Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 82 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 82 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4025-H4064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H4025]]

House of Representatives

{time} 1745
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011--Continued

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, let me read again, in case I inadequately expressed it
before. This is the letter from Secretary Gates that he told Chairman
Skelton two days ago that he still stands by strongly:
Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change
this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.
This is a process that was set in place when the President made his
comments at the State of the Union that he wanted the Don't Ask, Don't
Tell policy repealed before the end of the year. The Secretary took him
at his word and set up a process. The process would go out to all of
the military and their spouses and give them a chance to respond. The
military would then have a chance to go over that and give their best
military advice to the President and to the Congress as to how we
should move forward at that time. That report is due by the first of
December.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who has had some
important personal experience with the issue contained in the Murphy
amendment.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding.
I was elected in a special election last November. One of my
opponents was an extraordinary young man, an African American. Raised
in Fairfield, California, he went to West Point. Very successful, he
served in Iraq two tours and came out a captain. He took his team there
twice. On both those tours, all of them were in very dangerous
circumstances.
He came home. He came back to America and could no longer tolerate
the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. He came out of the closet. An
extraordinary loss. Fortunately, I had another idea about who might be
the next Congressman. But this man could have been a general leading
the entire Army, an extraordinary person.
We lost that talent because of this policy, and it is time for this
policy to end. If only the President had the power that Truman did when
he said, enough already, we are going to integrate the Army.
We need to complete that integration. The Murphy amendment is
absolutely essential.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I know we have differences of opinion on this, and we
all have stories, as we just heard from my good friend Mr. Garamendi
from my home State. We have stories on both sides of the issue. The
problem is, those are one person here, one person here. Maybe we talk
to 10. Maybe we talk to 20. But we have 2.5 million people serving, and
all of them should have a chance to have input. That is what they were
promised. That is what they were told. Now we are short-circuiting that
process.
So all I am saying is we should respect all of the people and their
families that are serving now in the armed services and follow through
with the things we said.
When I talked the other day to Admiral Roughead, the Chief of Naval
Operations, his concern was that if we take action now with the vote on
this Murphy amendment tonight which repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he
said it is going to cause confusion in the force, because we just hired
this company to go out and do the survey, to follow through on this
process that has been started. They are going to be going out into the
field asking questions.
What he said is, this is going to cause confusion, because as one of
the other Chiefs said, the headline, once this passes, if it passes,
will be ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed.'' So when the survey goes
out into the field, when they put together focus groups and the surveys
and all the things they are doing in response to this process that has
been started, it is moot.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield the balance of my time to my friend from
California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am sure the admiral is able to read the amendment
and would understand it doesn't go into effect until the command
structure, including the President of the United States, says it is
okay and the review has been completed.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this important amendment
and I thank my friend from New Jersey, Bill Pascrell, for allowing me
to work with him on this issue. The Department of Defense and the RAND
Corporation have recently estimated that 20 percent of our military
personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan have suffered a
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).
Because symptoms of TBI often go unnoticed, at least initially, it is
difficult to know exactly how many troops are living with this
disability. If not diagnosed early on, TBIs can lead to memory loss,
severe headache disorders, and alcohol and drug abuse.
Neurocognitive assessment has been proven to be an effective tool in
detecting and measuring the severity of TBI. This is why the fiscal
year 2008 National Defense Authorization required the Department of
Defense to screen ALL military personnel for TBI both before and after
deployment. Post-deployment screenings are to be compared with pre-
deployment (or baseline) assessments to determine whether or not the
servicemember is suffering from a TBI.
Unfortunately, too many of our men and women returning from the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan are still not being screened for TBI.

[[Page H4026]]

Servicemembers that have been screened post-deployment are currently
given a self-assessment checklist, in which the results are not even
comparable to their pre-deployment neurocognitive screenings. Not to
mention that because the checklist is self-administered, the results
are typically inaccurate since these troops either do not realize or do
not want to admit that they are living with a TBI.
I am pleased that this year's Defense Authorization includes language
requiring the Department of Defense to implement a comprehensive
screening and assessment policy by the end of 2011. However, until this
policy is fully implemented, thousands of our men and women in uniform
are returning from combat without the necessary screenings to ensure
that they receive proper treatment.
This amendment, which I am proud to have introduced with Congressmen
Pascrell, Andrews, Cole, Ortiz, Coffman and Joe Wilson, will ensure
that until the Department of Defense has put in place a comprehensive
screening policy, all of our military personnel will receive
neurocognitive assessments both before and after deployment. The
amendment requires that the same neurocognitive tool used for pre-
deployment assessment also be used for post-deployment evaluation.
Using the same test allows physicians to compare the baseline screening
with the post-deployment results to determine whether a TBI does in
fact exist. The current system of using different tools for pre- and
post-deployment screenings is like comparing apples to oranges. It is
essential that our men and women who put themselves in harm's way to
protect us every day receive immediate and appropriate care.
There are currently a number of neurocognitive tools available for
the Department of Defense to use for screenings. Several of the
branches have initiated comparative studies assessing the effectiveness
of the various tools, however, most have yet to be completed. The
amendment also requires the Department of Defense to oversee the
completion of all outstanding studies and conduct an analysis of the
options available.
Though TBIs are difficult to detect because no one symptom exists, it
is imperative that the Department of Defense take every possible
measure to diagnose and treat our troops effected by TBI. This is why I
strongly support this amendment and I encourage all of my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chair, I'd like to begin by thanking my friend Chairman
Skelton, for his unwavering commitment to our Nation's defense and the
warfighter.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my amendment included in En
Bloc package 3.
Mr. Chair, my amendment simply asks the Army Secretary to report to
Congress with the details of the Heirloom Chest policy, plans to
continue the program and a cost estimate of expanding it.
The Heirloom Chest is presented by the Army to families in memory of
soldiers who have fallen in the defense of our Nation. Under the Army's
policy, in the case of separated, divorced, or unmarried parents, the
chest is given to only one surviving parent.
While I applaud the Army's efforts to support surviving families, I
believe this policy ignores the loss that both parents share and has
also unintentionally put added strain on bereaving parents.
Mr. Chair, the intent of my amendment is to ensure the sacrifice of
both surviving parents is properly recognized. Families of the fallen
have made the ultimate sacrifice, and it is our duty to honor the
sacrifice of all survivors.
I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment and the
underlying bill.
The Acting CHAIR. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Mr. Skelton

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, I offer
amendments en bloc No. 4, including modifications to amendment No. 18.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 4 offered by Mr. Skelton consisting of
amendments numbered 12; 17; 18, as modified; 25; 28; 35; 37; and 44
printed in House Report 111-498:

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Owens of New York

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 27, line 3, strike ``and''.
Page 27, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 27, after line 8, insert the following:
(5) for each item included in the list of equipment
described in paragraph (3)--
(A) an updated average procurement unit cost for each year
of the covered five-year period; and
(B) the updated total Army acquisition objective.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following
new section:

SEC. 3_. EXCEPTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT
REQUIREMENT.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No Federal agency'' and inserting ``(a)
Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
Federal agency''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit a
Federal agency from entering into a contract to purchase a
generally available fuel that is not an alternative or
synthetic fuel or predominantly produced from a
nonconventional petroleum source, if--
``(1) the contract does not specifically require the
contractor to provide an alternative or synthetic fuel or
fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source;
``(2) the purpose of the contract is not to obtain an
alternative or synthetic fuel or fuel from a nonconventional
petroleum source; and
``(3) the contract does not provide incentives for a
refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or
increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum
source.''.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Dingell of Michigan

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 84, after line 24, insert the following:

SEC. 315. INFORMATION SHARING RELATING TO INVESTIGATION OF
EXPOSURE TO DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION AT
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Secretary of the Navy and Commandant of the Marine
Corps are responsible for the identification and timely
sharing of all relevant records relating to the Camp Lejeune
base-wide drinking-water systems, including all records of
which the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``ATSDR'')
may not be aware and all records that are in the possession
of the Department of Defense, and all contractors, sub-
contractors, and consultants of the Department but may no
longer be located at the Camp Lejeune base.
(2) On April 28, 2009, during a Camp Lejeune Community
Assistance Panel (hereinafter in this section referred to as
``CAP'') meeting, it was stated by the ATSDR that it had
recently discovered electronic data on a ``hundred or more
underground storage and above-ground storage tanks'' housed
on a Naval Facilities Engineering Command Internet web
portal.
(3) This revelation occurred after the ATSDR requested in
2005 that all relevant data for its health studies be turned
over from the Department of Defense to the agency, and the
response by the Department's CAP representative was that the
information was ``not new, just newly found.''
(4) On March 22, 2010, the ATSDR stated in a letter to the
Navy and Marine Corps that the ATSDR was informed for the
first time of an electronic database containing approximately
700,000 records of analytical data.
(5) In a response letter, dated March 26, 2010, the Navy
stated that ``the Marine Corps is neither in a position to
determine the relevance of information nor does it have the
subject matter expertise to determine the relevance of
documents in all cases.''.
(6) It is necessary that the Secretary of the Navy be
required to add or assign personnel with the relevant
expertise to complete the transfer of all documents and
materials pertaining to the contaminated drinking water at
Camp Lejeune.
(7) Discovery of such records must not rely on specific
requests from the ATSDR but on a shared goal of ensuring the
scientific accuracy of the current health study and the
responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to provide such
information.
(b) Requirement.--By not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
provide ATSDR with an electronic inventory of all existing
documents, records, and electronic data pertaining to the
CERCLA listed and RCRA listed contamination sites at Camp
Lejeune and all existing documents, records, and electronic
data pertaining to the contaminated drinking water at Camp
Lejeune. If after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense generates new documents, records and
electronic data, or comes into possession of existing
documents, records or electronic data not previously included
in the electronic inventory, the Secretary of the Navy shall
provide ATSDR with an updated electronic inventory
incorporating the newly located or generated documents,
records and electronic data. The Secretary of the Navy shall
ensure that Department of Defense personnel with appropriate
experience and expertise, including in the area of
environmental engineering and the conduct of water modeling,
working in conjunction with ATSDR, are utilized to identify,
compile, and submit existing and new documents, records, and
electronic data

[[Page H4027]]

in Navy and Marine Corps records and electronic libraries
that would assist the ATSDR in gathering data relating to the
contamination and remediation of Camp Lejeune base-wide
drinking-water systems.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 284, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 727. POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER COUNSELING FOR
CIVILIAN VICTIMS OF THE FORT HOOD SHOOTING AND
OTHER SIMILAR INCIDENTS.

The Secretary of Defense shall make available to each
civilian victim of a shooting on a military installation in
the United States, including the shooting at Fort Hood on
November 5, 2009, extensive counseling for post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 633, after line 10, add the following:

SEC. 2815. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY TO ASSIST
WITH DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION
OF A MILITARY INSTALLATION.

Section 2391(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:

``If the proposed or actual establishment or expansion of a
military installation would otherwise qualify a State or
local government for assistance under this paragraph and is
the result of base realignment and closure activities
authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), the Secretary may make grants,
conclude cooperative agreements, and supplement funds
available under Federal programs administered by agencies
other than the Department of Defense in order to assist the
State or local government with development of the public
infrastructure (including construction) required by the
proposed or actual establishment or expansion.''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``in planning
community adjustments and economic diversification'' and
inserting ``as provided in paragraph (1)''.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Putnam of Florida

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle F of title X, insert the following
new section:

SEC. 1065. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RECREATIONAL HUNTING
AND FISHING ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(a) military installations that permit public access for
recreational hunting and fishing should continue to permit
such hunting and fishing where appropriate;
(b) permitting the public to access military installations
for recreational hunting and fishing benefits local
communities by conserving and promoting the outdoors and
establishing positive relations between the civilian and
defense sectors;
(c) any military installations that make recreational
hunting and fishing permits available for purchase should
provide a discounted rate for active and retired members of
the Armed Forces and veterans with disabilities; and
(d) the Department of Defense, all of the service branches,
and military installations that permit public access for
recreational hunting and fishing should promote access to
such installations by making the appropriate accommodations
for members of the Armed Forces and veterans with
disabilities.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Chandler of Kentucky

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 599, strike lines 8 through 13.

Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. Richardson of California

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 99, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 336. REQUIREMENT TO UPDATE STUDY ON STRATEGIC SEAPORTS.

The Commander of the United States Transportation Command
shall update the study entitled ``PORT LOOK 2008 Strategic
Seaports Study''. In updating the study under this section,
the commander shall consider the infrastructure in the
vicinity of a strategic port, including bridges, roads, and
rail, and any issues relating to the capacity and condition
of such infrastructure

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Dingell of Michigan, as Modified

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification to amendment
No. 18.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 84, after line 24, insert the following:

SEC. 315. INFORMATION SHARING RELATING TO INVESTIGATION OF
EXPOSURE TO DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION AT
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA.

By not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall provide the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry with an
electronic inventory of all existing documents, records, and
electronic data pertaining to the CERCLA listed and RCRA
listed contamination sites at Camp Lejeune and all existing
documents, records, and electronic data pertaining to the
contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune. If after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
generates new documents, records and electronic data, or
comes into possession of existing documents, records or
electronic data not previously included in the electronic
inventory, the Secretary of the Navy shall provide the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry with an updated
electronic inventory incorporating the newly located or
generated documents, records and electronic data. The
Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that Department of Defense
personnel with appropriate experience and expertise,
including in the area of environmental engineering and the
conduct of water modeling, working in conjunction with the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, are
utilized to identify, compile, and submit existing and new
documents, records, and electronic data in Navy and Marine
Corps records and electronic libraries that would assist the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in gathering
data relating to the contamination and remediation of Camp
Lejeune base-wide drinking-water systems.

Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the
amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the
majority and the minority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendments to
the National Defense Authorization Act and in support of the underlying
bill.
We in North Carolina are rightly proud of our military, and we
understand that as they serve us, we must provide them with what they
need to get their job done. This bill does just that, authorizing funds
for troops, for our veterans, and for our military families.
My amendment, which I offered with my colleagues Mr. Kissell and Mr.
Bishop of Georgia, would enhance our support for the military and the
communities they live in. It would reinforce Congress' commitment to
the quality of life for America's soldiers, officers, civilians, and
their families.
Supporting our troops means supporting military families and the
communities they call home. Military facilities bring significant
benefits to our communities, but they also bring significant strain on
those communities. Our amendment clarifies that when the military plans
rapid growth in an area, the Department can join with the affected
community to prepare for that growth. It empowers our communities to
make strategic planned investments to respond to the strategic planned
transition for BRAC.
I thank the chairman for including it in the en bloc amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the authorization bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam), who is the author of one of the amendments.
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the ranking member and the chairman from Missouri
for their support of this and their inclusion of it in the en bloc
amendment.
It is a small change in the big scheme of things, but one which I
believe will have a tremendous impact, not only on our active duty
personnel, but on our men and women who are returning.
It is rooted in an experience in watching the success of these
wounded warrior projects, where we have special opportunity hunts for
men and women who are returning back to the States and getting
reacquainted with the sport that they love so much.
There are over 400 military installations across the country that
allow for recreational hunting and fishing on their property. They are
managed individually by the local commanders.

