[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7215-H7221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2647, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.

[[Page H7216]]

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 572

       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. 2647) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
       (b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     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 (except as specified in section 4 of this resolution), 
     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 amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
       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.  The Chair of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     out of the order printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes 
     after the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or a 
     designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5.  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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     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.
       Sec. 6.  In the engrossment of H.R. 2647, the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 2990, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 2647;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 2647 to reflect the addition 
     to the engrossment of H.R. 2990;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       Sec. 7.  Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 2990 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 2647, H.R. 2990 shall be laid on the 
     table.
       Sec. 8.  During consideration of H.R. 2647, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

                              {time}  1930

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 572 provides for consideration of H.R. 
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 
under a structured rule.
  Last week the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 2647 
favorably to the House by unanimous vote. The final vote came at 2:30 
in the morning after more than 14 hours of thorough debate.
  During that time the members of the committee did not see eye-to-eye 
on every issue, but we did not split by party lines on every vote, and 
we often had differing views on how to devote limited resources to 
endless challenges. In the end, we all agreed by a unanimous vote that 
we must take steps to keep our country safe and keep our military 
prepared. We must work to eliminate wasteful spending and restore 
fiscal discipline, and we must provide our troops and their families 
with the care that they need and the quality of life that is worthy of 
their sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2647 makes significant progress on all these 
fronts. It strengthens our national security by focusing resources on 
the most immediate and severe threats to our troops and our country. 
The bill enhances efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction by increasing funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program and by fully supporting the Department of Energy's 
nonproliferation programs.
  The bill cuts extensive spending, excessive spending on flawed 
missile-defense programs and, instead, invests more resources in 
systems that are proven to work and strategies that meet immediate 
threats.
  H.R. 2647 also takes an important step forward in strengthening 
accountability and increasing oversight of the defense contracting 
process. The bill grows the size of the civilian acquisition workforce, 
which will reduce our reliance on defense contractors and cut down on 
wasteful spending.
  The bill improves the quality of life and the quality of care for our 
men and women in uniform by providing a 3.4 percent pay raise for each 
servicemember, by expanding access to education and training, by 
increasing funding for family housing programs, and by expanding 
TRICARE coverage for members of the Reserve and their families prior to 
mobilization.
  After 7 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, this bill provides 
a basis for ensuring that the plans for progress are sound and that the 
objectives for victory are clear. The bill requires frequent reports to 
Congress on the objectives and measurements for success in Afghanistan 
and the progress of withdrawing our troops from Iraq.
  The bill also directs the GAO to provide Congress with separate 
reports, which will assess strategic plans for both Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Congress must do everything in its power to ensure that our military 
strategies are working and our ultimate goals are achievable. I believe 
that we can always do more, but I also believe that this bill provides 
a starting point for that process. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, while this bill 
addresses broad strategic issues and threats across the globe, it also 
has a direct impact on our districts.
  While communities across the country are saving, struggling and 
working to recover from this recession, other communities are preparing 
for even tougher times ahead. In 2011, scores of military bases will 
close for good as a result of the 2005 BRAC. For decades, these bases 
have been the backbones of communities and provided the surrounding 
areas with jobs, tenants, customers and neighbors, which will now be 
lost in a matter of years.

[[Page H7217]]

