[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7236-H7246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 572 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2647.

                              {time}  2241


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with 
Mr. Altmire in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The House Armed Services 
Committee brings before the House a bill reported out of committee by a 
vote of 61-0. This consensus was achieved after a great deal of hard 
work. Our mark lasted almost 17 hours. We considered 129 amendments; we 
adopted 107 of them. We had an excellent debate on the issues in the 
best traditions of our committee. I am confident we will have a similar 
experience here in the full House.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be joined in support of the bill by my 
friend and my partner, Buck McKeon. I am thrilled that he is our 
ranking member, and I commend him for jumping in head first on his 
first official day on the job, which of course was a full day for our 
markup. He has been a very able and constructive partner as well as, 
when required, a skilled opponent. I must, however, mention our 
esteemed colleague, John McHugh, who has agreed to become the Secretary 
of the Army, but who leaves our committee having established a lasting 
legacy, especially on issues of personnel.
  In this debate we will consider, and I am confident that we will 
adopt, an amendment that is sponsored by both Mr. McKeon and me that is 
a tribute to the work of John McHugh on our committee.
  Likewise, I must thank the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members 
who contributed so much on this bill. They did their homework, and I am 
pleased with the outcome of our efforts. They solved almost every 
problem set out for them, and they accomplished a lot of good 
government at the same time.

                              {time}  2245

  They were ably assisted by our committee staff, the amazing 
professionals in the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and the Office 
of the Parliamentarian.
  This bill authorizes $550.5 billion in budget authority for the 
Department of Defense and the national security programs of the 
Department of Energy. The bill also authorizes $130 billion to support 
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during fiscal year 
2010. These amounts are essentially equal to the President's budget 
request for items in the jurisdiction of our committee.
  H.R. 2647 reflects the Congress' deep commitment to supporting 
American servicemembers and providing the necessary resources to keep 
Americans safe. The bill provides our military personnel with a 3.4 
percent pay raise, an increase of .5 percent above the President's 
request. The bill also includes a number of initiatives to support 
military families. In this, the Year of the Military Family, we provide 
funds to establish a Center for Care for military members and their 
families. We also increase the weight allowance for senior 
noncommissioned officers, and authorize the transportation of a second 
vehicle for members who are changing stations from or to a nonforeign 
area outside the United States. The bill also provides funding to 
enhance the Health Professions Scholarship program for mental health 
providers to support the troops and their families.
  The mark fully funds the President's budget request for military 
training, equipment, maintenance, and facilities upkeep. By doing so, 
the committee continues its efforts to address readiness shortfalls 
that have developed over the past 8 years.
  To address some of these concerns in this mark, we have added $1.6 
billion to operation and maintenance, including $395 million for Navy 
aviation and ship depot maintenance, $762 million to achieve 100 
percent of the requirement for sustainment of facilities, including the 
Department of Defense schools, which, by the way, are excellent, and 
$450 million to improve the quality of Army training barracks.
  The war in Afghanistan is a critical mission that is finally getting 
the attention it demands, and I've been saying that for quite some 
time. To ensure our strategy in both countries is effective and 
achieves the intended goals within well-defined timelines, the bill 
requires the President to assess American efforts and regularly report 
on progress. It also authorizes the new Pakistan Counter-Insurgency 
Fund to allow our commanders to help Pakistan quickly and more 
effectively go after the terrorists in their safe havens.
  On Iraq, the committee supports the President's policy while also 
upholding the Congress' responsibility to provide oversight to the 
process of drawing down the mountain of material purchased, transported 
and built up in Iraq at tremendous expense to the taxpayer.
  In the area of nonproliferation, the bill increases funding and 
creates new authorities to strengthen the Department of Defense's 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The bill also fully supports the 
Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs, and adds substantial 
funding in support of the President's plan to secure and remove all 
known vulnerable nuclear materials that can be used for weapons.
  The bill takes additional steps on acquisition reform beyond what we 
did in the bill on weapons acquisition which was enacted and signed 
into law by the President last month.
  It also ensures that the Quadrennial Defense Review currently being 
undertaken by the Department of Defense both complies with the law and 
gives Congress the insight it needs to make judgments about force 
structure and programmatic changes.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill can be supported by 
every Member of this House. I recognize that some who have deep 
objections to current defense policy on various issues may feel 
compelled maybe to oppose the bill. That's their right, of course. But 
even in most of those cases, I believe that solid progress is made in 
this bill toward protecting our national security in the right way.
  I ask Members to vote for H.R. 2647, for our troops and their 
families, and for a strong national defense for our Nation.

[[Page H7237]]

  The object of our affection, Mr. Chairman, are the young men and 
young women in uniform who do professional, outstanding work for our 
country. This bill helps them in their efforts. All of us are proud of 
them, and I hope that the vote on this bill, when we vote tomorrow, 
will reflect that pride in the military of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as legislators, we meet once again to address the wide 
range of important national security issues undertaken by the 
Departments of Defense and Energy.
  We all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. This is 
especially true during a time of war, and it is always true of my good 
friend and colleague, Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton.
  I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, without saying a word about the 
outgoing ranking member, John McHugh. I know we all agree that this 
committee, this Congress, and the 23rd District of New York will all 
miss the leadership of John McHugh. I look forward to speaking more 
about John later in our debate.
  As a result of Chairman Skelton's tireless efforts to put forward 
this bill, our committee reported out the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 last Wednesday. The vote was 
unanimous, 61-0.
  Consistent with the longstanding bipartisan practice of the Armed 
Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong 
support for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
  This legislation acknowledges that the United States has a vital 
national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once 
again become a safe haven for terrorists, supports a comprehensive 
counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by 
Congress, and calls on the President to provide our U.S. military 
commanders with the military forces they require in order to succeed.
  In Iraq, the committee ensures the Congress will support the 
President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our 
commanders on the ground the flexibility to hold hard-fought security 
gains and ensure the safety of our forces.
  Mr. Chairman, we owe our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines the 
very best available equipment, training and support in order to provide 
them with the best possible tools to undertake their missions and 
return safely. The provisions that are already in this bill go a 
considerable way in demonstrating this support, but we can, and should, 
improve it.
  Congress, and particularly the Armed Services Committees in both 
Chambers, has the unmistakable obligation to ensure that the Department 
of Defense develops and deploys defensive capabilities that protect the 
American people, our forward-deployed forces, and our allies. This 
includes promising programs in the areas of missile defense.
  In a year where Iran and North Korea have demonstrated the capability 
and intent to pursue long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons 
programs, elements of genuine national security threat, this bill 
endorsed reductions to capabilities that would provide a comprehensive 
missile defense system to protect the U.S. homeland, our forward-
deployed troops, and our allies.
  We need to take steps that would reverse the administration's 35 
percent reduction to a critical component of the national missile 
defense system located in Alaska and California, which is designed as a 
last line of defense to protect the U.S. homeland. It's unfortunate 
that we've been forced to trade national missile defense capabilities 
for more theater missile defense. Both are necessary, and both could 
have been adequately funded without such deep cuts.
  Building on the Weapons Acquisition Reform bill that the President 
signed in May, this legislation takes a number of important steps on 
major weapons programs. I am pleased that this bill provides $368.8 
million in advance procurement funding for 12 additional F-22s. Keeping 
the F-22 production line open is not only necessary to meet military 
requirements, but also sustains a critical sector of the defense 
industrial base and provides over 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at a 
time when our economy is struggling through a recession.
  As a Nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and 
women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the 
sacrifices they make to protect our freedom. I am pleased that this 
legislation includes a 3.4 percent pay raise, which is half a 
percentage point above the President's request. I commend and thank 
Chairman Skelton for working to address the concurrent receipt in the 
suspension bill addressed earlier today. However, I remain concerned 
that we were not able to fund payments to military surviving spouses by 
repealing the ``widow's tax'' and allowing access to TRICARE for Guard 
and Reserve members who receive earlier retirement. If this is truly to 
be the Year of the Military Family, we must make it a priority to fund 
these programs, too.
  One of the few areas where there is disagreement within our committee 
is detainee policy. These are differences that I believe need to be 
debated and given a vote within the full House. As you know, many 
Members believe the American people do not want detainees in Guantanamo 
brought to the sovereign territory of our country. I am disappointed we 
will not debate amendments dealing with the transfer or release of 
detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into the United States.
  Finally, I strongly agree with many Members who believe that Congress 
should do everything possible to ensure that the detainee pictures 
presently subject to the Freedom of Information Act are not released. 
The President and our military commanders determined that these photos, 
if released, would risk the safety of U.S. forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Given the overwhelming support for this language in the 
Senate, I regret that we could not address this issue on the House 
floor today.
  As in years past, I believe that this legislation reflects many of 
the Armed Services Committee's priorities in supporting our Nation's 
dedicated and courageous servicemembers.
  I thank Chairman Skelton for putting together an excellent bill and 
helping us to stay focused on delivering a bill that protects, 
sustains, and builds our forces. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to improve and pass H.R. 2647.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, the Member I am about to yield to for 3 
minutes will be giving her last presentation in this House, for she 
will be, very shortly, a member of the administration within the State 
Department with a high-ranking position. We wish her well, as well as 
wishing her well in her upcoming marriage.
  I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those very kind words. It 
has been a pleasure to work with you and my colleagues on the committee 
and my colleagues in the House. Thank you for your patriotic service.
  I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and to summarize the portions 
of the bill drafted by the Strategic Forces Subcommittee which I am 
proud to have chaired for the past 3 years.
  I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including 
Ranking Member Turner for his hard work and always good willingness to 
work in a bipartisan way.
  H.R. 2647 includes $14.3 billion for the Department of Energy 
national security programs, not including nuclear nonproliferation 
programs, $9.3 billion for ballistic missile defense programs, the 
amount the President requested, and $11 billion for military space 
programs, including just over $9 billion for Air Force space programs.
  For Department of Energy national security programs, the bill 
authorizes $6.5 billion for nuclear weapons activities and $5 billion 
for the Defense Environmental Cleanup.
  H.R. 2647 authorizes a new stockpiling management program to provide 
better guidance to the National Nuclear Security Administration on the