[[Page H4028]]

They allow the public to access these areas by providing a tremendous
benefit to those neighboring communities by allowing them to share in
the natural resources. By allowing the public to access these areas and
enjoy these lands, the Department of Defense helps to establish
positive relationships between the Department and the civilian
population.
Last month, the President launched his great outdoors conservation
initiative, where recreational hunters and fishermen are recognized for
having led the charge in the area of conservation, and the benefit of
these military installations should be considered in that initiative.
The greater access we have to enjoy the outdoors and promote these
activities will help to promote conservation for future generations and
healthier lifestyles.
I want to point out that in addition to the access, you have the
accessibility issues. Hydraulic lifts, wheelchair-accessible duck
blinds, docks, hunting stands, are minor improvements that mean a great
deal to those men and women who are coming home. Only 20 of those 400
sites though are currently accessible for our disabled, and I believe
we cannot underestimate the value of making those improvements to give
them the opportunity to share in those outdoor experiences.
Mr. Chairman, we should support the military installations which
provide these opportunities for the public and for our veterans and
encourage them to continue to do so, where appropriate, and urge the
Department of Defense to make more of these facilities accessible for
our veterans.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of the bill for the purpose of engaging in a
colloquy with the chairman. I would like to discuss the important role
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration plays in our national
security. In fact, I had legislation that established NASA as a
national security asset.
Chairman Skelton, would you agree that our national security space
programs are closely linked to NASA and that termination of the human
spaceflight program could result in serious consequences for our space
launch?
Further, do you agree that NASA's space programs have made important
contributions to our national and homeland security, economic security,
international standing, and technological competitiveness?
Finally, it is my hope that the Department of Defense will carefully
assess the national security assets that may be possessed by NASA.
Mr. SKELTON. I certainly thank the gentlelady from Texas for her
observations.
Yes, of course, I agree that NASA space programs have made important
contributions to our national security. In specific response to your
concern, the industrial base required for reliable space launch could
be placed at risk by the proposed changes in the human spaceflight
program. Further, I understand the department is carefully evaluating
the impact of those changes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My colleagues and I who are working on this issue appreciate your
view. Transferring funds from the human spaceflight program to unproven
commercial space efforts designed to carry humans and cargo into space
is unreasonable and may be an unreasonable risk that this country
should not take at this time. I hope that we can work together on this
issue to ensure the continuation of human spaceflight programs.
Thank you, Mr. Skelton, for supporting NASA.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, we heard our colleague across the aisle
talking about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Obviously, this is supposed to
be about a block of amendments, and I don't have objection to those, so
I would like to use this time to address that issue.
This body, leaders in this body, the White House, from the President
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense, have
promised our men and women who wear the uniform that their opinion will
be considered.

{time} 1800

A survey and study are being done.
Now, we've heard about individual cases where this person ended up
getting out. As we heard, he couldn't keep his sexual urges private,
and so he had to make them overt and therefore he was out-processed.
The policy has been, as long as the sexuality is a private matter,
then it doesn't damage the mission of the military. But when it becomes
overt, whether it's an officer having a heterosexual affair, or whether
it's overt homosexuality, through the history of the military, it has
been a problem to the ongoing morale of the military and accomplishment
of the mission. Anything that detracts from the mission should be
eliminated.
So the message here is, the hundreds of people that have urged me,
please fight for us and what we believe in, because I've heard from so
many, if you push this through, we're out. We're done.
We hear some isolated cases, but please, let's don't do damage to the
military and break our promise to them, let's wait till the study is
completed.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution
1404, I hereby give notice that the amendments numbered 15 and 62 may
be offered out of order.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman's request is noted.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), my friend and colleague.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to Commend
Congressmen Polis and Langevin for their work on this important
amendment.
The amendment we've offered will play an important role in
safeguarding a healthy American environment and ensuring American
taxpayers are not forced to subsidize the production of highly
polluting energy resources.
Let me be clear. This amendment in no way restricts Federal agencies'
ability to procure readily available fuels. Instead, it clarifies that
under section 526 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act,
Federal agencies may purchase fuel that is not predominantly derived
from higher carbon content sources like tar sands and coal to liquid.
Turning coal into liquid fuel produces up to twice as much greenhouse
gas pollution per unit of energy as conventional petroleum fuel, and
fuel processed from tar sands generates 14-42 percent more greenhouse
gas pollution per unit of energy compared to production of conventional
petroleum fuels.
Further, the extraction or production of these fuels is also
incredibly destructive to an environment that is already suffering.
The Federal Government should not play an inappropriate role
subsidizing the production of these outdated, dirty energy sources,
especially as we work to move our Nation toward a clean energy future.
However, today most, if not all, publicly available fuel containing
tar sands oil contains only small amounts of that resource. Therefore,
this amendment would not affect the ability of the Defense Department
or other Federal agencies to continue to process tar sands oil.
However, section 526 has successfully protected taxpayers from costly
and destructive subsidies of highly polluting fuel production and will
continue to encourage deployment of clean energy production from
domestic sources.
This amendment passed by unanimous recorded vote last year, and I,
along with my colleagues, Congressmen Polis and Langevin, urge a
``yes'' vote today.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, it's a treat to be able to rise and say the
en bloc amendment is fine, just as most of what is in the bill is fine.
Unfortunately, there is an amendment that's being offered which
threatens to poison the entire package and to do great damage to our
military, and that is an issue that you've heard from earlier this day,
the idea of repealing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation.

[[Page H4029]]

Now, the way it works currently in the military is that if you happen
to be homosexual and you want to serve in the military, that's fine.
And as long as your particular sexual tastes don't get in the way of
performing the mission, there's no problem.
The point is that the military has a job to protect our citizens, and
we don't want things getting in the way of that. If you were to commit
adultery, you could be discharged because that gets in the way of our
performing our mission.
Now, we face an amendment here, which is opposed by all of our
military leadership, which says we're going to repeal Don't Ask, Don't
Tell.
What, then, does that look like?
I mean, currently the policy is you could be gay, and as long as it
doesn't get in the way of doing your job, everything is fine.
So now we're going to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So what exactly
are we asking?
Are we asking the military then to protect or condone homosexual
behavior if it does get in the way of performing the mission?
What exactly are we talking about?
Are we talking about creating separate dormitories, for instance, if
we have sexual harassment?
What will this have to do with recruitment? People that have a 17-
year-old kid that may be wanting to sign up, what will this do to
recruitment?
What's it going to do to the morale of the troops?
What's it going to do to small-unit cohesion?
And, also, the other piece of the military is about these soldiers
that are giving their time and lives are confined to very tight areas
and pushed together in very difficult circumstances over long periods
of time. What is the effect of that?
And all of these questions are sitting out there, and the military
leadership is saying, yeah, we don't know the answer to those
questions. Give us some time to take a look at it. We don't want you to
pass this until we can see what's going on with this.
Now, I have three sons. They've graduated Naval Academy. All of them
went Marine Corps. One survived his experience in 2005 in Fallujah.
And when our sons and daughters are serving and laying their lives or
their bodies on the line so that we can live in peace and freedom, that
is a very sacred kind of sacrifice they're making for us. So why would
we belittle that by jumping into something?
We're being asked to pass something that we don't even know what
we're passing. We don't understand the implications or how it would
look. And yet we're going to jump into this for, what, some sort of
political deal to satisfy some vocal but small minority using the lives
of our own children?
I will not have any part of betraying the interest of our kids just
for political purposes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), my friend and colleague.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri for
his kindness to me, for his support of this amendment, and for the
yielding of this time.
This is an amendment which is to deal with a very important injustice
done to marines by the Department of the Navy, and you may read more
about it in my remarks as they are extended.
In a nutshell, people in the Marine Corps are being hurt, injured,
poisoned, given cancer and other things by the way the Department of
the Navy has run the posts and has provided contaminated water to the
members of the Marine Corps and to their families. This will at least
begin the process of getting information to these marines about what
has happened and why it is that they are suffering this way, and see to
it that we are taking a step forward to have the Marine Corps deliver
some of the information that they're supposed to deliver under
agreement.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment, and I thank my friend
from Missouri.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the
amendment I have offered with my colleagues, Congressmen Stupak and
Miller, pertaining to the historic water contamination at Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune.
I would like to thank Chairman Skelton for his willingness to work
with me on this important issue.
Mr. Chair, I am offering this amendment on behalf of the marines and
veterans that were exposed to the toxic drinking water at Camp Lejeune
between 1957 and 1987 and whose lives have been forever changed because
of it. There's Jerry Ensminger, whose daughter Janey was carried to
term at Camp Lejeune and died at age 9 after a long and heart-wrenching
battle with childhood leukemia. There's Jim Fontella and Mike Partain,
two among the dozens of former Lejeune residents battling breast
cancer, a disease rarely found among males. These are the poisoned
patriots who have lent their stories and their voices to the others who
have not spoken out. They want answers about the water contamination
and our amendment will help provide them.
Put simply, our amendment would require the Department of the Navy to
fulfill its obligation under an existing memorandum of understanding
with the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry--that is, to share all relevant
environmental information pertaining to historic water contamination at
Camp Lejeune. In addition, it requires the Navy to use its in-house
experts to help ATSDR gather this information.
This amendment constitutes a small piece of a larger quest to get
answers for our former marines and their families who were exposed to
the highly toxic chemicals, TCE, PCE, and benzene. The fact is, 23
years after the contaminated wells were shut down, there is still much
unknown. How much and to what extent were housing areas exposed to the
contaminants? When did the contamination take place? What is the extent
of the exposure to the specific chemicals? And finally, is there a link
between the exposure to the toxic water and illnesses experienced by
former Camp Lejeune residents? Our amendment will ensure that ATSDR--
mandated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act to assess human health effects of exposures to toxic
chemicals at Superfund sites--has the information it needs to complete
its studies and answer these questions.
Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate we must require something as simple this
by statute. But after 23 years, we have had enough delay from the
Defense Department. Ironically, I first came to know about this problem
when the Defense Department came before the Energy and Commerce
Committee seeking broad exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, and CERCLA, among others. The military wanted these
exemptions in the name of readiness, public health be damned. To say
the least, it is troubling to think about where ATSDR's studies would
be or what terrible tragedies would await our servicemembers in the
future if the Department of Defense were exempt from CERCLA.
In closing, I'd ask my colleagues to look at the bigger picture when
considering this amendment. With Memorial Day approaching this weekend,
what could be a more fitting tribute to our servicemembers and veterans
than to uphold the sacred trust they place in our Government when they
sign up to serve and potentially make the ultimate sacrifice for our
Nation?
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I have another letter to read, and I'd like to insert it into the
Record.
This is from General Carl E. Mundy, Jr., United States Marine Corps,
Retired. He sent an identical letter, I believe, to the chairman.
He says: ``I write to convey my appreciation for your strong stance
relative to efforts to repeal the current law which exclude homosexuals
from serving openly in the armed services. You and I both know that
such action is not in the best interest of our Nation or its Armed
Forces. While each member of the HASC has many constituencies to serve,
some very vocal, it may be that your largest is the 2.8 million men and
women in uniform, together with the family members who support them and
who number at least that many. In sharp contrast to homosexual
activists, these volunteers in uniform serve silently and obediently
and rely on the reasoned judgment of their leaders and even more so,
perhaps, of those empowered to `raise armies, provide and maintain a
navy, and to make the rules for the governance thereof' to speak and to
represent them.
``Secretary Gates has put into motion an effort to at least give this
element of your constituents an opportunity to be heard relative to
their concerns about implementation. The

[[Page H4030]]

very large majority of servicemembers who are not homosexual, at least
97 percent or more, deserve to be heard before any peremptory,
uninformed action is taken to impose the sexuality of a minority on
them. I believe strongly that a moratorium on discharges being
advocated by some in the Senate and on your committee as well could be
tantamount to muzzling those most affected by such peremptory action. I
appreciate the stand you have taken to prevent this.''
I would like to enter General Mundy's letter into the Record.
Mr. Chairman, there have been comments made that perhaps the Chiefs
support this action that will be taking place tonight on this vote,
tonight or tomorrow, whenever we get to that amendment. But I must
reiterate, I spoke to them on the phone and they followed up with a
letter and, to a person, they all oppose us taking action before the
recommended procedure that the Secretary has set in place.

General Carl E. Mundy, Jr.,

United States Marine Corp (Ret.),

May 19, 2010.
Hon. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McKeon: I write to convey my appreciation
for your strong stance relative to efforts to repeal the
current law which excludes homosexuals from serving openly in
the Armed Services. You and I both know that such action is
not in the best interests of our nation or its Armed Forces.
While each member of the HASC has many constituencies to
serve--some very vocal--it may be that your largest is the
2.8 million men and women in uniform together with the family
members who support them and who number at least that many.
In sharp contrast to homosexual activists, these volunteers
in uniform serve silently and obediently and rely on the
reasoned judgment of their leaders and even more so, perhaps,
of those empowered to ``. . . raise armies, provide and
maintain a navy, and to make the rules for the governance
thereof' to speak for and to represent them.
Secretary Gates has put into motion an effort to at least
give this element of your constituents an opportunity to be
heard relative to their concerns about implementation. The
very large majority of servicemembers who are not
homosexual--at least 97% or more--deserve to be heard before
any peremptory, uninformed action is taken to impose the
sexuality of a minority on them. I believe strongly that a
moratorium on discharges being advocated by some in the
Senate and on your Committee as well would be tantamount to
muzzling those most affected by such peremptory action. I
appreciate the stand you have taken to prevent this.
Last year, my Service, the Marine Corps, discharged
something over 32,400 men and women from active service.
Seventy-eight of those were discharged for matters related to
homosexuality--less than one-quarter of one percent. Within
that small number, more than half were still in Entry Level
Training with less than a year in service--young trainees
still in the reality-shock of Boot Camp or the immediate
months following--who can barely be considered qualified,
much less skilled or even of a maturity old enough to drink
alcohol. And within that small number, three were discharged
without any active service at all while still in the Delayed
Entry Program awaiting assignment to active duty. Claims of a
hemorrhage of skills due to the injustice of the law are
simply not supported by cases like these. And in my
experience, if not by admission of homosexuality--factual, or
not at their still emerging state of maturity--most of these
young people--homesick, disillusioned, or stunned by the
shock of Recruit Training--would seek another means of
gaining discharge.
As a final note, let me convey my concern that in counter-
balance to whatever number of homosexual advocate voices you
hear, the voices of the thousand retired military officers
who gave their advice professionally and with dignity and
respect to the President and members of Congress on this
subject last year--together with the 160 more who have lent
their names since--should not be ignored. This is the largest
number of officers to have collectively conveyed their views
and recommendations in the history of our nation. And in
spite of the efforts of activists to impugn the character and
legitimacy of these officers as out of touch, a number of
those offering their advice commanded Divisions in combat or
held other significant command or staff positions as recently
as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This body of
professional advice matters, since the signers base our
judgments on experience, and have no special interest agenda
other than the effectiveness of our Armed Forces.
I want to again offer my admiration for your courageous and
principled stand on behalf of the men and women of our armed
services on this issue. I hold the strongest hope that you
will continue to allow the voices of those in uniform to be
heard on this important subject, and will continue to oppose
efforts to impose a moratorium on discharges, which is
tantamount to de-facto repeal of a law that has, and does
serve the armed forces well.
Sincerely,
Carl E. Mundy, Jr.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution
1404, I hereby give notice that amendment Nos. 68 and 81 may be offered
out of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's request is noted.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as we debate
the defense authorization bill, to discuss the concept of humanity
because I believe the men and women of the United States military have
a sense of compassion for humanity and courage, and the broadness of
their humanity causes them to sacrifice on behalf of the American
people. Today I stand here and thank them.
And then I want to acknowledge, as well, the vast civilian support
staff that are found on the Nation's military bases and bases around
the world. I got a good sense of that when I joined, sadly, my fellow
colleagues at Ft. Hood a few months ago, mourning the loss of a
civilian and soldiers at the hands of a terrorist. I was able to see
civilians and soldiers coming together expressing concern for each
other.
I saw the mourning of those families who had lost their fallen
heroes, their soldiers. And, yes, I saw the civilian staff mourn, as
well, over the losses that had occurred amongst their fellow workers
and colleagues, soldiers, and a civilian, and those who were also
injured.
As we mourned, it came to my attention that we must take care of all
of them. Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who was a sergeant, a Fort Hood
police sergeant to whom was attributed the success of bringing down
this particular dangerous person, despite being shot herself; or a 19-
year-old nutritionist who put a tourniquet on a wounded soldier and
carried them out for medical care, even though she was also wounded.
So I am grateful that the committee has accepted my amendment, and I
ask my colleagues to support the idea of more or continued post-
traumatic stress disorder counseling for the civilians on this base,
and to ensure that that happens, if ever such a tragedy occurs again,
to be able to provide Airborne staff on military bases with that kind
of support system. I have promised the Fort Hood community that I would
return, and I intend to do so to check on how they're doing.
But it is important that we stand here today as we look toward
Memorial Day, mourning those lost, to be able to say to those here that
we will counsel or provide them with the services necessary to support
those possibly suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other
mental health issues due to work-related violence on our military
installations.
I started out quickly, Mr. Chairman, by talking about humanity, and I
finish by saying, I've heard all of the talk about Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as the President, recognize the
importance of acknowledging this necessary change in our military.
But I am reminded of the history of integrating the military when
President Truman said it was the right thing to do to provide the
opportunity for Americans who happened to be of African American
heritage to serve.
We know it is distinctive, but there is a reason for Don't Ask, Don't
Tell to be eliminated, and it is that every decent human being needs
the right to serve his or her country if they are willing to take the
Oath of Service.
This is the right thing to do. Repeal it. It's time. The Murphy
amendment is right and the process is in keeping with the respect of
the opinion of those active duty soldiers who will be surveyed for
their view. However now is the time to end this discrimination. My
constituent Ensign Provost might have lived if his sexual orientation
had not been misused to create an atmosphere that it was alright to
take his life because he lived in fear of reprimand and dismissal. He
was willing to serve his country but our country did not respect his
humanity or his service.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment (#25) to H.R. 5136--
``National