  H.R. 2647 expands the use of no-cost economic development conveyances 
as a tool to redevelop and restart communities affected by base 
closure. This provision allows the Department of Defense to transfer 
property to a local redevelopment authority at no cost if the land will 
be used for purposes of economic development.
  At a time of declining property values, devastating job loss and 
crippling economic hardship, we must provide communities with every 
possible tool to redevelop and reorganize. This bill will assist in 
that effort.
  I am looking forward to completing our work on this year's defense 
authorization.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend, 
the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  While our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in war 
zones, we, in Congress, need to support them. I am proud to once again 
support the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to honor and 
support the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
  I also wish to commend and congratulate both the Armed Services 
Committee Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their 
commitment to put partisanship aside in order to get this important 
bill to the floor.
  The National Defense Authorization Act, which passed unanimously out 
of the Armed Services Committee, authorizes $550.4 billion for the 
activities of the Department of Defense. It also provides $130 billion 
to support our combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts 
of the war on terror.
  Our men and women in uniform and their families have sacrificed 
dearly to protect the United States, and that is why I am pleased that 
the bill will provide our troops with a 3.4 percent pay raise.
  Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE 
eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE 
coverage 100 days before they go on active duty and provides almost $2 
billion for family housing programs to expand and improve the quality 
of military housing.
  The bill authorizes the expansion of the size of the military by 
15,000 Army troops, 8,000 Marines, over 14,500 Air Force personnel, and 
approximately 2,500 sailors in the Navy.
  I would like to thank the committee and the distinguished chairman 
for including my request for funding, authorization obviously of 
funding, for the construction of a new, permanent headquarters for the 
United States Southern Command that is located in the congressional 
district that I am honored to represent. Currently the Department of 
Defense is leasing the land for SOUTHCOM from a private individual. The 
funds authorized by this bill will be used to build a new headquarters 
on land adjacent to the current location and lease it from the State of 
Florida for the grand sum of $1 per year.
  This provision is extremely important to my community because 
SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 
billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida's economy.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying legislation, I have deep 
reservations about the majority's decision to block full restoration of 
missile defense funding. This comes as North Korea's demented despot 
continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and 
threatens the United States and our friends and our allies with mass 
destruction.
  Just today an official from the North Korean Central News Agency, a 
mouthpiece for the dictatorship said, ``If the U.S. imperialists start 
another war, the army and the people of Korea will wipe out the 
aggressors on the globe once and for all.''
  At the same time, the Iranian tyranny, while it massacres its own 
people in the streets, continues to threaten to wipe Israel off the 
face of the map. It is clear to me that the world faces a grave and, I 
believe, imminent threat from both of those dictatorships in North 
Korea and Iran. Now is not the time to cut missile defense.
  Since the beginning of military aviation, the United States has 
wisely invested in our military air superiority, and in recent military 
operations we have clearly seen our investments pay off. Our military 
air superiority saves the lives of our men and women in uniform and 
also saves the lives of countless civilians. Unfortunately, the Obama 
administration feels that it is not necessary to continue our long 
history of investment in air superiority and is calling for the 
termination of the F-22 fighter aircraft production, even though the 
chief of staff of the Air Force publicly called for continued 
production of F-22s.
  Now, thankfully, the Armed Services Committee successfully reinstated 
over $300 million to at least keep alive F-22 production. 
Unfortunately, I am shown at this time a statement of administration 
policy where it reads that if the final bill presented to the President 
contains this provision keeping alive the F-22 production line, that 
the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto. Mr. Speaker, I 
think that's most unfortunate.
  I am also concerned that the majority failed to support a repeal of 
the so-called widow's tax. This provision penalizes surviving spouses 
of servicemembers who die on active duty or from service-related 
conditions by forcing them to accept a dollar-for-dollar reduction in 
their military survivor benefit plan payments in order to receive tax-
free dependency and indemnity compensation from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  I have cosponsored two-pieces of legislation introduced by Mr. Buyer 
and Mr. Ortiz to remedy this injustice, and I am hopeful that Congress 
will soon address it.
  Now, as supportive as I am of the underlying legislation, I must 
oppose the rule brought forth by the majority.