[[Page H7238]]

maintenance of our nuclear weapons and to establish clear limits on 
that maintenance. The bill also adds a new requirement for lab-to-lab 
peer review called ``Dual Validation'' as part of the annual assessment 
of the nuclear stockpile.
  For missile defense, the bill authorizes the President's request of 
$9.3 billion overall, including nearly $8 billion for the Missile 
Defense Agency. The bill focuses on the highest priority threats and on 
making our missile defense system more effective. As such, the bill 
shifts away from the capabilities-based approach of the last few years, 
which meant that if a contractor said they could build it, MDA would 
fund it whether or not it addressed a current threat or whether or not 
the combatant commanders requested it. That approach yielded several 
early-to-need programs that fell behind schedule and went way over 
budget and left us with ground-based interceptors in Alaska that we are 
currently spending millions of dollars to fix and upgrade.

                              {time}  2300

  In contrast, as MDA Director General Patrick O'Reilly told our 
subcommittee in May, the process leading up to this year's request on 
missile defense was the first that involved the combatant commanders in 
a meaningful way and the first with a mature Missile Defense Evaluation 
Board in place.
  This more sensible process yielded a balanced, threat-based approach 
to missile defense.
  H.R. 2647 includes $1 billion to further develop the Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense system to defend against emerging long-range threats, 
and it includes a requirement to prepare a sustainment and 
modernization program for the ground-based system.
  H.R. 2647 also substantially increases the deployment of proven 
missile defense capabilities such as Aegis BMD and the Terminal High 
Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, which are designed to counter the 
ballistic missile threats our troops are most likely to face: Short, 
medium-range missiles.
  Over the next 5 years, the Aegis Standard Missile-3 inventory will 
grow from 133 to 325.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for working with me. I think 
this is a very good bill. I think we address the threats to our 
forward-deployed troops, our allies, and I hope my colleagues work with 
us to support the bill and get its passage.
  In military space programs, the mark builds on the bipartisan 
approach the subcommittee took in the last Congress.
  The bill makes reductions in programs with significant schedule and 
cost risks, including the Third Generation Infrared Satellite System 
and the High Integrity GPS program.
  The bill reflects the subcommittee's support for the Operationally 
Responsive Space (ORS) program, and includes an increase of twenty-
three point four million dollars to support the launch of the first ORS 
imaging satellite, ORS SAT-1.
  H.R. 2647 also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a space 
science and technology strategy when the President submits the budget 
request to Congress. This provision will help guide the Administration 
and Congress as we approach major investment decisions in national 
security space.
  H.R. 2647 also provides a twelve month extension for the 
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the U.S., to allow 
the commission to review the strategic security issues addressed by the 
pending Nuclear Posture Review and Quadrennial Defense Review.
  Finally, in intelligence-related matters, the bill recommends a 
funding increase to boost the focus and resources of the Intelligence 
Community devoted to analyzing foreign nuclear weapons capabilities, 
programs, and intentions.
  H.R. 2647 also includes two important planning requirements related 
to intelligence.
  First, it requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense, to 
prepare a plan to maintain a robust foreign nuclear activities analysis 
capability in the DOE national labs.
  Second, it requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
the DNI, to assess foreign ballistic missile intelligence analysis gaps 
and shortfalls, and prepare a plan to address such gaps.
  In sum, H.R. 2647 smartly tackles the critical national security 
priorities within the jurisdiction of the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2647.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett) the ranking member on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
such time as he may consume.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.
  I would like to thank my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) 
the chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, for his continued 
professionalism and all the hard work that has taken place behind the 
scenes to get this bill done. This is not an easy process and the 
legislation before us reflects many difficult decisions.
  Once again, this bill places force-protection issues at the top of 
the priority list. It provides additional funds for the National Guard 
equipment account and the services' unfunded priority lists. And the 
changes that this bill makes in regards to body armor is long overdue 
and will provide better protection for our war fighters for years to 
come.
  As I said during our oversight hearings and subcommittee markup, 
there is no doubt that this budget and the decisions that come along 
with it will fundamentally change the United States Air Force and Army.
  I see two problems. First, the budget should not drive the strategy. 
The strategy should be set, then the funding requirements are laid out 
in the budget that follows. It appears to me that in many cases funding 
limitations in the FY 2010 budget top line were the sole driver in 
major policy decisions.
  The second problem that I see is that instead of openly engaging the 
legislative branch on policy matters proposed for structure changes and 
the shifting requirements for major weapons platforms, the executive 
branch has chosen to lock us out of those debates and tie our hands by 
unveiling sweeping policy changes buried under the guise of a budget 
request.
  A case in point is the joint cargo aircraft. I have asked witnesses 
in the Army, the Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
What has changed? Why is this mission being moved out of the Army and 
solely over to the Air Force, when not 4 months ago we received the 
Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report that stated, ``the option 
that provided most value to the joint force was to assign the C-27J to 
the Air Force and Army. ``
  None of them have been able to answer the question, but all of them 
stated that there was no new study or analysis conducted that countered 
the existing plan or reduced the JROC recruit requirement for 78 joint 
cargo aircraft.
  What has happened as a result of all this is that the Congress is now 
left to debate the puts and takes in the budget when there has been no 
vetting of the underlying threat assumptions policy or strategy. This 
body, not the executive branch, is charged with a constitutional 
mandate to raise and support armies and navies. I am extremely troubled 
that these decisions have been made in a vacuum and appear at least on 
the surface to be informed by nothing other than top-line budget 
pressures.
  I want to be clear that my frustration is with the Department, not 
this bill. In fact, given the little information that we have received, 
I believe our Members on both sides of the aisle and our really 
excellent staff have done an amazing job. As I said on many occasions, 
the House Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of focusing on 
those issues that most impact and help our brave men and women in 
uniform. And I, like all our Members on both sides of the aisle, am 
very proud to be serving on this committee.
  Finally I would like to briefly comment on the Army's Future Combat 
System. As we all know, the Secretary of Defense announced a decision 
to restructure the decision and terminate the Manned Ground Vehicles. 
Our committee has scrutinized the Future Combat System program in a 
bipartisan manner since 2004. We have consistently had concerns in 
regard to the survivability of the Manned Ground Vehicles, but we have 
never questioned the need for the Army to modernize and replace a 
combat vehicle fleet that is in excess of 30 years old.
  The problem that I have is there is still much information that we 
need from OSD so that we can make informed decisions. As a result, we 
have been forced to make some very difficult decisions I would prefer 
to make with more information.