[[Page H4031]]

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.''
My amendment would make available post-traumatic stress counseling
for civilian victims of a shooting on a military installation base in
the United States, including the shooting at Fort Hood.
Every branch of the United States Armed Forces has a civilian
workforce. The civilian workforce, also called ``civil service,''
provides stability in various types of jobs at a military installation.
That allows for the continuation of military operations in a peace or
wartime environment. Civil service personnel serve in roles that
provide an important support system allowing the Armed Services to
operate at the highest levels.
There are many ways to serve our country without actually enlisting
in the military. One of those ways is to work in a military civilian
job with the Armed Services. There are many, many thousands of
individuals serving in jobs in fields such as medicine, recreation,
education, engineering, food services, and many other important areas
in which civilians provide valuable support for our military
operations. The Army alone employs more that 250,000 civilians on its
bases and installations around the world.
Civilians, like soldiers, are sometimes placed in harm's way and many
work in challenging environments. One incident that recently presented
unimaginable challenges and consequences for both soldiers and
civilians was the shooting at Fort Hood. We understand that civilians
stand in the same vulnerable shoes as soldiers when events like the
Fort Hood event occur.
Enlisted personnel, National Guards, reservists and veterans with
PTSD have lived through traumatic events that caused them to fear for
their lives, bear witness to horrible things, and feel helpless and
hopeless. PTSD symptoms usually start soon after the traumatic event,
but they may not manifest until months or years later. If provided
proper medical care, about half, 40 percent to 60 percent, of people
who develop PTSD get better at some time.
Although veterans who served in combat are most frequently afflicted
by PTSD, events such as the Fort Hood shooting highlight the physical
and psychological dangers facing military personnel in all roles.
Consequently, it is vital to extend to our civilian personnel the same
benefits and support that we give to our active duty military.
Civilians and military members on Fort Hood have equal responsibility
to protect our Nation and, as such, it is morally imperative that we
honor these civilians by providing them with equal support in the
aftermath of such traumatic incidents.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this simple but
important amendment.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, for 30 years, the water that
our former Marines and their families drank, cooked with, and bathed in
at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune was contaminated with highly
toxic chemicals, including benzene, TCE, and PCE.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, at the
Centers for Disease Control is currently working on several health
studies to determine just what effect this water had on the men and
women serving at Lejeune.
For years the discussion about Camp Lejeune centered on TCE and PCE
exposure, but recently the conversation turned to benzene. Benzene is a
known carcinogen. This new emphasis on benzene has come about because
new documents, recently discovered, show that marines' exposure to
benzene at Camp Lejeune was far greater than previously thought.
And these documents are not the only ``newly found'' documents.
ATSDR's health studies must rely on having accurate data about what
people were exposed to, as well as where and when these toxins were in
the water. If you don't get the water modeling right, you can't do the
rest of the studies. We are at a crucial point--we must get this right
now.
In every memorandum of understanding between the Navy and ATSDR, the
Navy was supposed to provide ATSDR with an inventory of all available
data related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune; that inventory has
never been provided.
Nobody disputes that the Navy has provided open access to their
library and records to ATSDR, but access is not enough. The Navy is the
expert on what documents they have and they must take responsibility
for ensuring that all relevant documents are provided to ATSDR.
This amendment will ensure that no crucial documents will surface
after these health studies have been completed.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support the Dingell/Stupak/
Miller amendment to H.R. 5136, the Defense Authorization Act. I wish to
thank my colleagues Congressmen Dingell and Miller for their work to
bring this amendment to the floor.
As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee, I held a hearing in 2007 on the
contaminated water wells at Camp Lejeune and how the Department of
Defense did not appropriately respond to the discovery of volatile
organic compounds within the drinking water from 1957 to 1987.
During the hearing, we listened to soldiers formerly stationed at
Camp Lejeune who, along with members of their families who lived on the
base, have encountered significant health problems they believe is tied
to their exposure to TCE, PCE, benzene and other toxins.
These volatile organic compounds may be the cause of increased
incidences of cancer and birth defects among women, children,
employees, and soldiers stationed at Camp Lejeune.
Because Camp Lejeune is a Superfund site, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, is responsible for conducting
health studies to determine the connections between the contaminated
drinking water and incidences of cancer and birth defects.
Now, even after more than six years of data discovery efforts by
ATSDR, a complete record of available data necessary for ATSDR's health
studies appears to remain incomplete.
This situation is unacceptable and I hope my colleagues will support
our amendment to send a clear message that Congress expects this issue
to be resolved expeditiously.
Our amendment requires the Navy to provide ATSDR with a complete
inventory of all relevant data by putting in place additional personnel
with experience and expertise in water modeling and environmental
engineering who will work with ATSDR to bring this matter to a close.
This information sharing task is a shared goal between the agencies
because it will ensure the scientific accuracy of the health studies
ATSDR is tasked with completing.
I ask Members to support our amendment and send a clear signal on
what we expect from Federal agencies in responding to our service men
and women who have suffered from the Camp Lejeune legacy.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 111-498.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. DEBARMENT OF BP AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.

(a) Contracts With BP and Its Subsidiaries.--If the
Secretary of Defense determines that BP or any of its
subsidiaries performing any contract with the Department of
Defense is no longer a responsible source (as defined in
section 2302 of title 10, United States Code), the Secretary
shall determine, not later than 90 days after making such
determination, whether BP or its subsidiaries should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
(b) Debar.--In this section, the term ``debar'' has the
meaning given that term by section 2393(c) of title 10,
United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, in 2009 the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration fined BP $87 million for hundreds of safety
violations at a Texas City refinery, many of which were originally
identified after the 2005 explosion and then ignored there.
As recently as 2 months ago, BP was fined another $3 million for
violations at the Toledo, Ohio, refinery similar to those identified in
the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion. Again, just like in 2005, no
steps were taken to correct the safety violations.
This blatant disregard for workers' lives shows that BP is a bad
partner for the U.S. Government.
I rise today to say that BP stands for too many broken promises, too
many broken lives and too many broken laws.

[[Page H4032]]

My amendment is a simple, commonsense amendment that would require
that the Secretary of Defense consider disbarring BP if it finds that
BP is not a responsible source.
As a Federal contractor, BP must meet Federal acquisition regulation
standards as a responsible source. What's the definition of a
responsible source? It includes the provision that a prospective
contractor must have ``a satisfactory record of integrity and business
ethics.'' As we've already defined, they do not uphold that standard.
As well, they must have a satisfactory performance record. To take
that definition from the Webster's dictionary, integrity is ``firm
adherence to a code or standard of values.'' BP clearly does not meet
the standard set by even the lowest code of values.
The history that I've talked about cannot be ignored. In March of
2005, before the recent explosion, at a BP Texas refinery, 15 people
lost their lives; 180 were injured. Investigators from the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Protection Board believed this explosion
could have been avoided had it not been for organizational and safety
deficiencies at all levels of BP Corporation.
And when they polluted in Alaska, the EPA and every government
official encouraged the U.S. Attorney to indict them criminally for
their abuse of safety standards.
Now, let me just say, this comes straight, straight from BP's code of
conduct. BP code of conduct. It's right here. I've got it right down
from the Internet, and here's what it says.

{time} 1815

Our code of conduct is the cornerstone of our commitment to
integrity. Integrity?
An important consideration is how BP addresses integrity. Quote--this
comes from right here. It says, ``code of conduct is the cornerstone of
our commitment to integrity.'' Moreover, within their code of conduct,
BP states that they are ``committed to providing all BP employees . . .
with a safe and secure work environment where no one is subject to
unnecessary risk.''
You know what it further says here right from their manual and code
of conduct? It says right here on page 72, it says right here, Make
sure you know what to do if an emergency occurs at your place of work.
Right from their BP manual and code of conduct. Clearly, they are not
meeting their code of conduct.
But it gets worse. This comes from this very manual, which I am going
to add to the Record. Quote, ``We aim for no accidents, no harm to
people, and no damage to the environment.''
Zero for three. I didn't make this up. It's in their code of conduct.
And if we are supposed to be responsible and make sure that
contractors--$2 billion we buy from BP every year. I say we buy not $1
more of their oil. They have been irresponsible, and they don't even
meet their own code of conduct that comes down from their own Web site.
Mr. Chair, I think we have an obligation, a responsibility to the
American taxpayers to respond. And what does my simple amendment say?
It says the Secretary of Defense should consider disbarring them if he
finds they don't meet the code of conduct which should be administered
to every provider of goods to the American people on which we spend the
American taxpayers' dollars.

Our Commitment to Integrity

Health, safety and security

BP is committed to providing all Bp employees--and those of
other companies working on our premises--with a safe and
secure work environment where no one is subject to
unnecessary risk.
We recognize that safe operations depend not only on
technically sound plant and equipment, but also on competent
people and an active HSSE culture. No activity is so
important that it cannot be done safely.
Simply obeying safety rules is not enough. BP's commitment
to safety means each of us needs to be alert to safety risks
as we go about our jobs.

Basic rules you must follow

Always

Comply with the requirements of the HSSE management system
at your work location--including the use of relevant
standards, instructions and processes--and with the golden
rules of safety.
Stop any work that becomes unsafe.
Only undertake work for which you are trained, competent,
medically fit and sufficiently rested and alert to carry out.
Make sure you know what to do if an emergency occurs at
your place of work.
Help ensure that those who work with you--employees,
contractors and other third parties--act consistently with
BP's HSSE commitments.
Promptly report to local BP management any accident,
injury, illness, unsafe or unhealthy condition, incident,
spill or release of material to the environment, so that
steps can be taken to correct, prevent or control those
conditions immediately. Never assume that someone else will
report a risk or concern.
Seek advice and help if: You are ever unclear about your
HSSE obligations; You have a concern about a potential or
actual breach of HSSE law or a BP HSSE requirement.

Never

Undertake work when your performance is impaired by alcohol
or other drugs, legal or illegal, prescribed or otherwise.
Possess, use or transfer illegal drugs or other substances
on company premises.
Use threats, intimidation or other violence at work, or
bring weapons--including those carried for sporting
purposes--onto company premises.

I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek the time in opposition
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. I would just like to make a couple of points.
The Secretary would first have to determine that BP was not a
responsible source. If the Secretary determines that BP was not a
responsible source, the Secretary would already be authorized to
consider debarment. The Secretary is not obligated to debar BP or any
of its subsidiaries in any circumstance.
Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in House Report 111-498.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Eshoo:
At the end of subtitle C of title IX, add the following new
section:

SEC. 923. AUDITS OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BY GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.

(a) Audits.--Title V of the National Security Act of 1947
(50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``audits of intelligence community by government accountability office

``Sec. 508. (a) In General.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), the Director of National Intelligence shall
ensure that personnel of the Government Accountability Office
designated by the Comptroller General are provided with
access to all information in the possession of an element of
the intelligence community that the Comptroller General
determines is necessary for such personnel to conduct an
analysis, evaluation, or investigation of a program or
activity of an element of the intelligence community that is
requested by one of the congressional intelligence
committees.
``(b) Audits of Programs Involving Sources and Methods.--
(1) If the Director of National Intelligence determines that
a portion of an analysis, evaluation, or investigation to be
conducted by the Comptroller General that is requested by a
committee of Congress with jurisdiction over the subject of
such analysis, evaluation, or investigation involves a matter
that is subject to the reporting requirements of section 503
or intelligence sources or methods, such portion may be
redacted from such analysis, evaluation, or investigation and
provided exclusively to the congressional intelligence
committees.
``(2) If the Director of National Intelligence redacts a
portion of an analysis, evaluation, or investigation under
paragraph (1), the Director shall inform the committee of
Congress that requested such analysis, evaluation, or
investigation of the redaction.

[[Page H4033]]