                              {time}  1945

  Prior to the consideration of the rule, Members from both sides of 
the aisle submitted 129 amendments to the Rules Committee. The vast 
majority of amendments, 79, were introduced by members of the majority 
party. Last night, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to make 
in order for discussion on this floor two-thirds of the majority 
amendments and one-third of the minority amendments.
  Last week, when members of the minority submitted a number of 
amendments to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill, 
the majority claimed the minority were using dilatory tactics and shut 
down the ability of Members to offer amendments. This week, when the 
majority party offered a large number of amendments, the majority 
rewarded them for doing their jobs and representing their constituents 
by allowing 51 of their amendments for debate by the House.
  At the same time, minority party members who were also representing 
the interests of their constituents were once again punished by the 
majority for doing their jobs and were only allowed 11 amendments.
  In the end, the majority gets about five times the number of 
amendments made in order as the minority, and I think that's unfair. I 
think it's petty and unfair. What does the majority gain by using such 
an unfair process? In reality, nothing more than ending comity and 
diminishing the stature of this House and its Members.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee 
on Armed Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maine for 
yielding and would also like to thank, in particular, Chairman Skelton 
and Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership in crafting this 
legislation before us.
  This year's National Defense Authorization Act takes significant 
steps forward in supporting our National Guard and Reserve. Earlier 
this month, Iowa observed the 1-year anniversary of the floods that 
devastated large parts of my district. The Iowa National Guard played a 
critical role in the response to those floods, and their heroic work is 
a testament to the vital function the National Guard plays in domestic 
disaster response, even as their role in operations abroad increases.
  Nationwide, more than 700,000 National Guard and Reserve soldiers 
have been called to duty since September 11, 2001, and as the National 
Guard continues to transform into an operational

[[Page H7218]]

