendment would replace the 6 Marine 
     Corps F-35s the DoD plans to buy in FY 2013 with proven F/A-
     18E/F Super Hornets, which have many capabilities that rival 
     the F-35 and cost far less to buy and operate. This amendment 
     will save taxpayers $1.7 billion in FY 2013 and millions more 
     in operating costs over the life of these planes.


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

       Currently, service contract inventories released by the 
     Pentagon provide little, if any, useful data about service 
     contracts. Moreover, those inventories do not provide the 
     agency with any information that allows it to make informed 
     personnel decisions that will save taxpayer dollars. The 
     offered amendment, which falls in line with Pentagon efforts 
     to increase the data reported in the inventories, would 
     require DoD to collect additional data about the labor, 
     hours, and costs of service contract workers that can be used 
     for comparing the cost of the civilian, military, and 
     contractor workforces.


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

       This amendment mirrors the DoD's legislative proposal and 
     would result in improved oversight of billions of dollars' 
     worth of so-called ``commercial'' goods and services. It 
     would narrow the definition of a ``commercial item'' to mean 
     goods or services that are actually sold to the general 
     public in like quantities. This would be a huge improvement 
     over the current definition, which includes good or services 
     ``of a type'' that are ``offered'' for sale or lease. POGO 
     has promoted such a change to the definition since 1999, and 
     now have been joined by DoD, the Department of Defense Panel 
     on Contracting Integrity, and the Acquisition Advisory Panel. 
     Since the mid-1990s, the government has been buying so-called 
     ``commercial'' goods and services that are not actually sold 
     in the commercial market. Making matters worse, these 
     purchases are often without any government review of the cost 
     data that leads to the final price the contractors are 
     proposing. Would you buy a car if the dealer told you that 
     you couldn't see the window sticker? We doubt it, and the 
     government shouldn't either.


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

       This amendment would cap the number of General/Flag 
     Officers at ``0.05 percent of the combined authorized 
     strengths for active duty personnel.'' In other words, for 
     every 2,000 troops there can be no more than one General or 
     Admiral. This amendment will reduce the General and Flag 
     Officer ranks by less than 5 percent. At the end of FY 2011, 
     the military was more top-heavy than it had ever been in U.S. 
     history. While the enlisted ranks have been shrinking, the 
     top ranks have grown. Since 2001, the very top ranks, 3- and 
     4-star General/Flag Officers, have grown faster than any 
     other personnel group at the DoD. It's time to right-size the 
     top-heavy top ranks.
       We welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other 
     national security issues with you. For more information, 
     please contact me at 202-347-1122 or [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

[[Page 7098]]

     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 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

[[Page 7099]]

     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 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

[[Page 7100]]

     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
     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

[[Page 7101]]


     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.''

                          ____________________