``(c) Notice of Analysis, Evaluation, or Investigation and
Procedures.--Not later than 15 days before initiating an
analysis, evaluation, or investigation of an element of the
intelligence community, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the congressional intelligence committees a notice that
includes--
``(1) a description of the analysis, evaluation, or
investigation to occur and the purposes of such analysis,
evaluation, or investigation;
``(2) the names of the personnel who will conduct such
analysis, evaluation, or investigation and the level of
security clearance possessed by such personnel; and
``(3) the procedures to be used in the course of such
analysis, evaluation, or investigation for examining
classified information, including a description of all
facilities and materials that will be used.
``(d) Discussion of Procedures.--(1) Prior to initiating an
analysis, evaluation, or investigation of an element of the
intelligence community, the Comptroller General, in
consultation with the congressional intelligence committees,
shall discuss with the Director of National Intelligence the
procedures for conducting such analysis, evaluation, or
investigation.
``(2) Not later than five days after the discussion
referred to in paragraph (1), the Director of National
Intelligence may submit to the Comptroller General a written
comment suggesting any changes or modifications to the
procedures referred to in paragraph (1).
``(e) Confidentiality.--The Comptroller General shall
maintain the same level of confidentiality for a record made
available during the course of an analysis, evaluation, or
investigation involving sources or methods as is required of
the head of the element of the intelligence community from
which such record is obtained. An officer or employee of the
Government Accountability Office shall be subject to the same
statutory penalties for unauthorized disclosure or use of a
record as an officer or employee of the element of the
intelligence community that provided the Comptroller General
or such officer or employee of the Government Accountability
Office with access to such record.
``(f) Workpapers.--All workpapers of the Comptroller
General and all records and property of any element of the
intelligence community that the Comptroller General uses
during the course of an analysis, evaluation, or
investigation involving sources or methods shall remain in
facilities provided by the element of the intelligence
community providing such records and property.
``(g) Provision of Supplies.--The head of each element of
the intelligence community that is a subject of an analysis,
evaluation, or investigation by the Comptroller General
involving sources or methods shall provide the Comptroller
General with suitable and secure offices and furniture,
telephones, and access to copying facilities, for purposes of
such analysis, evaluation, or investigation.
``(h) Procedures for Protection of Information.--The
Comptroller General, in consultation with the congressional
intelligence committees, shall establish procedures to
protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified and other
sensitive information furnished to the Comptroller General in
the course of conducting an analysis, evaluation, or
investigation involving sources and methods.
``(i) Submission of Names of Personnel Conducting Analysis,
Evaluation, or Investigation.--Prior to initiating an
analysis, evaluation, or investigation involving sources and
methods, the Comptroller General shall provide the Director
of National Intelligence and the head of each element of the
intelligence community that is a subject of such analysis,
evaluation, or investigation with the name of each officer
and employee of the Government Accountability Office who has
obtained appropriate security clearance and to whom, upon
proper identification, the head of such element shall make
available records and information during the course of such
analysis, evaluation, or investigation.
``(j) Cooperation.--The head of each element of the
intelligence community that is a subject of an analysis,
evaluation, or investigation shall cooperate fully with the
Comptroller General and provide timely responses to requests
by the Comptroller General for documentation and information
made pursuant to this section.
``(k) Rule of Construction.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), nothing in this section or any other
provision of law shall be construed to restrict or limit the
authority of the Comptroller General to audit, evaluate, or
obtain access to the records of an element of the
intelligence community absent specific statutory language
restricting or limiting such audits, evaluations, or access
to records.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment No. 42 to this
National Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. Chairman, what brings me to the floor is something that I think
should concern every single Member of the House. We all know that our
number one obligation as Members of Congress is to secure our country.
And as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, it matters not
Republican or Democrat, we stand shoulder to shoulder. We may debate
different things. We all know, and the full House knows, that this is
our first and top obligation. In order to carry that obligation out,
that duty done well, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee we
must do effective oversight. We have to do investigations. It is the
way we do our work.
The reason I offer this amendment is because, unlike all the rest of
the committees of the House who can use the GAO, dispatch the
Government Accountability Office into the executive branch to make the
kinds of determinations on financial issues, financial management,
personnel, acquisitions, information technology, whatever it might be,
the House Intelligence Committee is not allowed to do that. And in
attempting to do it, it has drawn the ire of the administration.
Now, I am a Democrat. We have a Democratic administration. I think
the administration is ill-advised in this. These are the prerogatives
of the Congress and the jurisdictions of our committees. I think that
we need to be able to have the tools that the GAO has, with all of the
safeguards in place relative to sources and methods and those things
that are the most sensitive in the intelligence community. But I don't
believe that the executive branch should be telling the legislative
branch what tools we should have and to make that decision for us. That
speaks to the separation of powers, and it also speaks to what we, as
Members of Congress, in terms of our duty have to carry out and to do.
So my amendment really corrects this flaw, and I think it's an
important provision that would restore the GAO's role in congressional
oversight. I don't think this is a question of whether the information
is too sensitive for the GAO. They have the security clearances. They
have dealt with things before, and nothing has ever happened.
So as I said, I believe this issue goes directly to the heart of one
of the most important functions of the Congress, and that is effective
oversight. That's what this amendment is about.
I want to thank, in particular, Chairman Howard Berman for his work
on this issue from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and also my
colleagues from the House Intelligence Committee who are sponsoring
this amendment: Congressman Holt, Congressman Tierney of Massachusetts,
Congressman Thompson of California, and Congresswoman Schakowsky of
Illinois.
I rise to offer my amendment #42, to the FY2011 National Defense
Authorization Act. This Amendment would require the Director of
National Intelligence to cooperate with GAO inquiries initiated by
committees of jurisdiction.
Oversight of matters in the intelligence community--including
financial management, personnel systems, acquisitions, and information
technology--is a fundamental prerogative of Congress. GAO plays a
critical role helping committees examine the functions of government
agencies in an objective, thorough manner.
But despite this expertise, the intelligence community refuses to
allow GAO in the door, even when the intelligence committees--the
committees that have jurisdiction over them--have asked them to
investigate. The Administration has even threatened to veto the
Intelligence Authorization Bill because it contained a provision that
would restore GAO's role in Congressional oversight.
The co-sponsors of this amendment have joined me in rejecting the
Administration's flawed legal analysis that would exempt the
intelligence community from GAO's review--even though they review every
other federal agency.
This is not a question of whether the information is too sensitive
for GAO. GAO has evaluated a number of national security programs,
including ones that have sensitive intelligence implications like
Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance programs which are known
as ISR platforms. GAO has issued classified reports on the Iraq war and
parts of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Their
personnel have the appropriate security clearances and they know how to
safeguard sensitive information.
In an abundance of caution, the amendment lays out additional
safeguards that GAO must follow to be able to have access to our
nation's intelligence information.

[[Page H4034]]

I believe this issue is one that goes directly to the heart of one of
the most important functions of the Congress, and that is oversight.
This also goes to the very core of the principle of Separation of
Powers.
My amendment would make clear to the intelligence community that they
cannot bar the door to Congressional oversight, and it is Congress, not
the Executive branch that determines which tools we get to use.
In particular, I'd like to thank Chairman Berman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee and HPSCI members Representatives Holt, Tierney,
Thompson of California, and Schakowsky for co-sponsoring this
amendment. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
At this point I would like to yield to Mr. Berman, my trusted and
distinguished colleague from California.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for the 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining in favor of the amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Eshoo amendment cuts right to the heart
of our constitutional authority: Congressional oversight of matters, in
this case, within the intelligence community--basic functions,
financial management, acquisitions, information technology--a
fundamental prerogative of this body, a prerogative that should not be
limited to the intelligence committees.
Bottom line, GAO plays a critical role in helping the committees
examine day-to-day functions of government agencies within their
jurisdiction, and its expertise needs to be brought to bear on the
intelligence community. This is particularly true after the 2004
reforms that established the ODNI. There is no community that has
undergone more bureaucratic overhaul and tumult, any agency within the
Federal Government, than within the intelligence community.
The notion that committees of appropriate jurisdiction are blocked
from investigating areas within their domain for oversight purposes,
having nothing to do--we clearly exempt the sources and methods issues
from this oversight--makes no sense. It is an insult to the
prerogatives of the Congress. And to the extent that the administration
argues this should be solely within their prerogative, they don't fully
understand our institutional role in Congress.
I don't understand how anyone in this body who is interested in
dealing with waste, with fraud, with duplication would want to limit
the GAO's authority to go into appropriate areas within the
intelligence community.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.

{time} 1830

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think the first and probably most
important point to make on this amendment is that it does not belong on
this bill and it imperils the whole bill.
This issue about whether to expand GAO's authority to be able to
investigate the intelligence community, which has been an issue in the
fiscal year 2010 intelligence authorization bill, has been the subject
of veto threats from the administration and is one of, if not the
reason, here 4 months before the end of the fiscal year we still do not
have an intelligence authorization bill.
So it does not belong here. This is the DOD authorization bill. It is
being discussed in another forum where it should, the intelligence
authorization bill, and if it gets added to the DOD authorization bill,
it puts in danger this entire bill because just today, the
administration sent another email which confirmed the veto threat over
this provision.
So however Members feel about the particular issue one way or
another, I would suggest that you ought to be very careful about
endangering the whole bill over this provision.
Second point I'd make is this is not a change to be taken lightly. As
the gentlelady, my colleague on the Intelligence Committee mentioned,
the GAO has not had this power, authority before since the modern
intelligence community has existed. Congress after Congress of both
parties, President after President of both parties have rejected this,
I would suggest, for some very good reasons.
So this is not a step to be taken lightly.
I think the only argument one can make is that the current
intelligence committees are incapable of performing their oversight
responsibilities and therefore they have to get this other entity, GAO,
in to help them do that. I don't agree with that position. I think the
intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are capable of
performing their job. Now, I get frustrated. I don't agree with
everything that the majority chooses to do, but I believe that the
committee is perfectly capable of oversight of the intelligence
community as we were tasked to do in the House rules and by statute.
These committees were created in the 1970s to fill a very unique
role, and to undermine them by saying they are incapable of performing
their job which, without bringing GAO and investigators and so forth, I
think is a mistake.
I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment may undermine the
role of the DNI at a time that is very sensitive for the role of the
DNI. Because if you look at the amendment itself, it says the
Comptroller General decides what he needs access to, has control over
how these investigations will be conducted. Now, the amendment says
that you can have discussions with the DNI, but the decision is with
the Comptroller General, further undermining the DNI's control over
classified material. I think that's a mistake.
There are other flaws, in my view, in this amendment. But the bottom
line is it undermines the bill. It does not belong here. And it is a
step that previous Congresses, previous Presidents have not chosen to
take because of the sensitivity of the material and the unique role
that the select committees on intelligence play.
Therefore, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
reject this amendment. I urge them to do so.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is it in order to propound a unanimous consent request
at this point?
The Acting CHAIR. Any request to extend time must be congruent on
both sides.
Mr. ANDREWS. I would make a unanimous consent request to extend for
each side 1 minute.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. I would yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on
this important bill before us.
I commend Congresswoman Eshoo for her attention to this important
matter, her leadership in bringing this amendment to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, as you all know, protecting American people is our
first responsibility. Their security is what we take an oath to uphold,
protect, and defend. In order to do that, we recognize the importance
of intelligence gathering to preventing violence and to protecting the
American people, especially in this age when we're fighting terrorism
at home and abroad.
The issue before us is if the responsibilities of Congress can be
honored without the knowledge that we are entitled to. This is a very
important issue. We all recognize, as the gentleman said, the
importance of having information be kept secret when it's in our
national security interest to do so. Not to overdo that to the extent
of having Congress not have the information it needs to do its job of
proper oversight to protect the American people.
We are preventing harm. And if we're going to prevent harm, we have
to have information to do so. And the members of the Intelligence
Committee have a responsibility to hold that information close. This
doesn't apply to every piece of information of intelligence that comes
to the committee, but it does say that the GAO has a proven track
record of conducting thorough and professional investigations. Their
work has informed the Congress and led to significant changes that have
enhanced our government's effectiveness. GAO staff are professionals
who protect information held by the intelligence community. A vote for
this amendment is a vote for enhancing intelligence oversight. It is a
vote for Congress.

[[Page H4035]]

I urge our colleagues to support the Eshoo amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the
distinguished Speaker about the importance of our role in national
security and the importance of Congress' role in overseeing the
intelligence community. I agree that national security is the first job
of the Federal Government.
I also agree with both the gentleladies from California that
oversight can be improved from the Congress. As a matter of fact, I've
had legislation, which has not been allowed to be voted on the floor,
to make clear the notification requirements and statute about what any
administration must notify Congress about, the information it must give
us.
I'd also have to point out that the
9/11 Commission made a number of very important recommendations on how
we can improve oversight in this Congress. Unfortunately, that have not
been adopted. Now, they adopted a kind of a hybrid panel of the
Appropriations Committee, but that was not at all what the 9/11
Commission, the WMD Commission recommend we do to improve oversight.
I think we should focus on making our committees of oversight more
effective rather than bringing in this other entity, the General
Accounting Office, that has historically never had a role with the
intelligence community, and that the President says he will veto the
bill over if we allow it to happen.
Let's look at ourselves, improve ourselves first before we start
bringing in others.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, as Chairman of the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, I support the amendment offered by Ms. Eshoo because
it will strengthen government accountability and enhance critical
oversight of the intelligence community. The amendment provides
necessary clarification regarding the authority of the General
Accountability Office, GAO, to receive information from the
intelligence community. Congress relies on the GAO as a force
multiplier in carrying out the investigative and oversight functions
vested in the Legislative Branch. The GAO helps inform the Congress and
all Executive agencies about areas and programs within the federal
government that are performing well, and those that need to be improved
or are vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse.
This amendment will allow GAO to carry out these vital functions
without unwarranted interference from intelligence community agencies.
As Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro previously noted, this
authority does not represent an overhaul of existing oversight
mechanisms for the intelligence community. Instead, ``The proposed
legislative provisions in essence reaffirm GAO's existing authority in
order to address the lack of cooperation GAO has received from certain
elements of the IC [intelligence community] in carrying out work at the
specific request of the intelligence committees, and other committees
of jurisdiction as defined by the rules of the Senate and House.'' The
intelligence community will function more effectively, and better
protect the security of this country if this amendment is adopted.
Despite my strong support for the amendment and its important goals,
I should note my concern with the way in which the amendment is
drafted. This provision should clearly identify the authority of any
committee of Congress with jurisdiction over the identified subject to
request evaluation or analysis of an intelligence community component,
not only the congressional intelligence committees, except in the case
of matters concerning intelligence sources and methods.
I thank Ms. Eshoo and the other sponsors of this important amendment
for bringing it before the House, and I urge all Members to support it.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in House Report 111-498.
Mr. SARBANES. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Sarbanes:
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT
AMENDMENTS.

(a) Service Contract Inventory Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 45. SERVICE CONTRACT INVENTORY REQUIREMENT.

``(a) Service Contract Inventory Requirement.--
``(1) Guidance.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall develop and disseminate guidance to aid
executive agencies in establishing systems for the collection
of information required to meet the requirements of this
section and to ensure consistency of inventories across
agencies.
``(2) Report.--The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall submit a report to Congress on the status of
efforts to enable executive agencies to prepare the
inventories required under paragraph (3), including the
development, as appropriate, of guidance, methodologies, and
technical tools.
``(3) Inventory contents.--Not later than December 31,
2010, and annually thereafter, the head of each executive
agency required to submit an inventory in accordance with the
Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note), other than the Department of
Defense, shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget
an annual inventory of service contracts awarded or extended
through the exercise of an option or a task order, for or on
behalf of such agency. For each service contract, the entry
for an inventory under this section shall include, for the
preceding fiscal year, the following:
``(A) A description of the services purchased by the
executive agency and the role the services played in
achieving agency objectives, regardless of whether such a
purchase was made through a contract or task order.
``(B) The organizational component of the executive agency
administering the contract, and the organizational component
of the agency whose requirements are being met through
contractor performance of the service.
``(C) The total dollar amount obligated for services under
the contract and the funding source for the contract.
``(D) The total dollar amount invoiced for services under
the contract.
``(E) The contract type and date of award.
``(F) The name of the contractor and place of performance.
``(G) The number and work location of contractor and
subcontractor employees, expressed as full-time equivalents
for direct labor, compensated under the contract, using
direct labor hours and associated cost data collected from
contractors.
``(H) Whether the contract is a personal services contract.
``(I) Whether the contract was awarded on a noncompetitive
basis, regardless of date of award.
``(b) Form.--Reports required under this section shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
``(c) Publication.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which the inventory under subsection (a)(3) is required to
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, the head
of each executive agency shall--
``(1) make the inventory available to the public; and
``(2) publish in the Federal Register a notice that the
inventory is available to the public.
``(d) Government-wide Inventory Report.--Not later than 90
days after the deadline for submitting inventories under
subsection (a)(3), and annually thereafter, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall submit to Congress
and make

[[Page H4036]]

publicly available on the Office of Management and Budget
website a report on the inventories submitted. The report
shall identify whether each agency required to submit an
inventory under subsection (a)(3) has met such requirement
and summarize the information submitted by each executive
agency required to have a Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
section 901 of title 31, United States Code.
``(e) Review and Planning Requirements.--Not later than 180
days after the deadline for submitting inventories under
subsection (a)(3) for an executive agency, the head of the
executive agency, or an official designated by the agency
head shall--
``(1) review the contracts and information in the
inventory;
``(2) ensure that--
``(A) each contract in the inventory that is a personal
services contract has been entered into, and is being
performed, in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations;
``(B) the contracts do not include to the maximum extent
practicable functions that are closely associated with
inherently governmental functions;
``(C) the agency is not using contractor employees to
perform inherently governmental functions;
``(D) the agency has specific safeguards and monitoring
systems in place to ensure that work being performed by
contractors has not changed or expanded during performance to
become an inherently governmental function;
``(E) the agency is not using contractor employees to
perform critical functions in such a way that could affect
the ability of the agency to maintain control of its mission
and operations; and
``(F) there are sufficient internal agency resources to
manage and oversee contracts effectively;
``(3) identify contracts that have been poorly performed,
as determined by a contracting officer, because of excessive
costs or inferior quality; and
``(4) identify contracts that should be considered for
conversion to--
``(A) performance by Federal employees of the executive
agency in accordance with agency insourcing guidelines
required under section 736 of the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-
8, division D) and section 46 of this Act; or
``(B) an alternative acquisition approach that would better
enable the agency to efficiently utilize its assets and
achieve its public mission.
``(f) Report on Actions Taken in Response to Annual
Inventory.--Not later than one year after submitting an
annual inventory under subsection (a)(3), the head of each
executive agency submitting such an inventory shall submit to
the Office of Management and Budget a report summarizing the
actions taken pursuant to subsection (e), including any
actions taken to consider and convert functions from
contractor to Federal employee performance. The report shall
be included as an attachment to the next annual inventory and
made publicly available in accordance with subsection (c).
``(g) Submission of Service Contract Inventory Before
Public-private Competition.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, beginning in fiscal year 2011, if an
executive agency has not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget the inventory required under subsection
(a)(3) for the prior fiscal year, the agency may not begin,
plan for, or announce a study or public-private competition
regarding the conversion to contractor performance of any
function performed by Federal employees pursuant to Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other
administrative regulation or directive until such time as the
inventory is submitted for the prior fiscal year.
``(h) GAO Reports on Implementation.--
``(1) Report on guidance.--Not later than 120 days after
submission of the report by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget required under subsection (a)(2), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall report on the
guidance issued and actions taken by the Director. The report
shall be submitted to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
``(2) Reports on inventories.--
``(A) Initial inventory.--Not later than September 30,
2011, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to the Committees named in the preceding
paragraph on the initial implementation by executive agencies
of the inventory requirement in subsection (a)(3) with
respect to inventories required to be submitted by December
31, 2010.
``(B) Second inventory.--Not later than September 30, 2012,
the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the same
Committees on annual inventories required to be submitted by
December 31, 2011.
``(3) Periodic briefings.--The Comptroller General shall
provide periodic briefings, as may be requested by the
Committees, on matters related to implementation of this
section.
``(i) Executive Agency Defined.--In this section, the term
`executive agency' has the meaning given the term in section
4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
403).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections in section 1
of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:

``Sec. 45. Service contract inventory requirement.''.