[[Page H7239]]

  Again, on balance, this is a good bill, and I encourage all members 
to support it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my 
colleague from Texas, who is the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness, Mr. Ortiz.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The bill before us today reflects our 
committee's continuing efforts to reverse a decline in the readiness 
posture for Armed Forces.
  I would like to thank the ranking member from my subcommittee, my 
good friend, Mr. Forbes of Virginia, for his help in bringing together 
this excellent bill.
  The United States military is, without a doubt, the premier fighting 
force in the world. However, military leaders face significant 
challenges as they seek to fulfill the basic equipment and training 
needs.
  H.R. 2647 is dedicated to providing the necessary resources and 
authorities to help reverse declining trends in training and equipment 
readiness. H.R. 2647 includes the following provisions to improve the 
overall state of the United States military readiness:
  It provides $13 billion for reset of Army and Marine Corps equipment, 
deployment. It adds $762 million to fully sustain military base 
facilities and infrastructure, including Department of Defense schools.
  It adds $450 million for Army barracks improvements and provides $440 
million to support National Guard and Reserve military construction 
programs. It adds $395 million to Navy depot maintenance accounts for 
ships and aircraft.
  It authorizes $90 million for energy conservation projects and 
encourages use of renewable energy and hybrid and electric vehicles. It 
requires a GAO report on DOD's approach to balancing the dueling 
requirements of troops.
  It includes a 1-year extension of premium pay for Federal civilian 
employees deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and it provides $4.7 
billion for training opportunities for the Army.
  This bill also does many good things for south Texas. It provides 
additional space for the Army Reserve to warehouse equipment in a 
controlled humidity environment in Robstown, Texas.
  The bill also authorizes an energy demonstration project at Naval Air 
Station Kingsville that would reduce carbon emissions and provide a 
renewable source of free electricity.
  I support this bill, H.R. 2647, and am proud of what this bill does 
to restore strength to our military.
  My friends, this is a good bill that reflects our bipartisan desire 
to improve readiness and balance the many priorities of our Armed 
Forces.
  I urge my colleagues and my friends to vote for this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield now to the gentleman from Virginia, the 
subcommittee ranking member on the readiness committee, Mr. Forbes, 3 
minutes.
  Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to stand in 
support of this year's defense policy bill.
  I would also like to express my sincere appreciation for Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership and hard work in 
crafting a bipartisan bill that was unanimously supported by the Armed 
Services Committee. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Ortiz) for his friendship and the foresight with which he conducts 
the readiness subcommittee.
  This bill does much to address the readiness issues facing the 
Department of Defense by providing the Navy with $395 million to 
address both of the Navy's shortfalls in ship repair and aviation 
maintenance. We have fully funded other key readiness accounts so that 
our men and women have the tools, training and equipment they need when 
they deploy to protect our Nation.
  I am pleased that this bill continues a steadfast commitment to fully 
funding the 2005 BRAC round for the Army, Air Force and Navy so that it 
can be completed by September 2011. However, I am deeply disappointed 
that the measure does not fully fund $350 million for defense-wide BRAC 
projects, which includes the construction of critical military 
hospitals for our men and women in uniform.
  The amendment that was adopted by the full committee that led to this 
reduction will end up costing taxpayers more than $2 billion in 2010 
alone, which is enough money to fully fund these critical health care 
facilities and restore $1.2 billion for comprehensive missile defense. 
Instead, this provision will lead to inflated wages in Guam, while 
taking American jobs from construction projects in Texas, Maryland, and 
Virginia.
  That provision notwithstanding, there are many worthwhile provisions 
in this bill that will support our men and women in uniform, as well as 
the communities that support them.
  I am pleased that we have added $9 billion above the President's 
request to assist small businesses and allow them to compete for local 
defense contracts, an additional $65 million to provide aid to school 
districts impacted by military families, and $20 million above the 
President's request to assist the military and conservation groups 
working together to protect against encroachment at our military 
installations.
  All in all, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a good bill, and it 
will do much to support the readiness of our military.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Sea Power and 
Expeditionary Forces, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. I very much want to thank our outstanding chairman, Mr. 
Skelton for giving me this opportunity.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization 
Act. As chairman of the Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to report to the House that this bill 
strengthens our Navy and Marine Corps by providing the necessary 
equipment for the brave young sailors and marines to carry out the 
tasks that our Nation requests of them. In all, this bill authorizes 
$38 billion for Navy and Marine Corps procurement, $19.6 billion for 
Navy and Marine Corps research and development efforts, $3.2 billion 
for Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Contingency Operations, and $401.9 
million for maintaining a robust United States merchant fleet.
  I believe that the balance between quality, capability, and 
affordability is met head on with the bill before the House tonight. 
The bill provides authorization for the correct number of ships, planes 
and ground vehicles with the right capability to meet the threat, but 
with the recognition that unless equipment can be procured affordably, 
we will never be able to build our fleet or our air wings. That's why, 
working in a bipartisan manner, the subcommittee recommended and the 
full committee adopted our recommendation to grant multiyear 
procurement authority for the construction of DDG 51 destroyer 
programs, the world's best destroyer, and multiyear procurement 
authority to realize significant cost savings in the procurement of F/A 
18 Strike Fighters to repopulate our air wings on the decks of our 
carriers.
  In particular, the bill would authorize construction of eight new 
battle force vessels to include a Virginia Class submarine, three 
Littoral Combat Ships, one DDG 51 Burke Class Destroyer, two T-AKE Dry 
Cargo Ammunition Ships and one Joint High Speed Vessel. In addition to 
new construction, the bill would authorize procurement of long lead 
material construction for seven additional vessels in coming years, 
most importantly, two submarines per year starting next year.
  The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
multiyear contracts for the purchase of additional F/A 18 Superhornets 
and E/A 18 Growlers. The bill contains over $100 million in additional 
funding to buy long-lead equipment and materiel necessary to continue 
production of these aircraft.
  These are the finest aircraft in the world today, save our own Air 
Force F22 Raptor. Since it's unlikely that our Navy and Air Force will 
go to battle against themselves, that means the Superhornet is 
unmatched by any other strike fighter in the world.

[[Page H7240]]

  We must always remember that the Navy and the Marine Corps are our 
Nation's 9-1-1 force; they can arrive anywhere in the world quickly 
with full combat power. They do not need weeks or months to ship and 
stage equipment. This is why the expeditionary force desperately needs 
more of these strike fighters. The bill will provide that capability.
  This bill would also continue vital research and development efforts 
to ensure that our fleet maintains the technology and the superiority 
necessary to defeat all threats.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Most notably, advanced missile and advanced submarine 
threats. The bill would fund the design and development of the next 
class of missile submarine, the next class of nuclear powered cruiser, 
and the next class of aircraft carriers.
  Finally, the bill authorizes the resources necessary to maintain a 
robust United States Merchant Marine and authorizes $60 billion for the 
Title XI program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Captain Will Ebbs, Ms. Jeaness 
Simlar, Heath Pope, Doug Bush, and Jesse Tollson for their work in 
putting together this portion of the bill. I recommend it to the full 
House for its passage.