reserve, it is essential that they are properly resourced for both 
their overseas and homeland missions.
  This bill provides $6.9 billion, $600 million more than the 
President's request, to address equipment shortfalls in the Reserve 
components. It also extends health care coverage for the National Guard 
and Reserve and makes essential investments in National Guard 
facilities, including the Fairfield, Cedar Rapids, Muscatine, and 
Middletown facilities in my district.
  I am very proud also that the NDAA includes an amendment I offered 
with Ms. Bordallo to improve National Guard readiness by requiring the 
Secretary of the Army to report to Congress on the creation of a 
Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students Account.
  At any given time, 13.3 percent of the Army National Guard is 
nondeployable, and this account would serve as a temporary unit for 
these soldiers. In so doing, it would end the practice of borrowing 
soldiers from one unit in order to improve the readiness of others and 
will improve both morale and overall readiness.
  I strongly urge support for the rule and for the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the rule for a bill to develop 
and deploy defensive capabilities for the protection of the American 
people, our stationed men and women, and our allies. The rising threat 
from North Korea and Iran highlights why our national security strategy 
must include a comprehensive, multilayered, and robust missile defense 
program to protect our homeland.
  Both of these rogue nations, Mr. Speaker, provocatively flaunt their 
growing capabilities with long-range missiles and nuclear programs. 
Just last week, we learned that North Korea is planning to launch a 
missile towards the U.S. around the 4th of July holiday. To repeat a 
phrase used by our President just last week, these regimes pose a 
``grave threat'' to the safety and security of our citizens and our 
allies.
  Yet the bill which is the subject of this rule, Mr. Speaker, sustains 
an inexplicable $1.2 billion cut from the missile defense budget. Mr. 
Speaker, the question before us is very simple: How do we reconcile 
gutting missile defense when it will defend against what our own 
President rightfully calls a ``grave threat''? It simply doesn't make 
sense.
  The cuts include a 35 percent reduction to the Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense program, a system located in Alaska and California for the 
purpose of protecting this country against the type of missile North 
Korea is gearing up to launch.
  This is not the time to be reducing our commitment to missile 
defense. We must fund the current missile defense systems that protect 
us today and the forward-looking programs that will protect us 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, we must restore the $1.2 billion cut from the missile 
defense programs today.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield 3 minutes to the Chair of the Committee 
on Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember the last 
time I was as deeply disappointed in the actions of people with whom I 
generally agree and continue to admire as I am by this rule.
  President Obama, to his credit, has become the first President to try 
to put on to military spending the same kind of notion that resources 
are limited that people apply elsewhere. Military spending, in which 
old threats are continued to be dealt with while new threats are dealt 
with, make it impossible for us to talk about curtailing a deficit 
without doing damage elsewhere.
  To his credit, President Obama and Secretary Gates said we do not 
need to build more F-22s. It was conceived to defeat the Soviet Union 
in a war. It's over. It's a wonderful weapon. It just has a terrible 
defect for a weapon--no enemy, no military mission. It will never be 
fired in anger.
  It is bad enough that the committee, by only a 31-30 vote, undercut 
this President's effort to begin to apply fiscal discipline everywhere. 
Sure, military is important, but health care is important and highway 
safety is important and local police are important. All of those 
impinge on our life and all must be dealt with in discipline in the 
fiscal area, except military gets a pass.
  I was particularly disappointed when the Rules Committee, because of 
some in the leadership, decided not even to allow us to debate it. A 
major initiative of the new President to curtail excess military 
spending is overturned by one vote in committee, and we are not even 
allowed to debate it.
  And I have to say to my Republican friends, it is clear to me that 
their interest in open debate is very selective. They are for openly 
debating anything they want to debate, but they were opposed to this 
amendment coming on as well. So there's no consistency or principle of: 
Let's have open debate. It's: Let's get what we want and let's forget 