(3) Repeal of superseded law.--Section 743(c) of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act,
2010 (Public Law 111-117; 123 Stat. 3216) is amended by
striking ``and annually thereafter,''.
(b) Prohibition Against Direct Conversions.--
(1) In general.--Section 43(a)(1) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 439) is amended by striking
``10 or more''.
(2) Guidance.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall issue guidance to all Federal
agencies other than the Department of Defense to ensure that
no function last performed by Federal employees is converted
to contractor performance without complying with the
requirements of section 43 of such Act, as amended by this
section.
(c) Guidelines on Insourcing New and Contracted Out
Functions.--
(1) In general.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.), as amended by subsection (a), is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 46. GUIDELINES ON INSOURCING NEW AND CONTRACTED OUT
FUNCTIONS.

``(a) Guidelines Required.--(1) The heads of executive
agencies subject to the Federal Activities Inventory Reform
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note) shall
devise and implement guidelines and procedures to ensure that
consideration is given to using, on a regular basis, Federal
employees to perform new functions and functions that are
performed by contractors and could be performed by Federal
employees.
``(2) The guidelines and procedures required under
subparagraph (A) may not include any specific limitation or
restriction on the number of functions or activities that may
be converted to performance by Federal employees.
``(b) Special Consideration for Certain Functions.--The
guidelines and procedures required under paragraph (1) shall
provide for special consideration to be given to using
Federal employees to perform any function that--
``(1) is performed by a contractor and--
``(A) has been performed by Federal employees at any time
during the previous 10 years;
``(B) is a function closely associated with the performance
of an inherently governmental function;
``(C) has been performed pursuant to a contract awarded on
a non-competitive basis; or
``(D) has been performed poorly, as determined by a
contracting officer during the 5-year period preceding the
date of such determination, because of excessive costs or
inferior quality; or
``(2) is a new requirement, with particular emphasis given
to a new requirement that is similar to a function previously
performed by Federal employees or is a function closely
associated with the performance of an inherently governmental
function.
``(c) Exclusion of Certain Functions From Competitions.--
The head of an executive agency may not conduct a public-
private competition under Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 or any other provision of law or regulation
before--
``(1) in the case of a new agency function, assigning the
performance of the function to Federal employees;
``(2) in the case of any agency function described in
paragraph (2), converting the function to performance by
Federal employees; or
``(3) in the case of an agency function performed by
Federal employees, expanding the scope of the function.
``(d) Deadline.--(1) The head of each executive agency
shall implement the guidelines and procedures required under
this subsection by not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection.
``(2) Not later than 210 days after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Government Accountability
Office shall submit a report on the implementation of this
subsection to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
of the Senate.
``(e) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(1) The term `inherently governmental functions' has the
meaning given such term in subpart 7.5 of part 7 of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation.
``(2) The term `functions closely associated with
inherently governmental functions' means the functions
described in section 7.503(d) of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation.
``(f) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to
the Department of Defense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections in section 1
of such Act, as amended by subsection (a), is further amended
by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 46. Guidelines on insourcing new and contracted out
functions.''.

(3) Repeal of superseded law.--Subsection (b) of section
739 of division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2030) is repealed.
(d) Conversion of Functions to Performance by Federal
Employees.--

[[Page H4037]]

(1) Decision to insource.--The Office of Management and
Budget shall not establish any numerical goal, target, or
quota for the conversion to performance by Federal employees
of functions previously performed by contractors unless such
goal, target, or quota is based on considered research and
analysis.
(2) Reports.--
(A) Report to congress.--The Office of Management and
Budget shall submit to Congress a report on the aggregate
results of the efforts of each Federal agency to convert
functions from contractor performance to performance by
Federal agency employees made during fiscal year 2010. Such
report shall include--
(i) agency decisions for converting such functions to
Federal employee performance;
(ii) the basis and rationale for the agency decisions;
(iii) the number of contractor employees whose functions
were converted to performance by Federal employees.
(B) Comptroller general report.-- Not later than 120 days
after the submittal of the report under paragraph (1), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate an assessment of the
report.
(3) Department of defense.--Nothing in this subsection
shall apply to the Department of Defense.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House resolution 1404, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment, amendment number 47, I believe, in the queue, would
bring standards of good government and good government practice to
procurement across the Federal agencies. What it does, in fact, is it
takes a set of standards that has been put in place already with
respect to the Department of Defense as a result of the DOD
authorization bill of 2008, as well as standards that were built into
appropriations bills applying to other agencies over the last couple of
years, and it makes it clear that those are going to be authorized
standards going forward to apply to non-DOD agencies as well now as to
DOD agencies.
As many people know, over the last few years, the impulse to contract
services out on the part of the Federal Government went too far. And in
fact, studies have demonstrated that, for example, the Department of
Defense's service contractor workforce grew from 732,000 in 2000 to 1.3
million in 2006, a huge increase. And this kind of phenomenon was not
limited to the Department of Defense. We saw it in other agencies--the
Department of Homeland Security and other places across the Federal
workforce.
Secretary Gates, recognizing that things have gone too far in this
direction, is looking for a better balance and has already declared
that DOD will examine this reliance on contractors and begin to bring
more of a balance back into the equation. So what this amendment would
do is take that same approach, those same standards and apply them
across the board to non-DOD agencies.
It includes a number of provisions. Very briefly, I will go over
those.
The first is it would close a loophole that allowed certain work
performed by Federal employees to be contracted out without determining
whether in fact that would result in any savings. Well, that's the kind
of analysis that needs to be done. And so we would close that loophole.
It would create a contractor inventory. Right now we don't really
have a sense of which contracts are out there, what kind of outsourcing
has been done. We need to get a handle on that, have an inventory, so
we can make better decisions and informed judgements going forward.
It would also seek to bring some analysis as to when it's appropriate
to bring back in-house some of these functions and operations that have
been outsourced according to very reasonable and rational standards.
And the last thing it would do is improve oversight and transparency.
It would prevent any agency from establishing arbitrary quotas or
targets or numerical goals with respect to what should be outsourced or
not. In other words, what this seeks to do is bring a rational analysis
back to whether something should be outsourced or not outsourced. It
doesn't try to tilt the presumption in one direction or another. It
just says let's look at this on a careful basis and determine when it
makes sense, when it can generate savings, when it's a good thing for
the Federal Government to do, and when it may not be such a good thing
to do.
So I urge support of this amendment because I do believe it will
bring commonsense good government provisions back into the mix and will
make those permanent for all government agencies across the board.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I seek time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Sarbanes, I am sure, is well-intended with this
amendment. But I hope the Chair will take note that this amendment is
wholly outside the jurisdiction of this committee. And for that reason,
it would be subject to a rule, if the rule allowed it.
More importantly, it is very clear that although well-intended, it
falls short of its intended mark. Mr. Sarbanes in his comments,
rightfully so, said he wanted to establish standards. But I am sure the
gentleman wants to establish a standard.

{time} 1845

This amendment would establish every agency having a different
standard. We already have the Office of Management and Budget and other
agencies working to define inherently governmental in a uniform way,
and that is critical. We do not want to bring in anything which is less
expensive to do out-of-house and is not necessary to bring in-house.
I share with the gentleman the desire to make sure that which must be
done by the government, that which is so special that we definitely do
not want profit fitting into the equation, we want it done by the
government.
I never again want to consider anything being outsourced simply
because we don't have the will to build the resources in-house,
particularly when it often can cost more, not less, to outsource.
So I would hope that the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, one,
because it's outside the jurisdiction of this committee; and, two,
because there is a time and a place to get a standard. We already have
an effort under way by this administration to establish a single
standard, one that could be uniformly executed that would save money
and save confusion.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of
the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Sarbanes of
Maryland.
This amendment ensures due diligence on the part of Federal agencies
by requiring cost comparisons before any work can be awarded to
contractors at non-Department of Defense agencies.
I just want to point out that this is what DOD is doing now, and
those of us on the Oversight Committee, who saw the problems that were
created by recklessly contracting out core government responsibilities
in the Iraq reconstruction era, think this is a great idea. We think
that this is an idea that will make sure that we do effective cost
analysis and also measure the appropriateness of whether or not a core
government's function should be contracted out to begin with.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The trouble is, this is not working so great for the Department of
Defense, and to take it to all the other departments of government is
not a good idea.
We were promised that we would have a cost analysis that the validity
of analysis and cost models would be provided, and that really hasn't
been provided. So we have these glowing claims that this is going to
save money, but we haven't seen the analysis backing that up.
What we do know is that there will be people in the private sector
losing

[[Page H4038]]

their jobs. Now, sure, it will get transferred to the government
service, but are we comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?
The claims that this will save money, I am not sure they take into
account such things as health care coverage and pensions and things
like that that a Federal employee would receive on top of their salary.
I also question the long-term strategic use, especially in the
Defense Department, of the great amounts of in-sourcing that are being
talked about, because the most innovation that we get comes
historically from the private sector.
People that are in government are well-intentioned, they do their
best, but there just sometimes is not that same cutting-edge innovation
and technology improvement in government service that we see with
people working in the private sector.
The competition is so intense, that can drive innovation in the
private sector. So to give that up for core competencies, core things
that should be done by the private sector is something that I see as
not good for the long-term strategy of the defense industry.
For that reason, too, I really have to question this impulse to take
something that's really not working that great and apply it to all of
government just because you know of a few examples where maybe a
contractor was paid too much.
I agree with Representative Issa. We need to first of all step back
and see if this is even working in the Department of Defense. And to
assume that it is, on very skimpy or scant evidence, and apply it to
the entire government is just way too premature and hasty. I would urge
a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I know it's well-intentioned, but I would urge strongly everyone to
oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. The committee supports this amendment because we support
Mr. Sarbanes' approach of merit-driven decision-making. The OMB will
oversee this process. We believe it will improve quality and protect
the taxpayers. We support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
will be postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 5 Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the
designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer
amendments en bloc No. 5.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 5 offered by Mr. Andrews consisting of
amendments numbered 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 19, 31, and 33 printed in House
Report 111-498:

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Bordallo of Guam

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A of the bill, insert the following
new title:

TITLE XVII--GUAM WORLD WAR II LOYALTY RECOGNITION ACT

SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Guam World War II Loyalty
Recognition Act''.

SEC. 1702. RECOGNITION OF THE SUFFERING AND LOYALTY OF THE
RESIDENTS OF GUAM.

(a) Recognition of the Suffering of the Residents of
Guam.--The United States recognizes that, as described by the
Guam War Claims Review Commission, the residents of Guam, on
account of their United States nationality, suffered
unspeakable harm as a result of the occupation of Guam by
Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II, by
being subjected to death, rape, severe personal injury,
personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment.
(b) Recognition of the Loyalty of the Residents of Guam.--
The United States forever will be grateful to the residents
of Guam for their steadfast loyalty to the United States of
America, as demonstrated by the countless acts of courage
they performed despite the threat of death or great bodily
harm they faced at the hands of the Imperial Japanese
military forces that occupied Guam during World War II.

SEC. 1703. PAYMENTS FOR GUAM WORLD WAR II CLAIMS.

(a) Payments for Death, Personal Injury, Forced Labor,
Forced March, and Internment.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations authorized to be appropriated under section
1706(a), after receipt of certification pursuant to section
1704(b)(8) and in accordance with the provisions of this
title, the Secretary of the Treasury shall make payments as
follows:
(1) Residents injured.--The Secretary shall pay compensable
Guam victims who are not deceased before any payments are
made to individuals described in paragraphs (2) and (3) as
follows:
(A) If the victim has suffered an injury described in
subsection (c)(2)(A), $15,000.
(B) If the victim is not described in subparagraph (A) but
has suffered an injury described in subsection (c)(2)(B),
$12,000.
(C) If the victim is not described in subparagraph (A) or
(B) but has suffered an injury described in subsection
(c)(2)(C), $10,000.
(2) Survivors of residents who died in war.--In the case of
a compensable Guam decedent, the Secretary shall pay $25,000
for distribution to eligible survivors of the decedent as
specified in subsection (b). The Secretary shall make
payments under this paragraph after payments are made under
paragraph (1) and before payments are made under paragraph
(3).
(3) Survivors of deceased injured residents.--In the case
of a compensable Guam victim who is deceased, the Secretary
shall pay $7,000 for distribution to eligible survivors of
the victim as specified in subsection (b). The Secretary
shall make payments under this paragraph after payments are
made under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b) Distribution of Survivor Payments.--Payments under
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) to eligible survivors
of an individual who is a compensable Guam decedent or a
compensable Guam victim who is deceased shall be made as
follows:
(1) If there is living a spouse of the individual, but no
child of the individual, all of the payment shall be made to
such spouse.
(2) If there is living a spouse of the individual and one
or more children of the individual, one-half of the payment
shall be made to the spouse and the other half to the child
(or to the children in equal shares).
(3) If there is no living spouse of the individual, but
there are one or more children of the individual alive, all
of the payment shall be made to such child (or to such
children in equal shares).
(4) If there is no living spouse or child of the individual
but there is a living parent (or parents) of the individual,
all of the payment shall be made to the parents (or to the
parents in equal shares).
(5) If there is no such living spouse, child, or parent, no
payment shall be made.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this title:
(1) Compensable guam decedent.--The term ``compensable Guam
decedent'' means an individual determined under section
1704(a)(1) to have been a resident of Guam who died or was
killed as a result of the attack and occupation of Guam by
Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II, or
incident to the liberation of Guam by United States military
forces, and whose death would have been compensable under the
Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-224) if a
timely claim had been filed under the terms of such Act.
(2) Compensable guam victim.--The term ``compensable Guam
victim'' means an individual determined under section
1704(a)(1) to have suffered, as a result of the attack and
occupation of Guam by Imperial Japanese military forces
during World War II, or incident to the liberation of Guam by
United States military forces, any of the following:
(A) Rape or severe personal injury (such as loss of a limb,
dismemberment, or paralysis).
(B) Forced labor or a personal injury not under
subparagraph (A) (such as disfigurement, scarring, or burns).
(C) Forced march, internment, or hiding to evade
internment.
(3) Definitions of severe personal injuries and personal
injuries.--The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission shall
promulgate regulations to specify injuries that constitute a
severe personal injury or a personal injury for purposes of
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, of paragraph (2).