                              {time}  2315

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 12 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on 
the Terrorism Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I do rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. As the ranking member of the 
Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, I 
think we have put together a good and an excellent mark. And I'd like 
to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for all of his cooperation in 
putting this together.
  The members of the subcommittee have worked hard to address the many 
issues that face special operations, information technology, and 
science and technology investments, just to name a few of the areas 
that our subcommittee has handled.
  We have provided important support to the Department's effort to 
enhance NATO capabilities so that our forces do not bear the entire 
burden of the efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe.
  I believe we should support additional efforts to increase NATO's 
ability to contribute, especially at a time when irregular threats are 
only increasing and partnerships will prove of the utmost importance.
  Our bill also addresses the needs of our special operators by 
increasing the budget request to address the command's unfunded 
requirements. These forces are at the tip of the spear in our 
military's efforts to counter terrorism and to bring stability to 
regions on the brink of chaos.
  The bill includes measures to strengthen the Department's ability to 
operate in cyberspace and to address vulnerabilities to our information 
technology systems. The bill directs the establishment of a joint 
program office to better coordinate the acquisition of cyber 
capabilities across the Department and continues to push the Department 
to establish processes for the timely acquisition of needed information 
technology systems.
  Finally, this bill continues our previous support of science and 
technology programs. Sustained investment in this area is very 
important for our military forces to maintain their warfighting 
capability not just now, but well into the future.
  I would say that we need to continue to work on strategic 
communications, combating the potential use of weapons of mass 
destruction, and ensuring our national defense strategy addresses 
appropriately the range of threats found in our security environment 
today.
  We must not lose sight of the importance of these issues and to 
ensure our forces have the resources, the authorities, and the 
equipment needed to provide for our Nation's defense.
  Before finishing, I'd like to thank our former ranking member, Mr. 
John McHugh, for all of his help, confidence, and advice. We wish him 
Godspeed. With that, I ask for my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my 
friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act and to discuss briefly the portions of the bill 
contained under the subcommittee that I chair on Terrorism and 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. And I want to begin by 
thanking Ranking Member Miller from the great State of Florida for his 
support for this bill. We work in true bipartisan fashion on the 
subcommittee, following the lead of our able chairman, who does the 
same with the full committee, and I think, in large part as a result of 
that, we produce a very good product.
  I also want to thank the chairman for his overall leadership on the 
committee in putting together this mark. It places the priorities 
exactly where they belong, first and foremost, on our troops and their 
families, giving them the support they need to continue to fight and 
defend our country.
  In program after program, you can see the priority that that is put 
in this bill. I really appreciate the chairman's work on that and, 
particularly, the 3.4 percent pay raise across the board for our 
military.
  The bill also prioritizes our fight in Afghanistan, the central front 
now in the war against al Qaeda. It is absolutely clear that the battle 
over there has a profound impact on the national security of this 
country. This bill gives our troops over there the resources and 
equipment they need to fight the fight, to defeat al Qaeda, and to 
protect us against the violent extremists in that region.
  In particular, it also recognizes the battle in Pakistan by funding 
counterinsurgency efforts there that are so critical not just to 
success in Pakistan but to success in Afghanistan as well.
  On the subcommittee portion of our mark on the Terrorism 
Subcommittee, we are focused on three main issues: First of all, 
support for counterterrorism efforts, the fight against al Qaeda, and 
broader counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts across the 
globe; second, the support for innovative new technologies to give our 
troops the updated equipment that they need to best fight those fights; 
and lastly, to protect our homeland against unconventional threats.
  All of these areas are focused on irregular warfare, unconventional 
threats, and the emerging threats that we face. And I want to take just 
a moment to thank Secretary Gates for his leadership in funding the 
money necessary, the programs necessary, the troops necessary to fight 
these fights. He made some bold steps in this bill to move us past a 
cold war mentality to focus on the threats that are right there before 
us from al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups. I think that makes 
an enormous difference.
  In particular, in our mark we do everything we can to support our 
troops with the special operations command. They are the tip of the 
spear in fighting terrorism, in fighting insurgencies throughout the 
globe. We are growing their force--in the process of growing their 
force. It is necessary to fund that growth and fully support their 
outstanding efforts in protecting us across the globe.
  We are very pleased with the operations and always make a high 
priority funding their efforts. We fully fund all of their unfunded 
requirements in this mark.
  So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I simply again want to compliment 
Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, also Ranking Member McHugh for 
all of his work on this committee and on this bill and Ranking Member 
Miller for his support as well. I think we have put together an 
outstanding bill that will best protect the national security interests 
of this country.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield, at this time, 3 minutes to the ranking member on 
the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010. As ranking member of the Seapower and 
Expeditionary

[[Page H7241]]

Forces Subcommittee, I applaud the efforts of Chairman Taylor and his 
staff, who have done an excellent job in meeting the needs of our 
sailors, aviators, and marines.
  With respect to aviation, the bill takes an important step toward 
addressing the Navy's strike-fighter shortfall. The Navy completed a 
study required in last year's bill to evaluate the potential benefits 
of a multiyear procurement for the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which is the 
only ``hot'' production line we have for fighters for the Navy.
  Unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense refused to allow the report 
to be submitted to Congress. In the absence of any analysis of this 
issue from the Department, the committee used its own judgment and 
included a multiyear authority for the Super Hornet.
  We also provide sufficient long-lead funding to allow the Navy to 
execute this multiyear contract. I believe this is imperative, 
especially as the Navy continues to find more and more areas of concern 
on the legacy fleet that may make it challenging to extend the service 
life of these aircraft. I want to thank Chairman Taylor for working 
with me on this issue, as well as a number of others.
  For the Marine Corps, the bill fully funds the Marine's Expeditionary 
Fighting Vehicle program, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, 
known as MRAPs, and all of the items on their unfunded requirements.
  Despite the fact that the Department of Defense refused to provide 
the 30-year shipbuilding program required by law, which made this 
committee's work difficult, the bill largely supports the President's 
budget request in this area.
  At the full committee, Representative Conaway and I, along with 
Chairman Taylor, introduced an amendment that would put some teeth into 
the changes made to the Littoral Combat Ship program cost cap. The Navy 
needs to know that we're serious about controlling costs and do not 
adjust cost caps lightly.
  The main concern I have with this bill does not fall under the 
Seapower Subcommittee, but I must mention it. Cutting missile defense 
by $1.2 billion makes no sense, particularly when North Korea and Iran 
are both working on nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. A cut of 
this magnitude is unacceptable.
  I also continue to have one other overarching concern. We're not 
investing enough in the future of our military. The top line provided 
by the administration and, frankly, by this Congress, is too low. While 
we seem to be throwing money into every other problem under the Sun, 
we're tightening our belts on defense. This makes no sense.
  But, again, this is a good bill overall, and Chairman Skelton has 
done his best with these constraints. We're very thankful for his 
leadership.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give my best wishes to our former 
ranking member, John McHugh, who has a fine record in this institution, 
and I know he will continue to serve and fight for the men and women in 
uniform. Nevertheless, he will be missed on this committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and my friend, the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I certainly want to salute our exemplary 
leader on this committee, Mr. Skelton, and thank him very much for all 
his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues on the House Armed Services 
Committee in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010. As chairwoman of the Military Personnel 
Subcommittee, I'm particularly proud of the provisions in the bill that 
improve the quality of life for our servicemembers, their families, 
retirees, and military survivors.
  I want to recognize my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman 
from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, for working with me in support of 
these very important initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, servicemembers and their families are bearing the 
burden of multiple deployments after nearly 8 years of conflict. It is 
our responsibility to support our men and women in uniform and their 
families, given the enormous sacrifices they are making in defense of 
our Nation.
  We all agree that these men and women are the heart and soul of our 
military. All the weapons systems in the world cannot substitute for 
their competency, their dedication and sacrifice.
  Sadly, a recent survey shows that 94 percent of military families do 
not believe that the American people truly understand the sacrifices 
they are making on behalf of our country, so we have a responsibility 
to change that, and we're trying to do that with this bill today.
  Fortunately, this year the subcommittee did not have to deal with the 
dramatic increases to TRICARE fees and premiums previously proposed by 
the Department of Defense. Secretary Gates has indicated a willingness 
to work with the committee to address the significant growth in 
military health care expenditures. And we need to work together not 
only with the Department of Defense, but with those who represent our 
military personnel, retirees, survivors, and their families to find a 
fair and equitable solution that protects our beneficiaries and ensures 
that the financial viability of the military health care system is 
real.
  Some of the highlights of the bill include a 3.4 percent pay raise, 
which is half a percent higher than the President's budget request. 
Those who are serving on the front lines every day have earned this pay 
raise.
  The bill also includes a number of initiatives that are focused on 
military families, such as TRICARE coverage for reservists and their 
families and a monthly compensation allowance for members with combat-
related catastrophic illnesses and injuries to receive assistance for 
activities related to daily living.
  The committee has taken more steps to address the serious mental 
health issues faced by our military. I am pleased that we will be able 
to include a series of amendments to make the mental health provisions 
in this bill even stronger. We must continue to work on this issue.
  Lastly, this bill continues the committee's oversight and commitment 
to significantly reducing sexual assaults and harassment within the 
Department of Defense.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the subcommittee ranking 
member on Military Personnel, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 2647. This bill contains significant policy and funding 
initiatives that address important issues for our military personnel 
and quality of life.
  I was honored to serve with Military Personnel Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Susan Davis, who I have seen firsthand promote our 
servicemembers, their families, and veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton and the 
professional staff for their efforts; particularly John Chapla and 
Jeanette James.
  To that end, the bill contains many important initiatives, including 
a military pay raise of 3.4 percent. The raise is 0.5 percent above the 
President's budget request.