about the rest.
  It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. Apparently, 
intellectual integrity and logical consistency are the first casualties 
of a military bill.
  I heard Members say a few months ago, Oh, an economic recovery 
program. Federal spending can't bring jobs. Federal Government spending 
adds to the deficit. It doesn't bring jobs.
  Lo and behold, the F-22 became a jobs bill. It's what I call 
weaponized Keynesianism. Only if you're building weapons, particularly 
weapons that will never be used, is there a stimulative effect in the 
economy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentleman yields me time, I will.
  Secondly, we are told that we have to deal with the deficit. The 
President made a beginning in trying to curtail military spending on 
weapons he said we do not need. If this bill goes through, as it 
apparently will, because we could not even debate it, his efforts will 
be undercut. The floodgates will be open, and any effort to have 
reasonable constraints on military spending, as we have on police and 
fire and emergency medical and other things that are important for 
health and safety, will be undercut.
  This is a terrible decision and a terrible precedent. Of course, to 
add injury to injury, they did it by taking money out of environmental 
cleanup.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to 
point out to my friend that despite the fact that we support the 
committee having maintained the production line for the F-22, we made a 
motion in committee for an open rule that would have permitted the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will yield.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will acknowledge that. I was in error, 
and I apologize. It had been reported to me that there were votes 
against it, so I apparently got bad information. And I thank the 
gentleman for that futile gesture on my behalf.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his 
debate. Despite the fact that we're in disagreement on this issue, he 
is a great parliamentarian and it's an honor to serve with him.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to thank my friend from Florida 
for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater priority for the 
Federal Government than the defense of our Nation, and the Defense 
Authorization bill is a vehicle for setting military priorities for our 
country.
  This bill also has jurisdiction over the Nation's defense nuclear 
waste cleanup program administered by the Department of Energy. The 
Environmental Management program within the Department is responsible 
for cleaning up the waste of our Nation's nuclear weapons production 
sites; production sites like Hanford, in my district, that secured our 
Nation's victory in World War II and in the Cold War.
  As a result of that work, these sites are now contaminated with 
massive volumes of radioactive and hazardous waste. The Federal 
Government has a legal obligation to clean up these sites.

[[Page H7219]]

  As this bill, Mr. Speaker, has moved through the process, there have 
been several proposals by both Democrats and Republicans to move 
specific military projects by reducing the authorization for nuclear 
waste funding. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear on what these proposals are 
really about. It's about setting our Nation's defense priorities and 
not a judgment on the merits of cleaning up our nuclear waste sites.
  The nuclear cleanup program is being used as a piggy bank for these 
priorities since, Mr. Speaker, it's the only sizable source of funds 
within this bill that doesn't directly fund our troops or equipment.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I know why nuclear cleanup is being used by both 
parties as a piggy bank. I absolutely don't support those actions, and 
I will vote against those actions, but in doing so, I want to be clear 
that it is in the appropriations process where cleanup money becomes 
real.
  Insufficient funding in the appropriations process would have real 
and serious consequences on cleaning up these sites. The cleanup 
program simply cannot sustain continued appropriation reductions 
without jeopardizing progress, breaking legally binding commitments to 
States, and increasing long-term costs to taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, for 15 years I have worked in a bipartisan way to raise 
awareness of the Federal Government's cleanup obligation and to remind 
my colleagues again that the effort at these sites helped us win both 
World War II and the Cold War.
  I will continue to stand up for cleanup where needed. In doing so, I 
am determined that the effort to promote cleanup be a bipartisan 
effort.
  With that, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of 
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. 
Giffords).