SEC. 1704. ADJUDICATION.

(a) Authority of Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
is authorized to adjudicate claims and determine eligibility
for payments under section 1703.
(2) Rules and regulations.--The chairman of the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission shall prescribe such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its
functions under this title. Such rules and regulations shall
be published in the Federal Register.
(b) Claims Submitted for Payments.--
(1) Submittal of claim.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1)
and subject to paragraph (2), the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission may not determine an individual is eligible for a
payment under section 1703 unless the individual submits to
the Commission a claim in such manner and form and containing
such information as the Commission specifies.
(2) Filing period for claims and notice.--All claims for a
payment under section 1703

[[Page H4039]]

shall be filed within one year after the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission publishes public notice of the filing
period in the Federal Register. The Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission shall provide for the notice required under the
previous sentence not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this title. In addition, the Commission
shall cause to be publicized the public notice of the
deadline for filing claims in newspaper, radio, and
television media on Guam.
(3) Adjudicatory decisions.--The decision of the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission on each claim shall be by
majority vote, shall be in writing, and shall state the
reasons for the approval or denial of the claim. If approved,
the decision shall also state the amount of the payment
awarded and the distribution, if any, to be made of the
payment.
(4) Deductions in payment.--The Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission shall deduct, from potential payments, amounts
previously paid under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act of 1945
(Public Law 79-224).
(5) Interest.--No interest shall be paid on payments
awarded by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.
(6) Remuneration prohibited.--No remuneration on account of
representational services rendered on behalf of any claimant
in connection with any claim filed with the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission under this title shall exceed one
percent of the total amount paid pursuant to any payment
certified under the provisions of this title on account of
such claim. Any agreement to the contrary shall be unlawful
and void. Whoever demands or receives, on account of services
so rendered, any remuneration in excess of the maximum
permitted by this section shall be fined not more than $5,000
or imprisoned not more than 12 months, or both.
(7) Appeals and finality.--Objections and appeals of
decisions of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission shall
be to the Commission, and upon rehearing, the decision in
each claim shall be final, and not subject to further review
by any court or agency.
(8) Certifications for payment.--After a decision approving
a claim becomes final, the chairman of the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission shall certify it to the Secretary of
the Treasury for authorization of a payment under section
1703.
(9) Treatment of affidavits.--For purposes of section 1703
and subject to paragraph (2), the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission shall treat a claim that is accompanied by an
affidavit of an individual that attests to all of the
material facts required for establishing eligibility of such
individual for payment under such section as establishing a
prima facie case of the individual's eligibility for such
payment without the need for further documentation, except as
the Commission may otherwise require. Such material facts
shall include, with respect to a claim under paragraph (2) or
(3) of section 1703(a), a detailed description of the injury
or other circumstance supporting the claim involved,
including the level of payment sought.
(10) Release of related claims.--Acceptance of payment
under section 1703 by an individual for a claim related to a
compensable Guam decedent or a compensable Guam victim shall
be in full satisfaction of all claims related to such
decedent or victim, respectively, arising under the Guam
Meritorious Claims Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-224), the
implementing regulations issued by the United States Navy
pursuant thereto, or this title.

SEC. 1705. GRANTS PROGRAM TO MEMORIALIZE THE OCCUPATION OF
GUAM DURING WORLD WAR II.

(a) Establishment.--Subject to section 1706(b) and in
accordance with this section, the Secretary of the Interior
shall establish a grants program under which the Secretary
shall award grants for research, educational, and media
activities that memorialize the events surrounding the
occupation of Guam during World War II, honor the loyalty of
the people of Guam during such occupation, or both, for
purposes of appropriately illuminating and interpreting the
causes and circumstances of such occupation and other similar
occupations during a war.
(b) Eligibility.--The Secretary of the Interior may not
award to a person a grant under subsection (a) unless such
person submits an application to the Secretary for such
grant, in such time, manner, and form and containing such
information as the Secretary specifies.

SEC. 1706. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Guam World War II Claims Payments and Adjudication.--
For purposes of carrying out sections 1703 and 1704, there
are authorized to be appropriated $126,000,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2013, to the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Not more than 5 percent
of funds made available under this subsection shall be used
for administrative costs.
(b) Guam World War II Grants Program.--For purposes of
carrying out section 1705, there are authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2013.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE PRIORITY FOR RARE EARTH
NEODYMIUM IRON BORON MAGNETS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) There is an urgent need to restore the United States
capability to manufacture sintered neodymium iron boron
magnets for use in defense applications and there is an
urgent need to eliminate the domestic supply-chain
vulnerability related to these key materials in the defense
supply-chain.
(2) An April 14, 2010 report by the Government
Accountability Office entitled ``Rare Earth Materials in the
Defense Supply Chain'' demonstrates--
(A) the ``United States is not currently producing
neodymium iron boron magnets,'' a key rare earth material;
(B) that future availability of neodymium is largely
controlled by Chinese suppliers;
(C) that alternatives to rare earth materials could reduce
the demand and dependence on rare earth materials in 10 to 15
years, but these materials might not meet current application
requirements;
(D) where rare earth materials are used in defense systems,
the materials are responsible for the functionality of the
component and would be difficult to replace without losing
performance;
(E) fin actuators used in precision-guided munitions are
specifically designed around the capabilities of neodymium
iron boron rare earth magnets, which are primarily available
from Chinese suppliers;
(F) the DDG-51 Hybrid Electric Drive Ship Program uses
permanent-magnet motors using neodymium magnets from China;
and
(G) future generations of some defense system components,
such as transmit and receive modules for radars, will
continue to depend on rare earth materials.
(3) The United States has the technological capability to
restore its neodymium iron boron manufacturing capability.
(4) Worldwide supplies or rare earth materials, including
neodymium, are expected to tighten significantly within the
next 3-5 years.
(5) A domestic effort to restore domestic sintered
neodymium iron boron magnet manufacturing capability,
including efforts to qualify those magnets for use in defense
applications, will take between 3-5 years and should begin
immediately to avoid future weapon system delivery
disruption.
(b) Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a plan to establish a domestic source of
sintered neodymium iron boron magnets for use in the defense
supply chain.
(c) Sintered Neodymium Iron Boron Magnets.--For the
purposes of subsection (b), the capability to manufacture
sintered neodymium iron boron magnets includes the alloying,
pressing, and sintering of magnet materials. It does not
include manufacturing magnets from standard shapes or
imported blocks of neodymium. The Secretary's plan shall not
allow the grinding or reprocessing of neodymium to be
considered a ``domestic source of sintered neodymium iron
boron magnets''.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter of New Hampshire

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1047. STUDY ON COMMON ALIGNMENT OF WORLD REGIONS IN
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES WITH INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES.

(a) Study Required.--The President shall commission a study
to assess the need for and implications of a common alignment
of world regions in the internal organization of departments
and agencies of the Federal Government with international
responsibilities.
(b) Participating Departments and Agencies.--The following
departments and agencies, at a minimum, shall participate in
the study:
(1) The Department of Defense, including the combatant
commands.
(2) The Department of State.
(3) The United States Agency for International Development.
(4) The Department of Justice.
(5) The Department of Commerce.
(6) The Department of the Treasury.
(7) The intelligence community.
(8) Such other departments and agencies as the President
considers appropriate.
(c) Cooperation and Access.--The heads of the departments
and agencies participating in the study shall provide full
cooperation with, and access to appropriate information to,
the team carrying out the study.
(d) Matters Covered.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall, at a minimum, assess--
(1) the problems resulting from different geographic
boundaries within the various departments and agencies;
(2) potential obstacles to implementing a common alignment;
(3) the advantages and disadvantages of a common alignment;
and
(4) impediments to interagency coordination because of
differing regional authority levels.
(e) Report.--The President shall submit to Congress a
report on the study required under subsection (a) not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page H4040]]

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kratovil of Maryland

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 406, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 1038. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO GIVE MIRANDA
WARNINGS TO AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
shall be used in violation of section 1040 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law
111-84; 123 Stat. 2454; 10 U.S.C. 801 note).

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Mc Govern of Massachusetts

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 12XX. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR ELECTIONS
IN AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act may be made available to support the holding of
elections in Afghanistan unless and until the President
submits a certification described in subsection (b) to the
congressional officials specified in subsection (c).
(b) Certification Described.--A certification described in
this subsection is certification in writing that contains a
determination of the President of the following:
(1) The Afghanistan Independent Election Commission has the
professional capacity, personnel, skills, independence, and
legal authority to conduct and oversee free, fair, and honest
elections.
(2) The Afghanistan Independent Election Commission, to the
extent possible, has been purged of all members and staff who
committed or were otherwise participants in any fraud of the
2009 presidential elections, including covering up the
electoral fraud or otherwise were negligent in investigating
allegations of electoral fraud.
(3) The Afghan Electoral Complaints Commission is a
genuinely independent body with all the authorities that were
invested in it under Afghanistan law as of December 31, 2009,
and with no members appointed by President Hamid Karzai.
(c) Congressional Officials Specified.--The congressional
officials specified in this subsection are the following:
(1) The Speaker and minority leader of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The majority leader and minority leader of the Senate.
(3) The Chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services and the Chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
(4) The Chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services and the Chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Conyers of Michigan

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 12XX. REPORT ON THE STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION OF AN INCIDENTS AT SEA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF IRAN.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report evaluating
naval security in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall include an assessment of the strategic
benefits of the successful negotiation of a multilateral or
bilateral Incidents at Sea military-to-military agreement
including the United States and the Government of Iran aimed
at defusing tension and preventing accidental naval conflict
in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Such an
assessment should consider and evaluate the effect that such
an agreement might have on commercial, military, and other
naval traffic in the region, as well as other United States
regional strategic interests.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 323, after line 11, insert the following:

SEC. 839. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COST SAVINGS THROUGH
REDUCTIONS IN WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Secretary of Defense has undertaken meaningful
efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse through
contractor oversight and new policies and procedures aimed at
increasing emphasis on ethics, governance, and fraud
prevention.
(2) The Government Accountability Office report dated
December 16, 2009, on the status of 3,099 recommendations
made to the Department of Defense by the Government
Accountability Office between 2001 and 2008, indicates that
the Department of Defense has implemented 1,871, or 61
percent, of the recommendations.
(3) The Government Accountability Office estimates that the
implementation of these recommendations yielded the Federal
Government a savings of $89 billion from 2001 through 2007,
averaging $12.7 billion in annual financial benefit.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) there is potential for additional and significant cost
savings through further reductions by the Secretary of
Defense in waste, fraud, and abuse, particularly with regard
to contracting processes; and
(2) the Secretary of Defense should make implementation of
the remaining Government Accountability Office
recommendations an utmost priority of the Department of
Defense.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 12XX. RECOMMENDATIONS ON OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS
ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Recommendations Required.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction shall, in consultation
with the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the
Inspector General of the United States Agency for
International Development, and the Inspector General of the
Department of State--
(1) issue recommendations on measures to increase oversight
of contractors engaged in activities relating to Afghanistan
that have a record of engaging in waste, fraud, or abuse;
(2) report on the status of efforts of the Department of
Defense, the United States Agency for International
Development, and the Department of State to implement
existing recommendations regarding oversight of such
contractors; and
(3) report on the extent to which military and security
contractors or subcontractors engaged in activities relating
to Afghanistan have been responsible for the deaths of Afghan
civilians.
(b) Elements of Recommendations.--The recommendations
issued under subsection (a)(1) shall include--
(1) recommendations for reducing the reliance of the United
States on--
(A) military and security contractors or subcontractors
engaged in activities relating to Afghanistan that have been
responsible responsible for the deaths of Afghan civilians;
and
(B) Afghan militias or other armed groups that are not part
of the Afghan National Security Forces; and
(2) recommendations for prohibiting the Department of
Defense, the Department of State, or the United States Agency
for International Development from entering into contracts
with contractors engaged in activities relating to
Afghanistan that have a record of engaging in waste, fraud,
or abuse.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, again, this is an example of Members from
both sides of the aisle making well thought out, constructive
contributions on a whole range of issues that we think improve the
bill. Both the majority and minority have examined each of the
provisions in the en bloc amendment. We support each of them.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
don't oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense is
facing a near-term shortage of key ``rare earth'' materials necessary
to support our defense weapon systems, and rare Earth magnets are
especially critical. Over 97 percent of rare earth production is
controlled by China.
Currently the United States does not have a manufacturer of
neodymium-iron-boron rare Earth magnets, yet they are found in our
precision guided munitions, ships, aircraft, and other critical weapons
systems.
One key finding of the recent Government Accountability Office report
on

[[Page H4041]]

rare earth materials in the defense supply chain was that the Chinese-
sourced ``neo'' magnets are being included in weapons platforms
delivered to the Department of Defense. America is not currently
producing these magnets. The time to address this problem is now.
This amendment will help restore America's ability to produce
domestic neo magnets. It requires the Department of Defense to develop
a plan for establishing this domestic capability and submit it to the
congressional defense committees.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Coffman-Ellsworth
amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has taken a leading
interest in evaluating both the quality and financial impact of our
activities in Afghanistan, very often doing yeoman's work on tedious
detail.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I also want to
thank the chairman and ranking member for including this amendment in
the en bloc.
Mr. Chairman, McGovern-Jones-Welch is a straightforward, bipartisan
amendment. It requires the President to certify that the Afghanistan
Independent Election Commission and the Afghan Electoral Complaints
Commission have the professional capacity, legal authority and
independence to carry out and oversee free, fair and honest elections,
absent the fraud that characterized the 2009 presidential elections,
before U.S. taxpayer dollars can support the next round of elections. I
don't think that that's too much to ask.
I was in Afghanistan just after the 2009 elections. I didn't meet
anyone who thought that those elections were honest. The Embassy told
me they were a fraud. The U.N. said they were a fraud. The Afghan
people knew they were a fraud. Even President Karzai conceded that they
were massively fraudulent. And $200 million of U.S. taxpayer money went
into those elections. Just think about it, $200 million. I don't want
to see history repeat itself. I don't want the American taxpayer ripped
off again.
More is at stake than the waste of money. The U.S. military strategy
depends on an honest, competent Afghan government that can win the
loyalty of the people. If September's parliamentary elections are also
fraudulent, the result could be even greater local and regional
turmoil.
No matter where you stand on our policy on Afghanistan, let's make
sure that the September elections are free, fair and honest. This
amendment strengthens our leverage. Our uniformed men and women are
fighting and dying in Afghanistan. The least we can ask is that the
Afghan government carries out free, fair and honest elections.