                              {time}  2330

  Mindful of the challenge the Army is having with large numbers of 
nondeployable personnel, we have recommended continued growth in Army 
end strength. The bill would allow the Army to increase by 30,000 in 
2011 or 2012. I am particularly pleased that we changed the matching 
fund requirement to a 75-25 percent ratio between the Department of 
Defense and the States for the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program.
  In addition, the bill protects child custody arrangements for 
deployed parents, championed by Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio. With 
all these good things in the bill, I must again raise my disappointment 
that we were unable to even debate my amendment in full committee 
dealing with concurrent receipt; the elimination of the survivor 
benefit plan; the dependency and

[[Page H7242]]

indemnity compensation offset, more sadly known as the widows tax; the 
extension of health care to early retiring Reserve component members; 
and the use of the misnamed Reserve fund in the budget resolution.
  Had the Democratic leadership seen eliminating these injustices as a 
priority, they could have allocated the small percentages necessary in 
the $15 trillion they provided for government spending in 2010 to 2014. 
This is less than one-sixth of 1 percent of mandatory spending for this 
period.
  In addition, I was disappointed by the fact that for the second year 
in a row, we were unable to include my amendment to extend early 
retirement credit for service for National Guardsmen and Reservists 
back to September 11, 2001, retrospectively. The prospective retirement 
credits since January 28, 2008, is a start; but as a 31-year veteran of 
the Army National Guard, I know more needs to be done. As a Nation, we 
owe more than our gratitude for the brave men and women in uniform and 
their families, past and present, for the sacrifices they make to 
protect our freedom.
  With that, Mr. Chair, H.R. 2647 is a strong defense authorization 
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of H.R. 2647.
  Congratulations to our dedicated colleague Congressman John McHugh of 
New York for his selection to serve as Secretary of the Army.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2647, The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This bill contains 
significant policy and funding initiatives that address important 
issues for military personnel and quality of life.
  I was honored to serve with Military Personnel Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Susan Davis who I have seen firsthand promote our 
servicemembers, their families, and veterans.
  Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton and the 
professional staff of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts, 
particularly John Chapla and Jeanette James.
  To that end, this bill contains many important initiatives, 
including: A military pay raise of 3.4 percent. The raise is .5 percent 
above the President's Budget request which reduces the pay gap to 2.4 
percent from 13.5 percent in fiscal year 1999, culminating ten years of 
enhanced pay raises.
  Mindful of the challenge the Army is having with large numbers of 
non-deployable personnel, we recommend continued growth in Army end 
strength. The bill would allow the Army to increase by 30,000 in 2011 
or 2012. Such growth would significantly improve the Army's ability to 
deploy fully manned units.
  I am particularly pleased that we changed the matching fund 
requirement to a 75-25 percent ratio between the Department of Defense 
and the states for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program. Other 
initiatives I would mention are:
  The statutory mandate for the Department of Defense to account for 
all the missing from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, the 
Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and other conflicts designated by the 
Secretary of Defense, and increase the number of identifications from 
the current 70 per year to 350 per year by 2020; and
  Extending TRICARE Reserve Select to members of the Retired Reserve 
who qualify for a non-regular retirement but have not reached age 60, 
otherwise known as ``grey area retirees.''
  Continuing our commitment to support our wounded warriors, the bill 
would:
  Establish a database to track service members who have been exposed 
to blasts to further enhance the care provided to for blast-related 
health issues, and;
  Require medical examinations before service members with post-
traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury may be involuntarily 
separated from the service.
  In addition, the bill protects child custody arrangements for 
deployed parents championed by Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio.
  With all the good things in this bill, I must again raise my 
disappointment that we were unable to even debate my amendment at full 
committee dealing with concurrent receipt, the elimination of the 
Survivor Benefit Plan and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 
offset, more sadly known as the widow's tax, the extension of health 
care to early retiring reserve component members, and the use of the 
misnamed Reserve Fund in the Budget Resolution.
  I would note that since the introduction of my amendment, the 
Democratic leadership has found a way to fund for nine months a very 
limited concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. That is a 
step forward to eliminating some of the injustice inflicted on disabled 
retirees. It however does nothing to cure the injustice still being 
suffered by most persons losing their rightly earned benefits because 
of the remaining concurrent receipt prohibitions.
  Had the Democratic leadership seen eliminating these injustices as a 
priority, they could have allocated the small percentages necessary in 
the 15 trillion dollars they provided for government spending in 2010 
to 2014. This is less than one-sixth of one percent of mandatory 
spending for this period. Or, they could have used the Reserve Fund 
authority as proposed in my amendment.

  Instead we must settle for a small pittance for a small group of 
retirees.
  I hope that since the authority for this limited concurrent receipt 
is for only nine months, that the Democratic leadership makes resolving 
all the concurrent receipt and the Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation injustices a real, not symbolic priority, 
next year. We should focus on eliminating the widow's tax.
  In addition, I was disappointed by the fact that, for the second year 
in a row, we were unable to include my amendment to extend early 
retirement credit for service for National Guardsmen and Reservists 
back to September 11, 2001, retrospectively. The prospective retirement 
credit since January 28, 2008, is a start, but as a 31 year veteran of 
the Army National Guard I know more needs to be done.
  As a nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and 
women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the 
sacrifices they make to protect our freedom.
  With that, Mr. Chair, H.R. 2647 is a strong defense authorization 
bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of H.R. 2647.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 
572 and as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that 
during further consideration of H.R. 2647 in the Committee of the 
Whole, and following consideration of amendment No. 1, printed in House 
Report 111-182, the following amendments be considered: amendment No. 
3, printed in House Report 111-182; amendment No. 4, printed in House 
Report 111-182; en bloc amendment No. 1; amendment No. 2, printed in 
House Report 111-182; amendment No. 9, printed in House Report 111-182, 
as modified; amendment No. 15, printed in House Report 111-182, as 
modified; en bloc amendment No. 2; amendment No. 20, printed in House 
Report 111-182, as modified; amendment No. 24, printed in House Report 
111-182; amendment No. 34, printed in House Report 111-182; amendment 
No. 39, printed in House Report 111-182; en bloc amendment No. 3; en 
bloc amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I rise to invite the chairman to engage in a colloquy 
with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to respectfully convey that I have three 
concerns with some of the practices employed by the Virtual Army 
Experience, a high-tech traveling exhibit employed by the Army as a 
recruiting tool. First, children as young as 13 years old are 
participating in the Virtual Army Experience, which paints an 
inaccurate picture of war by glorifying it while sanitizing the real 
effects. More than a mere video game, it includes interactions with 
real veterans who appear to be in perfect health. It also requires that 
the user, regardless of age, share personal information as a condition 
of participation. I think that we can find common ground on these 
issues. Specifically, I believe we can agree that the Virtual Army 
Experience video game must be revalidated to ensure that its age-
appropriate rating is accurate in the context of how it's being 
employed, that the Virtual Army Experience content should be reviewed 
to ensure it accurately reflects the consequences of war, and that 
there must be increased transparency with regard to how the personal 
information of the participants collected during participation will be 
used by the Army.
  Mr. SKELTON. As the gentleman knows, I support the VAE. At the same 
time, I know it can be improved. I would be happy to work with the 
gentleman to address the issues that you have so aptly raised.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman for working with me on 
this.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member on the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee.
  Mr. TURNER. I would like to thank and congratulate Chairman Skelton,

[[Page H7243]]