                              {time}  2000

  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and 
to praise Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon as well as the 
chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees on Armed Services and 
especially the staff for getting this bill right.
  This week we're having a great debate about energy in our country. 
Most Americans don't realize that the Department of Defense is 
responsible for approximately 80 percent of all the energy used by the 
Federal Government. The final bill that we were able to pass out of 
committee this week includes groundbreaking language to encourage 
continued advances on responsible energy. Working with the Department, 
we included a series of new reporting requirements. We increase the use 
of electric and hybrid vehicles; we speed up the development of 
biofuels; and we encourage additional investment and use of geothermal 
energy. We also made some commonsense decisions regarding our fighter 
aircraft fleet. As a committee working in a bipartisan manner, we set 
aside the rhetoric, and we took into account current and future threats 
to balance the force. We sustained the current operational fleet. We 
supported additional F-22s requested by our combatant commanders. We 
maintained robust F-35 funding. And we provided additional flexibility 
for the Air Force to fill the impending fighter gap with less expensive 
but quite capable 4.5 Generation fighters.
  I again congratulate Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and the 
committee staff for their hard work on this legislation. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from 
Florida has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Maine 
has 17\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I offered an 
amendment on Monday to address an injustice against the members of our 
armed services that were shut out from consideration by this rule.
  Briefly, my amendment would have given an across-the-board pay raise 
of 5 percent to our military personnel. According to estimates made by 
the Congressional Research Service, the pay gap between military 
personnel and civilians in comparable positions is 3 percent. Given 
that the cost of living increase for 2010 is 2.9 percent, my amendment 
is an important first step to addressing this problem. Particularly 
during a recession but really at any time it is unacceptable that our 
men and women in uniform receive less than their civilian counterparts.
  Recently I was in Afghanistan and had the opportunity to see 
firsthand the professionalism and the commitment of our troops, what 
service they render to us, why are they being treated this way. I 
received assurances from the House Parliamentarian that my amendment 
was in order, and the Congressional Budget Office said it complies with 
all PAYGO requirements. I cannot understand why the majority would deny 
our troops the right to an up-or-down vote or, at the very least, a 
debate that would at least bring out the issues. If we have time to 
debate an amendment that would require a study of the number of 
subcontractors used by the Department of Defense, we should have time 
to debate giving our troops a fair wage.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I've offered this amendment 
to increase the pay of our troops and the second time that it has been 
denied. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity.
  There has been much talk about fiscal responsibility on the floor of 
this House, and I come to the floor to support the rule and support the 
bill. I support it because of the inclusion of the Joint Strike Fighter 
competitive engine program because when we talk about fiscal 
responsibility, it is through competition that we achieve fiscal 
responsibility. Since fiscal year 2006, nearly $2.5 billion has been 
provided for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive 
engine program, and last month President Obama signed the Weapons 
Systems Acquisitions Reform Act of 2009 into law. This supported an 
increased use of competition and defense procurement. The expected cost 
of the primary Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system has increased by 
$1.8 billion while the competitive engine program has not experienced 
any cost growth at all. In fact, the contractor has indicated a 
willingness to negotiate on fixed price terms for the remaining 
development and production of the competitive engine.
  We know that competition works. When we looked at the F-15 and F-16 
in the 1970s, we found that the great engine war brought lower prices, 
better engines, better competition, and more reliability. We have the 
same thing today with the Joint Strike Fighter; and in this bill we 
have included the competitive engine program, which is critical to the 
success of the Joint Strike Fighter engines.
  I urge you to support the rule because with it comes enhanced 
contractor responsiveness, technological innovation, improved operation 
readiness, and a more robust industrial base for the United States.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I am going to oppose this rule and ask my colleagues 
also to oppose it based on what's not in it.
  An amendment that I presented yesterday to the Rules Committee was 
not made in order; and consequently, the Members of this House will not 
be allowed to take a stance on a very important issue that our 
colleagues on the other end of the building, the Senators, have taken a 
stance on unanimously to oppose, the release of the detainee 
photographs.
  The President of the United States has said, listening to his field 
commanders, General Petraeus and General Odierno, that the release of 
these photographs would work to put Americans in danger, would be used 
at as a recruiting tool and, in my view, might also be used by 
President Ahmadinejad to turn the pro-democracy protests going on in 
his country away from protests against Ahmadinejad and protests

[[Page H7220]]

against America, given the nature of these photographs.
  This is a discrete body of photographs taken between September 1, 
2001, to January 22, 2009, that have no business being released in the 
public arena. We need a legislative fix that would prevent the release 
of these photographs into the public arena; and my amendment, married 
up with an exact replica in the Senate, would have allowed these 
photographs to be protected properly.
  The amendment would have protected on a rolling 3-year basis these 
photographs, certified by the Secretary of Defense that they would, in 
fact, be used as recruiting tools, and could be used to incite violence 
against American troops that might not otherwise be there should these 
photographs not be released. There is no good reason to release these 
photographs.
  I wish the Rules Committee would have allowed this debate. As our 
colleague from Massachusetts said last night, For some reason we're 
afraid of debate on this floor, the way the Rules Committee works. Why 
are we afraid to have this debate? It is unanimous on the other end of 
this building that they believe these photographs should be protected. 
The President has come out saying that it is appropriate to protect 
these photographs. And we're not talking about forever. We're simply 
talking about 3 years at a time to protect these photographs. I'm 
disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to allow the Members of 
this body to express their will, as opposed to the will of the chairman 
of the committee and maybe a couple of others who, in their judgment, 
believe that these photographs should, in fact, be released.
  The courts have said that they recognize the validity of the 
consequences that are set forth in General Petraeus' comments as well 
as General Odierno's comments to the courts. The other side can simply 
say they believe it is better to have these photographs be used as 
recruitment tools for al Qaeda as well as the other ill uses that they 
will be put to.
  It's unfortunate the Rules Committee, led by the chairman, ruled this 
way. As a consequence, I will be voting against this rule, and I ask my 
colleagues to vote likewise.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  I rise today to support my colleague, Chairman Barney Frank. I am 
equally or even more disappointed than he is that his amendment on the 
F-22 funding was not made in order for the defense authorization 
debate.
  There is absolutely no need for additional funding for this flawed 
program. The Cold War is over. The existing 187 F-22 planes have 
already cost the United States a total of $65.1 billion; and while this 
bill only includes $369 million for advanced procurement, the total 
amount for 12 additional F-22s will run $2 billion.
  Think of what we could do with $2 billion in the United States of 
America. We have schools that are in need. We have a health care system 
that's broken. We have to move on with our global warming program. Mr. 
Speaker, $2 billion would help any one of those issues. The F-22 has 
never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is absolutely not necessary 
or useful in counterinsurgency operations. The existing 187 that we 
have right now are actually adequate for any single contingency that 
could happen in the United States of America. Both civilian and 
military leadership of the Pentagon support ending production at 187, 
including the President of the United States. The idea that this House 
will not have a chance to have a full debate on Chairman Frank's 
amendment is unacceptable, and this rule is truly flawed.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
today in adamant opposition to this rule.
  This is one of many rules which do nothing but censor our side from 
being able to put forth amendments that make sense, that cut the size 
of the Federal Government, that cut the size of the huge growth in 
Federal spending.
  Now under the Constitution, national defense should be and must be 
the major function of the Federal Government. We have to have a strong 
national Federal defense, and we have to have the experts tell us how 
that comes about. We need to have the experts tell us what defense 
systems are needed, such as the F-22.
  The prior speaker was talking about how it's unneeded and how those 
funds could be utilized for social programs, but I disagree. National 
defense should and must be the major function of the Federal 
Government. We need to fund our defense because we have people around 
this world, countries as well as the terrorists, who want to destroy 
what this country stands for. So we need to fund missile defense; we 
need to fund the F-22; we need to fund those defense programs as well 
as the research and development that's absolutely critical to make sure 
that we stay a sovereign and a secure nation.
  But also many Republican amendments were submitted. In fact, I 
submitted some myself. But the majority decided to stifle our ability 
to be able to bring those amendments to the floor, to talk about things 
that Members of Congress think are very important in this bill. But we 
were hushed. Our voices were quieted. Why? Because we have a 
steamroller of socialism that's being forced down the throats of the 
American people. We're trying very hard on our side to stop the 
outrageous spending. We're trying on our side to have a fiscally 
responsible government, not only in defense spending but also all 
across the board. We have an energy tax that's being proposed just this 
week that's going to cost jobs. It's going to put people literally out 
of work. It's going to raise the cost of food, medicine and all goods 
and services in this Nation.
  Unfortunately, over and over again we've seen this majority, the 
leadership of this Congress, prevent Republican proposals from being 
brought to this floor, from being debated, from being presented to the 
American public for public examination and for us to be able to debate 
them. But we've been censored, and it's wrong. The American public 
needs to stand up and say ``no.'' I very adamantly encourage my 
colleagues to say ``no'' to this rule.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the Chair of the Homeland 
Security Subcommittee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill 
and commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for moving 
another unanimous bipartisan authorization bill out of their committee. 
As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee, I admire the 
bipartisan way in which the committee operates. My aerospace-centric 
congressional district is grateful too. Thanks too to Personnel 
Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis and her staff for working with me on an 
issue of paramount importance, the epidemic of rape and sexual assault 
in the military.
  Mr. Speaker, the math is shocking. Women who serve in the U.S. 
military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by 
enemy fire in Iraq.