Ranking Member McKeon and his predecessor John McHugh, who has been 
nominated for Secretary of the Army, and lend my support for H.R. 2647, 
the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. I would also 
like to thank Mrs. Tauscher, Chairwoman of the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee. She has provided a strong and thoughtful voice on 
national security issues. I wish her the very best in her new position 
as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International 
Security.
  This bill contains sound bipartisan provisions that provide key 
capabilities to our warfighters, strengthens our Nation's strategic 
forces and sustains the intellectual capital supporting our national 
security infrastructure.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration is provided with the 
flexibility necessary to increase the long-term reliability, safety and 
security of our nuclear weapons stockpile. I was disappointed, however, 
that the bill implements the administration's missile defense cut of 
$1.2 billion. Given North Korea's widely publicized nuclear missile 
tests and missile launches, not to mention Iran's recent missile tests, 
cuts in missile defense challenge common sense. I cannot reconcile why 
the administration has decided to decrease missile defense funding 
while daily news reports, substantiated by our own intelligence 
agencies, articulate an increasing missile threat. Despite the current 
threat posed by North Korea, including reports of a potential ICBM 
launch, the committee rejected amendments, many that were offered by 
myself and my colleagues, to restore missile defense funds. This 
included providing a modest amount of funds to complete a partially 
constructed missile interceptor field in Alaska designed to protect the 
U.S. homeland. Ironically, the bill includes $80 million for 
dismantling North Korea's missile program. I don't think anyone 
actually believes that Kim Jong Il is going to allow the Obama 
administration to enter North Korea and dismantle its nuclear weapons 
program. Unfortunately, the administration's $1.2 billion cut has set 
up false choices between protection of the United States homeland and 
protection of our forward-deployed troops and allies. Both are 
necessary, and both could have been adequately funded without such deep 
cuts. I am, however, pleased this bill included key provisions of the 
bipartisan NATO First bill that my colleague Mr. Marshall and I 
introduced to fortify America's transatlantic security links with our 
European allies.
  I want to thank the chairman for his efforts, including these 
provisions in this bill. Lastly I would like to thank Jane Harman, Joe 
Wilson and Susan Davis for their support and assistance as this bill 
includes strong provisions to enhance sexual assault protections for 
women in uniform. Also with the chairman's support, this bill includes 
provisions that would protect the custody rights of our men and women 
who are serving. Unbelievably, courts across this country have denied 
our men and women their custody rights as a result of their absence in 
serving their country. Secretary Gates has committed to work with this 
committee, and I look forward to his work on this. I would like to 
encourage support for the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining for 
each side, please.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from California has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Klein).
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman and the chairman for his 
leadership and the opportunity to engage in a brief colloquy.
  I rise today to ask for your help in improving the care of our 
wounded warriors. Later this week, I will introduce the Wounded Warrior 
K-9 Corps Act to establish a program for organizations that provide 
wounded warriors and disabled veterans with service animals, like 
physical therapy dogs and guide dogs. There are several organizations 
around the country that train animals to work with disabled soldiers 
and veterans. These organizations, like many not-for-profit 
organizations, are struggling at this moment to collect necessary 
resources in these difficult economic times. The difference between 
these organizations and others is that they're giving our soldiers and 
veterans a service that they have earned. I applaud their private 
fundraising, and at the same time I realize that this is our 
responsibility as well. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will allow the 
government to keep its promise to America's disabled soldiers and 
veterans and help them retain an excellent quality of life after their 
service. Thanks to modern medicine, more and more of our brave men and 
women are able to sustain wounds that may have been fatal in the past. 
This is a blessing, but it also requires new tools to allow them to 
return to civilian working life. I have seen these programs in action. 
I have witnessed the growth of these veterans and wounded soldiers 
after working with a guide dog or animal that can assist them with 
physical therapy and lifetime care and support. These programs succeed, 
and I believe every American who puts on a uniform and risks their 
lives for our country should have the full support of this Congress in 
this mission.
  Mr. SKELTON. I certainly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein) 
for bringing this issue to the floor. As the gentleman knows, the bill 
under consideration calls for a report on military working dogs. Mr. 
Klein's legislation would surely take the next step with a grant for 
therapy dogs for disabled soldiers and veterans. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman from Florida to ensure that Congress stands 
behind our soldiers as well as our veterans.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2647.
  Mr. SKELTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the ranking member on the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, and I'd like to take a 
moment to highlight some important aspects of the bill. The members and 
the staff of the House Armed Services Committee are dedicated to 
supporting our men and women in uniform, and this bill truly reflects 
our undying commitment to those servicemembers. I am pleased to see 
that this bill makes progress towards strengthening our naval power and 
projection on the high seas. We must continue to develop the industrial 
base and promote shipbuilding to establish a floor, not a ceiling, of 
313 ships in our Navy.
  Our Nation's security and forward presence also depends on the timely 
delivery and deployment of our various naval platforms. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to support the provisions that provide for the 
construction of a new Virginia-class submarine, research and 
development funds for the SSBN Ohio-class replacement submarine, and 
advanced procurement for the new Ford-class carrier. Although this bill 
provides a temporary waiver for the number of carriers to dip below 11, 
I have deep reservations about this provision and firmly believe 
maintaining 11 aircraft carriers is essential to maintaining our long-
term naval superiority.
  While I support this bill, I do have some concerns about the 
administration's overall direction for our military and the decision-
making process that went into the budget. It is imperative that we 
preserve the integrity of the congressional oversight through 
appropriate and efficient transparency. Without a 30-year shipbuilding 
plan and a 30-year military aviation plan, we are denied a full 
understanding of the administration's perspective of what the defense 
of our Nation's interest requires. The strategic risk we accept in this 
defense authorization bill is equally as important as the dollar 
figure. The American people rightfully expect that the Members of this 
Congress are fully aware of the strategic risk associated with the 
President's budget request.
  As we consider strategic threats facing our country today, I urge my 
colleagues to strongly support a bipartisan amendment that would be 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks). This amendment will 
rightfully restore funding for the Missile

[[Page H7244]]

Defense Agency by $1.2 billion. North Korea continues to test its 
missile capabilities while Iran pursues a nuclear weapons program. 
Therefore, it is imperative that we provide full funding to our 
Nation's most crucial missile defense programs.