                              {time}  2015

  Only 317 out of the 2,763 subjects investigated during fiscal year 
2008 were referred to courts martial. That's 11 percent, a figure far 
below civilian prosecution rates where 40 percent of those arrested for 
rape are prosecuted.
  DOD must close the gaps in prosecution and remove obstacles to legal 
enforcement. Effective investigation and prosecution are the keys to 
turning this epidemic around, by drawing bright red lines around 
unacceptable conduct.
  This bill includes language from a resolution I authored with our 
colleague Mike Turner, who has been a champion on this issue; and I 
thank him for his hard work. Our provision calls for review of DOD's 
capacity and infrastructure to investigate and prosecute sexual assault 
and rape cases and to identify any deficiencies. The legislation also 
requires that DOD develop a sexual assault prevention plan for 
Congress' review. This would include action plans for reducing the 
number of sexual assaults and timelines for implementation of the 
program. DOD

[[Page H7221]]

would be required to develop a mechanism to measure the effectiveness 
of its prevention program.
  While this bill is commendable and includes good steps towards 
eliminating rapists in the ranks, I believe we can do even more. We 
must build on these efforts and insist on real accountability from the 
chain of command. And a major step toward eradicating rape in the 
military is making sure that blue-on-blue attacks are punished.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a force protection issue and a moral issue. 
Congress and DOD must do better. And when our colleague John McHugh 
becomes Army Secretary, I urge him to pursue the issue and support the 
Army's impressive ``I am strong'' campaign initiated by his 
predecessor, our former colleague, Pete Geren. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  This body at this time sits under a cloud. We have investigations 
from the Justice Department and an investigation by our own Ethics 
Committee into the intersection between campaign contributions and 
earmarks. More specifically, earmarks that go to for-profit companies, 
sole-source contracts, no-bid contracts, that's what earmarks basically 
are, that are going to, in particular, defense contractors. And then 
contributions come back from individuals who represent those groups and 
the lobbyists who represent those groups, so-called ``circular 
fundraising.'' That's being investigated, as I mentioned, by the 
Justice Department and our own Ethics Committee.
  And yet this rule will set in motion a process by which we will 
approve more than 300 in this bill alone, 300 earmarks, no-bid 
contracts, for private companies, for-profit companies. Again, in this 
legislation, if this rule is approved, this legislation will provide 
more than 600 earmarks, more than half of which, over 300 of which, 
represent no-bid contracts to private companies. We simply cannot 
continue to do this, Mr. Speaker.
  I offered an amendment that would prohibit Members from giving 
earmarks or no-bid contracts to their campaign contributors. That 
amendment was not ruled in order. It should have been. We should as a 
body decide that we cannot continue this practice. We need to remove 
the cloud that hangs over this body that rains on Republicans and 
Democrats alike.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I read this evening with interest the 
President of the United States has threatened to veto the Defense bill 
if the additional funding exists for F-22 fighter planes.
  Mr. Speaker, the President is absolutely right. And the real problem 
today is that opportunity to vote against those unnecessary planes are 
not allowed in this rule. In the end we have to stop spending more and 
start spending smarter.
  I was extremely disappointed to learn that the administration's 
recommendation to halt the F-22 program was overridden. 187 F-22 Raptor 
fighter jets are not enough? The Raptor has not even been deployed to 
Iraq or Afghanistan, our two largest military fronts.
  While I am not an expert on defense procurement, our Defense 
Secretary, Robert Gates, is. So I tend to believe him when he said that 
the notion of not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security 
of the United States is ``completely nonsense.''
  We are far and away the most superior air force in the world. Why 
would we pour billions more into an area where we already dominate and 
continue to support an aircraft that is not suited to the current 
battlefields in which we fight? We have to invest in low-tech equipment 
such as unmanned drones, which are effective in those areas of 
conflict.
  And always remember that every defense dollar spent to bolster an 
area where we already dominate is a dollar we don't have to spend to 
take care of our soldiers, strengthen our forces, and improve in areas 
where we may be vulnerable and our soldiers may be vulnerable.
  Again, we have to simply stop spending more and start spending 
smarter. Our soldiers deserve it. The taxpayers deserve it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend from Maine and 
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy, and I want to thank all 
who have come to participate in this debate. This legislation enjoys 
extraordinarily wide bipartisan support.
  It's unfortunate that the rule that brings it to the floor is not 
fair. As I pointed out, it makes about two-thirds of the amendments 
that were introduced to the Rules Committee from the majority party in 
order and only about one-third of the amendments presented or 
introduced, proposed for debate by Members of the minority party. 
That's not fair. And it maintains a pattern that obviously we have seen 
deepened, augmented significantly in a very worrisome way in the 
appropriations process, where for the first time all of the 
appropriations bills are being brought to the floor under restrictive 
rules. We have had significant debate, but that's something that is 
also unfair and unfortunate, and it diminishes the rights of each of 
the Members of this House.
  So I do think it's important we get to debate on legislation, in this 
case, this authorization of the Armed Forces legislation that enjoys 
such widespread bipartisan support.
  So once again, opposing the rule and opposing the previous question, 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for the dialogue that we have had here on the 
floor tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today will continue the open debate 
that was held on committee, some of which continue tonight, and further 
our efforts to find solutions to those pressing problems.
  In particular, this rule adds the text of H.R. 2990 to the underlying 
bill, which funds a 1-year expansion of concurrent receipts for retired 
veterans, extends retention bonuses and special pay authorities for 
enlisted servicemembers and funds provisions in the Federal Retirement 
Reform Act of 2009.
  I would like to thank the Chair, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member 
McKeon, and all my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee for 
their tireless work on this bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________