                              {time}  2345

  Keeping Americans safe from terrorists at home is equally important. 
The American people have spoken and made it very clear that they do not 
want detainees from Guantanamo brought to the United States. I believe 
this issue should be openly debated and given a vote within the full 
House.
  Again, I strongly support this bill and look forward to improving 
some of the provisions on the floor tomorrow. I would like to thanking 
Ranking Member McKeon, Chairman Skelton, and also Mr. McHugh for his 
service.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much for his 
continued leadership and the leadership of the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise three points, and I'd like to refresh 
the memory of the chairman. As he well knows, over a period of 
congressional terms, I brought to his attention the inability of 
families to publicly acknowledge their loved ones who lost their life 
in battle coming back from a foreign land as they came into Dover Air 
Force Base. I want to recognize the fact that this new administration, 
even though we had a number of legislative initiatives in previous 
defense authorization bills, have now allowed families to be able to 
have their loved ones publicly acknowledged as they have come in from 
losing their life on a foreign field. I think that is an important 
note, and I hope families of America will recognize that the fallen are 
respected the moment they hit the soil of the United States.
  I also wish to make note of the increased coverage of TRICARE, but I 
would like to work with the committee as we go forward to expand the 
number of facilities which our active duty soldiers and others can 
access. In particular, I would like to see an emphasis on inner-city 
facilities that would allow or have TRICARE accreditation.
  Finally, I would like to acknowledge the GAO study that asked for a 
strategic response to Afghanistan and Iraq. As someone who has 
persistently or continuously expressed her opposition to the present 
Iraq war and the status, I want to keep the pressure on that we begin 
to downsize but, more importantly, that we have a strategy for doing so 
that we can do it safely. And then as it relates to Afghanistan to make 
sure that we also have a strategy so that we can ensure that our troops 
are, in fact, fighting a battle that we can win. We want peace. We want 
freedom. But we want to make sure that we can bring our troops home.
  I thank the chairman for the time and the ranking member, and I 
appreciate their leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Utah, the one that led 
us in that great debate on the F-22 that saved the day.
  (Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
this bipartisan bill and the wonderful bipartisan amendment the saves 
our Air Force and moves us forward.
  I rise this evening to support the bill H.R. 2647. I commend my 
friends on both sides of the aisle on the House Armed Services 
Committee for continuing the tradition of working in a bi-partisan 
manner to provide for the common defense of this country, and for the 
dedicated men and women of the armed forces.
  However, I do have reservations. It is readily apparent that the 
Administration has taken a haphazard approach to cutting defense 
programs, such as missile defense, and the F-22 fighter, as budget 
drills. There are no studies by any qualified source, including 
military analysis, that support these reductions as a means of meeting 
the needs of the military. When asked in committee, for example, if 187 
F-22s were what the Air Force needs or merely what the Air Force can 
afford, the answer was quick and direct; It was what the Air Force was 
``told'' it could afford, and the basis of the decision was political 
and budgetary, not based on national security.
  When the F-22 program requirement was first established, it was based 
on procurement of 750 aircraft. We on the committee have repeatedly 
requested that the Department provide us with analysis upon which this 
budget decision of only 187 planes was based. That analysis still has 
not been provided, leaving a strong indication that it is a budget 
drill, pure and simple. I am pleased that a majority of committee 
members supported an amendment to restore F-22 long-lead procurement 
funding for 12 additional aircraft in FY10. There were strong 
indications during markup that many members, a good majority on both 
sides of the political aisle, would like to have supported full F-22 
production of 12 to 20 aircraft in FY10, and not just long lead 
procurement items.
  One of the most disturbing recent developments on the F-22 is the 
release of a letter signed by Air Force Combat Commander General John 
D. W. Corley, wherein he verifies in writing that there are NO studies 
which support the Administration's decision to end the F-22 production 
at 187 aircraft, and he further maintains that 250 aircraft are 
necessary to ensure a ``moderate risk'' level. A copy of his letter was 
included in the House Committee report to accompany this bill. I urge 
all of my colleagues to read it. General Corley also states that the 
Administration developed its F-22 termination plan without even 
consulting with Air Combat Command. That's very disturbing. The very 
command with the technical expertise in charge of fighter operations 
was not even consulted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense? This 
alone raises very serious questions about the soundness of the 
Administration's decision. This decision on F-22 will have profound 
implications on our nation's strength and air dominance 15 and 20 years 
from now. We cannot afford to go ``high risk'' at only 187 aircraft. 
Not with Russia, China and other nations fielding advanced fighter 
aircraft in the next two years.
  It is also ironic that, at a time when the Administration is spending 
hundreds of billions in tax dollars to create jobs, that it would be so 
intent upon cutting the F-22, which is responsible for 25,000 direct 
and 70,000 indirect jobs. Why are good defense jobs any less valuable 
than those that the Administration claims to have created in the $800 
billion Stimulus package? These are good jobs that are producing a 
vital defense weapon system to protect our homeland, which will be lost 
unless funding is restored.
  The F-22 and F-35 are not duplicative aircraft. They are not 
interchangeable. They were designed for different, but complimentary 
roles. We need both, but we also need adequate numbers of both.
  I also oppose the cuts proposed by the Administration to missile 
defense programs such as Ground Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Kinetic 
Energy Interceptor (KEI). It seems that the ``savings'' from these 
cuts, at $1.8 billion, are rather small in comparison to the lost 
opportunities for further research and development in improving our 
defense of the homeland against emerging and future missile threats.
  These cuts also have devastating impacts on the defense industrial 
base, especially large defense solid rocket booster production. If 
allowed to stand, every program associated with large-scale defense 
solid booster production will be decimated. Someone must pay more 
attention to the cumulative impact of these different programmatic 
budget decisions on the solid rocket booster industrial base as a 
whole. It also seems wasteful that DoD and the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) will not proceed with a planned booster test firing in September 
of this year with the KEI program when the booster has already been 
produced and delivered to the test site at Vandenberg AFB. The MDA 
should move forward with this test that has already been bought and 
paid for by U.S. taxpayer investment since 2004, and which could result 
in a significant harvest of scientific data for use on future defense 
projects.
  It is highly ironic that the Administration's announcement to end the 
Ground Based Interceptors at 30 land-based missiles occurred on the 
very same day that North Korea conducted its long-range missile test 
threatening Japan and possibly parts of the United States. Just this 
past week, with renewed missile threats from North Korea against 
Hawaii, the Secretary of Defense touted our ground-based interceptors 
as providing protection, even as the Administration continues to 
advocate a halt to their production! This is no way to protect the 
homeland. Secretary Gates has said his recommendation for GMD is ``not 
a forever decision.'' That's fine, but one cannot quickly restart a 
production line in the future. And we may not have the luxury of time 
in the future.
  Were any of our 30 interceptors to be fired, there would be no 
replacements. It is also highly likely that two or more interceptors 
would be fired at any incoming threat. So potentially one rogue missile 
threatening Hawaii, or the western U.S. would require the use of two, 
three or more of our ground based interceptors. The Administration's 
termination of

[[Page H7245]]

GMD allows for no replacements and worse--no defense industrial base 
capability to easily or quickly restart production of land based 
interceptors. Again, this is a short-sighted budget decision which 
endangers our long-term national security.
  In conclusion, I urge that the cuts in missile defense be restored in 
order to adequately defend our homeland now and into the future. There 
is nothing more fundamental to the very survival of America than the 
United States military. Everything else is a corollary to that 
fundamental principle. It is my profound hope that we can work together 
over the next 3 to 4 years to build the additional F-22s until we reach 
the 240 to 250 numbers that Air Force planners have repeatedly stated 
are absolutely necessary.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield now 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the TRICARE Continuity of Coverage 
for National Guard and Reserve Families Act of 2009, of which I'm a 
cosponsor and which was amended into the National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  Members of our National Guard and Reserves are eligible for TRICARE 
health insurance during their service and after the age of 60 but not 
during the time in between, the time in between when they retire until 
the age of 60, being referred to as being in the ``gray area. ``
  Specifically, ``gray area'' retirees are Reserve component retirees 
under the age of 60 with more than 20 years of faithful and honorable 
service who have qualified for retirement at age 60.
  The legislation fills in that gray area to ensure that these men and 
women have the opportunity to purchase TRICARE Standard health care 
coverage during that time and provides access to the care they deserve. 
This legislation is important because currently around 50 percent of 
those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are Reservists and National 
Guard. And this option for purchasing TRICARE Standard will serve as an 
incentive for those Guardsmen and Reservists to continue to serve.
  I thank the Armed Services Committee, the chairman, and the ranking 
member for including this important legislation in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. 
Austria for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank Mr. McKeon for yielding.
  I appreciate you and Chairman Skelton for bringing this important 
bill to the floor. It does provide what we need for national security 
and for our men and women who are serving so selflessly in our Nation's 
defense, and I thank you both for your hard work on this bill.
  I was reading the committee report language that accompanies the bill 
regarding insourcing new and contracted-out functions. And I wanted to 
bring to your attention some very serious concerns small business 
owners in my district have raised in regard to this issue.
  Small business owners dealing in defense contracting are losing 
employees to the Federal Government. This practice apparently is 
becoming a trend in the defense contracting community, a trend that I 
find deeply troubling.
  Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I certainly will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.
  You are correct, the Defense Department is moving toward reshaping 
its workforce by reducing the number of service support contractors and 
replacing them with government employees. We have been told this effort 
will hire over 13,000 government civilians to replace support 
contractors at a proposed savings of $900 million.
  Mr. AUSTRIA. Let me just say, in my view, that we should not be 
growing government during this economic crisis. In my opinion, it's 
already too big. But we certainly should not be increasing the Federal 
Government at the expense of small businesses, in this particular case, 
small defense contractors. It's simply not fair and it's not in the 
best interest of the taxpayer.
  Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McKEON. As you know, Chairman Skelton and I included in our 
committee report language that stresses our belief that these 
insourcing initiatives should not be driven by random goals or 
arbitrary budget reductions. In the language we also note that these 
insourcing initiatives should give appropriate consideration to the 
impacts on the contractor workforce. I'm also very concerned that the 
estimated cost savings will never be realized.
  That said, I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Ohio and 
any other interested parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the 
important issue of how to balance the defense workforce: military, 
civilian employee, and contract.
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to continuing 
to work with him on this very important issue.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, we have had, I think, a lot of good input 
tonight on the bill. I ask that all of our Members tomorrow support the 
bill.
  In the morning we will move into the amendment process. The chairman 
and his staff have done a tremendous job of helping put the 60-plus 
amendments that were approved out of the Rules Committee into a process 
that I think will help us in moving forward in an expeditious manner in 
the morning. I look forward to that.
  Again, I thank the chairman for his graciousness and his leadership 
in moving the bill to this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me first express my gratitude and 
admiration to the new ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, 
Mr. McKeon. He hit the ground running, a veteran of our committee, and 
his first baptism of fire was in the markup of the some-17 hours of 
this bill in committee, and we thank him for his leadership and for his 
diligence in making this a success.
  Tomorrow, under the rule, Mr. Chairman, we will consider the various 
amendments, four groups of en bloc amendments and several by 
themselves, according to the rule that's been set forth and the time 
limits set thereon.
  This is an important piece of legislation. It deals with the security 
of our country, the security of our citizens. It deals with those young 
men and young women in uniform wherever they may be. It's our job to do 
our best to support them and this bill does just that.
  I thank the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. They 
have been magnificent to work with.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 
to H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010. In short, my amendment would provide the Department of Defense, 
and in particular, the Office of Economic Adjustment, the authority to 
financially support the development and construction of public 
infrastructure in communities which are directly impacted by the 
expansion and growth of military installations.
  Mr. Chair, the last Military Base Re-alignment and Closure 
initiative, which occurred in 2005, coupled with the ongoing 
transformation of the Army and re-positioning of troops world-wide, has 
had a tremendous impact on the local communities which house our 
nation's military installations and facilities.
  In its FY2009 Budget Justification, DOD estimated the total one-time 
cost for the most recent BRAC round in 2005 at nearly $32 billion, of 
which nearly $23 billion will be for military construction. For FY2009, 
DOD's budget request was $9.07 billion, while Congress approved $8.77 
billion. And just yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee, of 
which I am a member, approved at total of $7.49 billion for BRAC 
construction activities.
  The Muscogee County School District for example, which is located in 
my congressional district in Georgia, is estimated to receive 5,000 to 
9,000 additional school-aged children as a result of the planned growth 
and expansion of Ft. Benning. DOD's most recent projections put the 
number of new school aged children at approximately 3,000 to 4,000. But 
no matter what the number, there is a consensus that several thousand 
new children will be attending a school system which currently does not 
have the facilities to house them.
  According to some estimates, nearly 25 local school districts 
nationwide could be required to accommodate tens of thousands of 
additional military dependent school-aged children due entirely to DOD 
actions and decisions. The financial cost to school systems

[[Page H7246]]

across the county resulting from the latest round of DOD initiatives 
could exceed $2 billion over the course of the next several years. This 
includes the communities surrounding Ft. Bliss [Texas], Ft. Bragg 
[North Carolina], Ft. Carson [Colorado], Ft Lee [Virginia], as well as 
several other facilities where major growth is envisioned by DOD.
  By providing DOD the authority to develop public infrastructure, 
including local schools, as provided in my amendment, we begin to 
address this challenge by providing the Department with expanded 
authority to assist select communities in addressing their local 
facility needs.
  There is precedent. During Word War II, the Korea and Vietnam wars, 
our National leaders saw fit to partner with local education agencies 
to build schools to accommodate children of the military, defense 
employees and contractors who worked on the military installations. 
Likewise, the Department supported the construction of schools as a 
result of the expansion and growth of the military's Kings ay 
installation.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, the enormity and size of the challenges facing 
communities impacted by DOD personnel movements is overwhelming. This 
amendment is an important step in providing the Department with the 
authority to begin to work with these communities in addressing their 
infrastructure needs--needs which have been created by the Department's 
own actions.
  I urge the House's support for this amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chair, I have the honor of serving as the 
Chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services 
Committee. I would like to thank our Chairman, Ike Skelton, for his 
great leadership in bringing this outstanding bill to this point. I 
also welcome the new Ranking Member, Buck McKeon, and am confident that 
he and Chairman Skelton will make a great team.
  I would also like to thank Roscoe Bartlett, our subcommittee's 
ranking member, for all his support and advice in putting our bill 
together.
  This bill is about balancing the capabilities and readiness of our 
current military forces with desired future required military 
capabilities.
  Our military personnel are at risk each and every day. Our first 
priority is to make sure those men and women are properly supported by 
ensuring our military programs adequately support current military 
requirements.
  We are doing everything possible to provide our personnel in Iraq and 
Afghanistan the equipment they need as well as provide for the 
equipment needs of our National Guard units here at home, to meet 
crisis response and potential natural disaster requirements. The 
subcommittee's jurisdiction includes $82 billion in Department of 
Defense procurement and research and development in Titles I and II and 
another $20 billion in Title XV, for overseas contingency operations.
  We have made nearly $3 billion in reallocations within the 
Subcommittee, funding higher priority current requirements, using funds 
from programs with excessive unexpended balances, delayed execution, 
and excessive cost growth.
  Our Subcommittee increased the unfunded requirements of the Army and 
Air Force by over $1 billion by reallocating funding from these lower 
priority projects. The mark also provides an additional $603 million 
for procurement and research and development of the F136 competitive 
engine for the F-35 aircraft program. This is largely offset by 
rebalancing within the F-35 program, by reducing procurement from 32 to 
30 aircraft.
  Nearly $2.7 billion is authorized for 176 Apache, Kiowa, Black Hawk, 
and Chinook helicopters and an additional $1.2 billion is provided for 
helicopter modifications. Our bill:
  Fully funds elements of the Future Combat Systems program that will 
continue in some form, at $2.55 billion;
  Provides $2.5 billion for new and upgraded Army ground combat 
vehicles;
  Provides $263 million for research and development of future Army 
ground combat vehicle upgrades and improvements; and
  Provides $600 million for National Guard and Reserve Equipment, above 
and beyond what is in the budget request.
  The change by the National Guard to an operational reserve status, 
coincident with a reorganization of the Army, has greatly increased the 
amount of equipment Guard and Reserve units are required to have. While 
the Department is making improvements and progress in providing 
improved funding to equip the National Guard and Reserve to enhance its 
role as an operational reserve, there are a significant number of units 
that do not have their required equipment.
  Given the operational reserve equipage model, a large percentage of 
nondeployed Army National Guard units are far below Army standards for 
equipment on hand. Without the right type and amounts of equipment, 
even the most dedicated and experienced soldier or airman cannot train 
for combat, or provide adequate assistance when there is a domestic 
emergency.
  The committee continues to work on improving intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance, known as ISR capabilities, as well as 
improving counter improvised explosive device technology, vehicle 
armor, body armor, and helmet protection. Like many other mission areas 
in the Department of Defense, there is no apparent nexus for 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance joint strategy, 
requirements coordination, acquisition or deployment focus, where a 
single lead organization is responsible.
  An example that can be cited is the unplanned and expensive 
proliferation of dissimilar ISR platforms all seeking to provide the 
same capability.
  Coalition forces control the skies in both theaters and has the 
world's best ISR technology, but does not use this advantage to full 
advantage.
  The Department still fails to provide joint ISR employment plans for 
both Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill directs the Department to assess 
the current use of ISR systems in Iraq and Afghanistan and make 
recommendations on how to more effectively coordinate and use all the 
systems we have deployed and plan to deploy.
  The committee has in the past directed the Department to define joint 
ISR requirements and develop a long-term strategic plan to make 
informed acquisition decisions to meet ISR goals. That continues to be 
a work in progress.


                               body armor

  It is widely reported that our soldiers in Afghanistan routinely 
carry loads of 130 to 150 lbs for a 3-day mission. Personnel can only 
wear so much armor, beyond which their operational effectiveness is 
inhibited, which in turn increases their risk of being injured. Two 
provisions in our bill require the Secretary of Defense, beginning with 
the fiscal year 2011 budget request, to establish research and 
development program elements and procurement budget line items for the 
development and acquisition of body armor and personnel protection 
enhancements.
  The language also strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to 
consider establishing a DOD-wide Task Force on par with the MRAP 
Vehicle Task Force to promote weight reduction initiatives for body 
armor.
  The bill fully funds the President's request of approximately $700 
million for body armor.


            mine Resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles

  With regard to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle 
program, over 16,000 vehicles have been produced in just over two 
years. Approximately 15,000 vehicles have been fielded and these 
vehicles continue to save lives daily. Almost $26.0 billion has been 
provided by Congress for this program.
  This bill fully funds the President's request of $5.45 billion for 
MRAP category vehicles. The request procures approximately 1,000 MRAP 
All-Terrain Vehicles, a lighter weight version of the current MRAP 
Vehicle, to be used in Afghanistan. The request also provides 
operation, maintenance, and sustainment funding as well as necessary 
funds to address home-station training requirements.


                       tactical wheeled vehicles

  The bill provides $5.25 billion for light, medium, and heavy tactical 
wheeled vehicles or ``Humvees'' and ``trucks.'' This funding keeps the 
industrial base operating at high levels of production and will help 
address shortfalls in the Guard and Reserve components. In closing, I 
again want to thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
full committee and our subcommittee.
  H.R. 2647 is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this 
body.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Lujan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________