[From the Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2010]

U.S. Lost in Afghan Vote

(By Peter W. Galbraith)

Will we ever learn? In 2009, Afghan President Hamid Karzai,
who will meet with President Obama in Washington this week,
ripped off American taxpayers for about $200 million. This is
what the United States contributed to support presidential
elections that Karzai himself admits were massively
fraudulent. Now, the United Nations and the Obama
administration propose to fund Afghanistan's parliamentary
elections in September, even though new rules pushed through
by Karzai--over the opposition of parliament--make fraud even
more likely this time.
Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission, or IEC, a
body appointed by Karzai and subservient to his wishes, was
deeply implicated in the 2009 fraud. The commission and its
staff either produced the phony tallies--which gave Karzai
more than 1 million of his 3 million votes--or collaborated
with those who did. In many instances, the commission
reported pro-Karzai results from polling centers that never
existed.
Fortunately, Afghanistan also had in place a truly
independent body, the Electoral Complaints Commission, which
was empowered to investigate fraud. Three members of that
commission were appointed by the United Nations, and none of
its members was chosen by Karzai. After investigating the
election, the group tossed out enough phony Karzai votes to
force the president into a runoff with the second-highest
vote-getter, Abdullah Abdullah. In the end, that second
election wasn't held because Abdullah withdrew after the IEC
adopted procedures that made fraud even more likely in the
runoff.
The fact that Karzai retained the presidency didn't mollify
him. Angered by the complaint commission's actions after the
first round of last year's vote, and determined to gain full
control over Afghanistan's election machinery, Karzai issued
a decree in February giving himself the authority to appoint
all five members of the Electoral Complaints Commission. He
also stripped the group of its power to initiate reviews of
suspicious ballots on its own. In the parliamentary
elections, the group will be allowed to act only on
complaints referred to it by members of the provincial
election commissions, all of whom are appointed by Karzai.
The United Nations, which is supposed to help the Afghans
hold honest elections, and the United States, which will pick
up most of the tab for them, have responded far too meekly to
Karzai's power grab. Staffan de Mistura, the new head of the
U.N. mission in Afghanistan, negotiated a deal with Karzai
under which two U.N.-nominated international election experts
were appointed to the complaints commission, and one of them
will have veto power. Because of this compromise, De Mistura
is recommending that Western donors proceed with funding the
election. The Obama administration, wishing to move beyond a
recent harsh exchange of words with Karzai (during which
Karzai bizarrely alleged that foreigners, including the U.S.
and the U.N., were responsible for fraud in the last
election), seems inclined to agree.
But the proposed compromise is a sham. Karzai's three
appointees can outvote the two U.N. choices, and the
compromise does not restore the Electoral Complaints
Commission's power to initiate independently reviews of
suspicious votes.
There is only one positive note I've seen in the whole
mess, and that is that Karzai unexpectedly appointed Fazel
Ahmad Manawi as the new head of the IEC, replacing a chairman
deeply implicated in the fraud. This was a pleasant surprise.
I met Manawi, a respected Islamic scholar from the Panjshir
Valley, an opposition stronghold, when I was deputy head of
the U.N. mission in 2009. At the time, he was one of seven
members of the IEC, and he was clearly a person of integrity,
casting the sole vote against the decision to ratify Karzai's
fraudulent election. But Manawi remains only one vote on a
commission stacked with Karzai loyalists, and the leading
candidate for the position of chief electoral officer is
Zekria Barakzai, a smooth-talking IEC official who was a
public apologist for the fraud.
Much more is at stake in Afghanistan's elections than the
waste of millions more U.S. dollars. Our counterinsurgency
strategy depends on an honest and competent Afghan government
that can win the loyalty of the population. During eight
years in office, the Karzai administration has been
ineffective and corrupt. Since Karzai's disputed reelection,
many Afghans also question his legitimacy.
If September's parliamentary elections are fraudulent, it
could lead to an ethnically based civil war. Afghanistan's
opposition dominates the parliament and has come out strongly
against the new electoral procedures. The parliament is the
one national institution that effectively represents
Afghanistan's non-Pashtun minorities; the speaker of the
lower house is an ethnic Tajik who was the runner-up to
Karzai in the 2004 elections.
The Obama administration, now that it has tenuously patched
up relations with Karzai after his anti-American tirades last
month, is reluctant to confront the Afghan president over
electoral procedures. This reluctance is shortsighted.
Insisting on procedures for honest elections now will be far
less costly, both in lives and money, than having another
crooked election that ends up with U.S. troops mired in even
greater chaos and a broadening civil war. The Taliban will be
the only true winner of yet another phony election in
Afghanistan.
Peter W. Galbraith was deputy special representative of the
secretary-general of the United Nations to Afghanistan from
June to September 2009.

Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who has done very careful
work on making sure that the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction is fully discharging very important functions.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, which includes my
amendment to improve oversight of contractors in Afghanistan. The
United States employs over 100,000 contractors in Afghanistan, and we
need to ensure that we have adequate oversight. Reckless behavior by
contractors can endanger our mission in Afghanistan, and failure to
adequately oversee money can leave billions of taxpayer dollars
vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.
My amendment requires the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction to report to Congress on existing contractor oversight
and make recommendations for increasing oversight and preventing
contractors with a history of waste, fraud and abuse from getting
future contracts.

[[Page H4042]]

I would like to thank Chairman Skelton for supporting this amendment,
as well as cosponsors Congressmen McGovern, Conyers, Hinchey and Moran.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has
left on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6\1/2\ minutes
and the gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is very important that we take assessment of the excellent ideas
in this bill that both parties support. Much of the debate this
afternoon and this evening has obviously been consumed by points of
controversy, but there are some major points of consensus that each
side should be proud of supporting.
Number one, each side is vigorously supporting a significant pay
increase for the men and women who wear the uniform of our country.
Each side is supporting a very significant increase in the quality of
housing, education and health care for the servicemembers and for their
families.

{time} 1900

Each side is supporting a significant step toward our Navy, reaching
the point where our admirals tell us it ought to be.
In 2008, our Navy had authorized and at sea in the fleet 286 ships.
Under this bill, our Navy will have authorized and at sea in the fleet
293 ships, a gain of seven ships. Mr. Taylor, in particular, has worked
very hard on this point with the full bipartisan support of the
Republican side. Our admirals tell us that the optimal size of the Navy
they would like to see us have is 313 ships. So we have a ways to go,
but progress is being made.
I mentioned earlier the legislation before the House authorizes $9.8
billion for our Special Operations Command. In the toughest
neighborhoods in the world, in the toughest circumstances in the world,
it is the men and women under the command of SOCOM who do the toughest
work, and the bill on both sides supports them very substantially.
Also, as I mentioned before, this bill dramatically upgrades the
amount of money we spend on identifying, securing, and disabling
nuclear material that could be used to form a nuclear improvised
explosive device. This is very much consistent with the
administration's policy and broadly embraced by both sides.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just want you and others observing tonight to
understand that it is the nature of debate that we do dwell--as we have
these many hours this afternoon--on points of disagreement, and they
are profound points of disagreement; but it is very important that
people understand the points of agreement that are before us. Whether
it is compensation for our servicemembers and their families, their
health care, their housing, their job and educational opportunities,
whether it is the end strength of our Navy--which, frankly, is a
bipartisan commitment to bring us up to those 313 ships--whether it is
the end strength of our Armed Forces; in 2008, the end strength of our
Armed Forces was in the neighborhood of 1.4 million people, active
duty, Guard and Reserve, a little over that. This legislation before us
tonight would have the end strength of our Armed Forces exceed 1.5
million people in our active duty, Guard and Reserve.
So, Mr. Chairman, I again want to say that it is healthy, it is
expected, it is anticipated that the floor of this Chamber will be a
place where our points of disagreement are vigorously and honestly
pursued. But as a compliment to both sides of the aisle, to Mr. McKeon
and Chairman Skelton, the legislative product that is before us tonight
has many, many, many more points of consensus, and we're looking
forward to building on those points of consensus.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California
will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. May I inquire as to how much time we have left on each
side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I also wanted to make reference to the excellent work that's been
done in this bill in the area of our missile defense program. Now,
there are obviously disagreements over what the structure of that
program ought to be; but when one looks at the fortification of
defenses that we already have at Fort Greely and other places, when one
looks at the additional investment that we are making in the successful
regional-range missile programs that have tested and been quite
efficient, I think that the accurate conclusion is that we are
fortifying the defenses which have been proven to work in the missile
defense field, we are building upon those successes, and we are
preparing ourselves for a future generation of defenses that are
effective both in a regional context and in the context of
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The nonproliferation strategy really has two aspects: it is to be
prepared to defend ourselves if a strike occurs, but it is to
discourage the proliferation of nuclear capability around the world, as
the administration has done in the Security Council negotiations with
Iran and it has done with its layered defense missile strategy. So,
again, I think this is another point where there is more consensus than
disagreement.
There is disagreement between the two sides over the best way to
pursue an effective ballistic missile defense. I don't think there is a
disagreement over whether the pursuit of a ballistic missile defense is
in the interest of the country. It most certainly is.
I would conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, where I began. We know
that the cornerstone of our country's defense is not found in this
Chamber. It is found at bases throughout the world, both in the
Continental United States and at forward-operating bases and other
places overseas. We are profoundly grateful to the men and women who
volunteer to serve this country. We, on a bipartisan basis, are
expressing our gratitude where it counts: compensation, support for
families, education, health care, and other opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Just to respond briefly here on the subject of missile
defense, I know we are working with some en bloc amendments. We're
comfortable with those amendments. There is some disagreement on
missile defense, and I think at least a considerable vulnerability that
many people on our side are very concerned with was the decision not to
build a ground base system in Poland and the radar in the Czech
Republic, but instead, to suggest that the Aegis class cruisers could
cruise around in the ocean and take care of the mission to stop
ballistic missiles, particularly a longer range ballistic missile
possibly equipped with a nuclear warhead coming out of Iran.
The fact of the matter is that the Aegis class missiles do not have
the velocity necessary to stop a longer-range ballistic missile. And
the only way we had to do that was, quite simply, the ground-based
system, which is a 20-ton missile; the Aegis class missiles are more
two ton. So there is a factor-of-10 difference in the weight of the
missile. Obviously, the much larger missile can develop the velocity it
needs to go after a very high-flying, fast-moving ballistic missile
that could come from Iran as early as in the next few years.
And so there is a serious concern that, in terms of missile defense,
we do not really have protection over Western Europe and our troops
that are stationed in Western Europe. Of more concern to us was some
level of obfuscation that we received from the Pentagon as to what the
real capabilities of this potentially Standard Block 3 missile--it's
called the Standard Block 3, 2A--and what sort of velocities that

[[Page H4043]]

could attain. From the most reliable sources that I personally have
been able to discuss this with and keeping things within the
nonclassified setting, that missile we have very little hope will ever
develop the velocity necessary to take out a high-flying ballistic
missile.
So we have a big gap in our ballistic missile capabilities, and that
gap is the size of Europe. And we are betting on the development of a
missile that just does not have the physical size or capabilities of
developing the velocities we need to protect Europe. We don't think
that's good strategy. We think that's a weakness in the bill.
I still support the bill, it's a good bill--unless we put bad
amendments on it. This block of amendments is okay, but we do have some
weaknesses.
Mr. ANDREWS. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on
each side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR. First let me say that I agree with my chairman and the
ranking member on the need to defeat the Murphy amendment.
But to Mr. Akin's point, number one, in the past 20 years, the
Panamanians, the Filipinos, and even our fellow Americans in Puerto
Rico have asked us to leave. If you put your missile defense in Poland
or Czechoslovakia, you are one election away from having spent billions
of dollars and being asked to leave. If you put your missile defense on
ships you can get to within 12 miles of the Iranian coast, you don't
have to ask anyone's permission to fire it. It's there. And if you
think about it, all of our known enemies have a coastline. That's why
it makes sense to put our missile defense on a ship because you put the
ship between our Nation and our enemies.
I thank the gentleman very, very much for yielding me the minute, and
I thank the gentleman for asking a great question.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, back to this point, I think we weren't concerned on the
missile defense about putting them on the ships, what we're concerned
about is we don't have the missile to put on the ships. And there will
be a gap in the time that we don't have the other missiles before we
get the missiles for the ships. So I think that's a concern we have,
and hopefully that will be worked out, that we will have a missile
instead of just a planned missile.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from California for
yielding his time to the gentleman from Mississippi. We appreciate that
very much.
I will just conclude by pointing out that we've heard some
disagreements here about the nature of ballistic missile defense. But
to my core point, there is much in this bill that has been embraced by
both sides of the aisle because both sides of the aisle have a profound
respect for the men and women who serve and a profound appreciation for
the core duty we have to preserve and defend the country.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense is
facing a near-term shortage of key ``rare earth'' materials necessary
to support our defense weapon systems, and rare earth magnets are
especially critical. Over 97% of rare earth production is controlled by
China.
Currently, the United States does not have a manufacturer of
neodymium iron boron rare earth magnets, yet they are found in our
precision guided munitions, ships, aircraft, and other critical weapons
systems.
Due to my concern over this critical security issue, last year I
requested a Government Accountability Office, GAO, study on rare earth
materials in the defense supply chain as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Released on April 14, 2010, the
recent GAO Report on Rare Earth Metals in the Defense Supply Chain has
highlighted the near-term need for a sustainable supply chain of rare
earths in the United States, both for critical American national
defense and industrial applications.
One key finding of the GAO report was their determination that some
U.S. defense contractors are currently utilizing ``neo'' magnets from
Chinese sources and incorporating them into the weapons platforms
delivered to the Department of Defense. At present, we have almost no
alternatives to these Chinese components, as the United States is not
currently producing these magnets. Though America is not currently
producing these magnets, we have the technological know-how to do so,
combined with significant deposits of rare earths.
The time to address this problem is now.
This essential amendment will help restore America's ability to
produce domestic ``neo'' magnets. It requires the Department of Defense
to develop a plan for establishing a domestic neodymium iron boron
magnet capability, and submit it to the Congressional defense
committees.
We cannot allow our nation to be dependent on a foreign source of
these critical components. This amendment will help revitalize our
domestic manufacturing sector and contribute directly to our national
security.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Coffman-Ellsworth
amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I thank Congresswoman Schakowsky for her
leadership on this amendment--and on the many issues surrounding
private contractors.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is all about accountability and stopping
waste, fraud and abuse. It's long past time that we increased and
improved the monitoring and oversight of private contractors,
especially military, defense and security contractors.
This amendment, like the provision in my bill, H.R. 5015, places
these contractors under the audit and review of our existing Inspectors
General, and allows the Special IG for Reconstruction in Afghanistan to
make concrete recommendations to the Pentagon, State Department and
USAID on how to bring to account and even stop doing business with
those contractors with records of waste, fraud and abuse--let alone a
record of abusing and killing innocent civilians.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is good for the American taxpayer. It's
good for our national security. And it's good for our reputation and
standing abroad.
It is a win-win amendment.
I ask my colleagues to support the Schakowsky-McGovern-Hinchey-
Conyers-Moran amendment on expanding the oversight over and
accountability of private contractors in Afghanistan.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and
urge support of the en bloc amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution
1404, I hereby give notice that amendment No. 79 may be offered out of
order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's request is noted.

Amendments En Bloc No. 6 Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the
designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer
amendments en bloc No. 6, including modifications to amendment No. 50.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 6 offered by Mr. Andrews consisting of
amendments numbered 39; 41; 43; 50, as modified; 51, and 57 printed in
House Report 111-498:

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. PROCUREMENT OF ARTICLES, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES
FOR USE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Requirement.--In procuring articles, materials, or
supplies for use outside of the United States, including
procurements for military construction projects, the
Department of Defense shall solicit bids from United States
sources.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
articles, materials, or supplies to be procured are--
(1) not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United
States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities;
(2) needed on an urgent basis and not acquired on a regular
basis; or
(3) perishable, or will otherwise degrade because of the
time involved in shipping.

Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following
new section:

[[Page H4044]]

SEC. 12XX. REPORT ON LONG-TERM COSTS OF OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States has been engaged in military
operations in Afghanistan since October 2001 and in military
operations in Iraq since March 2003.
(2) According to the Congressional Research Service,
through fiscal year 2009, Congress has appropriated
$944,000,000,000 for the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and for medical costs paid by the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This amount includes
$683,000,000,000 for Iraq and $227,000,000,000 for
Afghanistan.
(3) Over 90 percent of Department of Defense funds for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been provided as
emergency funds in supplemental or additional appropriations.
(4) The Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional
Research Service have stated that future war costs are
difficult to estimate because the Department of Defense
provides little information on costs incurred to date, does
not report outlays or actual expenditures for war because war
and baseline funds are mixed in the same accounts, and
because of a lack of information from the Department of
Defense on many of the key factors that determine costs,
including personnel levels or the pace of operations.
(5) Over 2 million United States troops have served in Iraq
and Afghanistan since the beginning of the conflicts.
(6) Over 4,400 United States troops and Department of
Defense civilian personnel have been killed in Operation
Iraqi Freedom and over 1,060 United States troops and
Department of Defense civilian personnel have been killed in
Operation Enduring Freedom.
(7) Over 1,340 service members have suffered amputations as
a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(8) More than 243,685 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have
been treated for mental health conditions, more than 129,654
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been diagnosed with Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder, and approximately 30,000 have a
confirmed Traumatic Brain Injury diagnosis.
(9) Approximately 46 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans have sought treatment at Department of Veterans
Affairs hospitals and clinics.
(10) The Independent Review Group on Rehabilitative Care
and Administrative Processes at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center and National Naval Medical Center identified Traumatic
Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, increased
survival of severe burns, and traumatic amputations as the
four signature wounds of the current conflicts.
(11) The Independent Review Group report also states that
the recovery process ``can take months or years and must
accommodate recurring or delayed manifestations of symptoms,
extended rehabilitation and all the life complications that
emerge over time from such trauma''.
(b) Report Requirement; Scenarios.--Not later than the date
on which the budget of the United States Government is
submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, for fiscal year 2012, the President, with contributions
from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, shall
submit a report to Congress containing an estimate of the
long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom. The report shall contain estimates for the
following scenarios:
(1) The number of personnel deployed in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is
reduced from current levels to approximately 150,000 by the
end of fiscal year 2011, 65,000 by the end of fiscal year
2012, and 30,000 by the end of fiscal year 2013, and remains
at that level through fiscal year 2020.
(2) The number of personnel deployed in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is
increased from current levels to approximately 235,000 by the
end of fiscal year 2010, is reduced to 230,000 by the end of
fiscal year 2011, is reduced to 195,000 by the end of fiscal
year 2012, is reduced to 135,000 by the end of fiscal year
2013, is reduced to 80,000 by the end of fiscal year 2014, is
reduced to 60,000 by the end of fiscal year 2015, and remains
at that level through fiscal year 2020.
(3) An alternative scenario, defined by the President and
based on current war and withdrawal plans, which takes into
account expected troop levels and the expected length of time
that troops will be deployed in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
(c) Special Considerations.--The estimates required for
each scenario shall make projections through at least fiscal
year 2020, shall be adjusted appropriately for inflation,
shall be based on historical trends, and to the maximum
extent practicable shall take into account and specify the
following:
(1) The total number of troops expected to be activated and
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan during the course of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This
number shall include all troops deployed in the region in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom and activated reservists in the United States who are
training, backfilling for deployed troops, or supporting
other Department of Defense missions directly or indirectly
related to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom. This number shall also break down activations and
deployments of Active Duty, Reservists, and National Guard
troops.
(2) The number of troops, including National Guard and
Reserve troops, who have served and who are expected to serve
multiple deployments.
(3) The number of contractors and private military security
firms that have been utilized and are expected to be utilized
during the course of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(4) The number of veterans currently suffering and expected
to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic
Brain Injury, or other mental injuries.
(5) The number of veterans currently in need of and
expected to be in need of prosthetic care and treatment
because of amputations incurred during Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
(6) The current number of pending Department of Veterans
Affairs claims from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and the
total number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans expected to
seek disability compensation benefits from the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
(7) The total number of troops who have been killed and
wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, including noncombat
casualties, the total number of troops expected to suffer
injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the total number of
troops expected to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including noncombat casualties.
(8) Funding already appropriated for the Department of
Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of
Veterans Affairs for costs related to the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This shall include an account of the amount of
funding from regular Department of Defense, Department of
State, and Department of Veterans Affairs budgets that has
gone and will go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
(9) Current and future operational expenditures, including
funding for combat operations; deploying, transporting,
feeding, and housing troops (including fuel costs);
deployment of National Guard and Reserve troops; the
equipping and training of Iraqi and Afghani forces;
purchasing, upgrading, and repairing weapons, munitions and
other equipment; and payments to other countries for
logistical assistance.
(10) Past, current, and future cost of government
contractors and private military security firms.
(11) Average annual cost for each troop and combat brigade
deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom, including room and board, equipment and
body armor, transportation of troops and equipment (including
fuel costs), and operational costs.
(12) Current and future cost of combat-related special pays
and benefits, including reenlistment bonuses.
(13) Current and future cost of activating National Guard
and Reserve forces and paying them on a full-time basis.
(14) Current and future cost for reconstruction, embassy
operations and construction, and foreign aid programs for
Iraq and Afghanistan.
(15) Current and future cost of bases and other
infrastructure to support United States troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(16) Current and future cost of providing healthcare for
returning veterans. This estimate shall include the cost of
mental health treatment for veterans suffering from Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury, and
other mental problems as a result of their service in
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This
estimate shall also include the cost of lifetime prosthetics
care and treatment for veterans suffering from amputations as
a result of their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom.
(17) Current and future cost of providing Department of
Veterans Affairs disability benefits for lifetime of
veterans.
(18) Current and future cost of providing survivors'
benefits to survivors of service members.
(19) Cost of bringing troops and equipment home at the end
of the wars, including cost of demobilizing troops,
transporting troops home (including fuel costs), providing
transition services from active duty to veteran status,
transporting equipment, weapons, and munitions (including
fuel costs), and an estimate of the value of equipment which
will be left behind.
(20) Cost to restore the military and military equipment,
including the National Guard and National Guard equipment, to
full strength after the wars.
(21) Cost of the administration's plan to permanently
increase the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000.
(22) Amount of money borrowed to pay for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and the sources of that money.
(23) Interest on borrowed money, including interest for
money already borrowed and anticipated interest payments on
future borrowing for the war in Iraq and the war in
Afghanistan to the extent all spending associated with the
war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan have been and will be
financed with borrowed money.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

[[Page H4045]]

SEC. 839. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON WAIVERS UNDER BUY
AMERICAN ACT BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIRED
TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORT.

Section 812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 10 U.S.C. 2501 note) is
amended in subsection (c)(2)(A) by striking clause (vi) and
inserting the following:
``(v) An itemized list of all waivers granted with respect
to such articles, materials, or supplies under the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.), including--
``(I) an analysis of the domestic capacity to supply the
articles, materials, or supplies; and
``(II) an analysis of the reasons for an increase or
decrease in the number of waivers granted from fiscal year to
fiscal year.''.

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
Whereas, on January 12, 2010, the nation of Haiti was hit
by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, adversely affecting nearly
3,000,000 people;
Whereas the United States Government has provided millions
of dollars in humanitarian assistance to meet immediate needs
on the ground and plans to give more over the next year;
Whereas the United States Armed Forces have diligently
worked to aid the people of Haiti during their time of need,
providing humanitarian aid and logistical support;
Whereas the United States Armed Forces, civilians, and
charitable groups have led the charge in an effort to
maintain civility and bring some small semblance of hope to
the devastated nation;
Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces serve as
the premier ambassadors of liberty, freedom, and goodwill
when tasked with a humanitarian mission;
Whereas the generosity of the people of the United States
is known the world over and the United States flag is
universally recognized as a symbol of that generosity; and
Whereas the United States Government has provided more aid
to the nation of Haiti than all other nations combined: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) commends the United States Armed Forces for their
commitment to completing their humanitarian mission in Haiti;
and
(2) encourages the President to order the United States
flag to be flown over all military and civilian outposts in
Haiti under the United States' jurisdiction.

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC JOBS IN
PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS OF DEFENSE CAPABILITY.

Section 2505(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after ``title)'' the following: ``,
including the effects on domestic jobs,''.

Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. EXTENSION OF REGULATIONS ON CONTRACTORS PERFORMING
PRIVATE SECURITY FUNCTIONS.

(a) Extension of Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretary of State, shall issue regulations to
extend and apply the requirements of section 862 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) to additional areas
as designated under paragraph (2) and as listed in paragraph
(3).
(2) Additional areas designated.--The Secretary of Defense
shall designate as additional areas for purposes of this
section any area--
(A) that is an area within a foreign country or an area
covering all or part of more than one foreign country;
(B) that is not an area of combat operations as designated
under subsection (c) of section 862 of such Act; and
(C) in which significant military operations, as designated
by the Secretary, are being carried out by United States
Armed Forces.
(3) Additional areas listed.--In addition to any areas
designated by the Secretary under paragraph (2), the
following areas shall be considered additional areas listed
in this paragraph for purposes of this section:
(A) The Horn of Africa region.
(B) Yemen.
(C) The Philippines.
(D) Haiti.
(b) Extension Timelines.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations applicable to the additional areas--
(1) designated under subsection (a)(2), not later than
March 1, 2012; and
(2) listed in subsection (a)(3), not later than March 1,
2011.
(c) Report on Implementation.--Not later than 90 days after
the dates specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, shall
submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the
regulations prescribed under this section. The report shall
include--
(1) a complete list of additional areas designated by the
Secretary under subsection (a)(2), and a detailed description
of the criteria used to make the designation;
(2) the total number of contractors performing private
security functions in each additional area designated under
subsection (a)(2) or listed in subjection (a)(3); and
(3) an assessment of the long-term options for reducing the
use of contractors for private security functions, including
the use of Government personnel to provide such functions.
(d) Private Security Functions.--Notwithstanding section
864 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008
(P.L. 110-181), as amended by section 813 of the NDAA for FY
2010 (P.L. 111-84), in this section, the term ``private
security functions'' means activities engaged in by a
contractor as follows:
(1) Guarding of personnel, facilities, or property of a
Federal agency.
(2) Any other activity for which personnel are required to
carry weapons in the performance of their duties.
Page 304, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 304, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 304, after line 21, insert the following:
``(C) the desirability and feasibility of including in the
common databases identified under section 861(b)(4)
information about contracts subject to the regulations
required by section 839 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (providing for extending and
applying the requirements of section 862 to additional areas
designated or listed in that section 839).

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia, as Modified

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification to amendment
No. 50.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 452, after line 10, insert the following:

SEC. 1065. SENSE OF CONGRESS ENCOURAGING THE PRESIDENT TO
ORDER THE UNITED STATES FLAG TO BE FLOWN OVER
UNITED STATES MILITARY AND CIVILIAN OUTPOSTS IN
HAITI DURING EARTHQUAKE RELIEF EFFORTS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) On January 12, 2010, the nation of Haiti was hit by a
magnitude 7.0 earthquake, adversely affecting nearly
3,000,000 people.
(2) The United States has provided millions of dollars in
humanitarian assistance to meet immediate needs on the ground
and plans to give more over the next year.
(3) The Armed Forces have diligently worked to aid the
people of Haiti during their time of need, providing
humanitarian aid and logistical support.
(4) The Armed Forces, civilians, and charitable groups have
led the charge in an effort to maintain civility and bring
some small semblance of hope to the devastated nation.
(5) Members of the Armed Forces serve as the premier
ambassadors of liberty, freedom, and goodwill when tasked
with a humanitarian mission.
(6) The generosity of the people of the United States is
known the world over and the United States flag is
universally recognized as a symbol of that generosity.
(7) The United States has provided more aid to the nation
of Haiti than all other nations combined.
(b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
(1) commends the Armed Forces for their commitment to
completing their humanitarian mission in Haiti; and
(2) encourages the President to order the United States
flag to be flown over all military and civilian outposts in
Haiti under United States jurisdiction.

Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that we dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.

{time} 1915

[[Page H4046]]

enormous costs that American taxpayers have paid for Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
One of the things we know is that there is a price for war. Sixty-
five years ago, my father was in route from Guam to Iwo Jima as an 18-
year-old marine. At that time, the world had been at war for a little
over 5 years. Well, here in the United States, we have been at war,
basically, since September 11 of 2001.
My amendment offers a simple, commonsense solution that requires the
administration to submit a report to Congress on the long-term costs of
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As I mentioned, we have been engaged in a war in Afghanistan for
almost 9 years now and in Iraq for 7 years, and the Department of
Defense has yet to submit a long-term estimate of the cost of these
wars. The previous administration failed to submit a cost estimate
despite a statutory reporting requirement for a cost estimate for
fiscal years 2006 through 2011 that was required in the fiscal year
2005 defense appropriations bill.
According to the Congressional Research Service, through fiscal year
2009, Congress has appropriated at least $944 billion in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and we have lost over 4,400 American lives in Iraq and
over 1,060 lives in Afghanistan. Because of this immense cost, the
American people deserve to have an honest estimate about how much these
wars are going to cost us over the long term. This is especially
critical on the issue of future health care costs.
My amendment addresses an important issue. This goes back to an
Oversight Subcommittee hearing we had after the Walter Reed Building 18
fiasco in 2007. At that hearing, retired Lieutenant General Chip
Roadman, a former Air Force surgeon general and a member of the
Independent Review Group, told me, ``We recognize the cost is immense,
and it is our moral obligation to address those issues.''
In the Independent Review Group report, the four signature injuries
of these wars were identified. Posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic
brain injury, increased survival of severe burns, and traumatic
amputations are the four signature wounds. The recovery process for
these signature wounds ``can take months or years and must accommodate
recurring delayed manifestations of symptoms, extended rehabilitation
and all the life complications that emerge over time from such
trauma.'' We don't have a good understanding today of how much it is
going to cost to take care of these wounded veterans, and we need to
acknowledge the true cost.
Already, over 1,300 servicemembers have suffered amputations as a
result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 243,000 have
been treated for mental health conditions. Over 129,000 have been
diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. These numbers will only
continue to grow. We also know, according to the U.S. Life Tables, Mr.
Chairman, the life expectancy of an 18- to 19-year-old male is 58
years. That means almost 60 years of treatment and care for many of
these wounded veterans. That is why we need an honest and accurate
assessment of the true cost of the war.
My amendment requires the President to estimate the number of
veterans expected to suffer from these signature wounds and the cost it
is going to take to treat them and to provide them with the care they
deserve.
That is why this amendment is a commonsense, transparent requirement.
It is long overdue, and it is going to give the American taxpayers, who
are footing the bill for these deserving veterans, a better idea of
what the long-term cost is actually going to be. That is why I urge
everyone to support it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment that is
included in this en bloc amendment. It includes my language, which
encourages the President of the United States to order that the U.S.
flag be flown at the American outpost in Haiti. It is to be flown at
this outpost as we continue to assist in our earthquake relief.
I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for
their hard work on this bill and for including my amendment in this en
bloc package.
As the United States extends a helping hand to our neighbor nation of
Haiti, I am disheartened that the President has decided that our
service men and women should not work in their outpost under the
American flag and that he has ordered that the American flag cease to
fly over that outpost.
The American flag is a symbol that our men and women in uniform are
promoting the American spirit of rebuilding hope, prosperity, and
opportunity. As a marine and naval medical officer, I understand that
it is critical for morale that our military should work under the
American flag, especially when our presence in a foreign country is
under peaceful conditions.
As a sign of respect and support for the selfless efforts of the
service men and women, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I request that my full statement be entered into the
Record.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member
McKeon for their hard work on this critical bill, which is the life-
blood for those defending our freedoms at home and abroad. And thank
you gentlemen, for allowing me to offer this amendment before the
House.
I rise today in support of my amendment which encourages the
President to order the flag of the United States to be flown over all
military and civilian outposts in Haiti during earthquake relief
efforts.
As Memorial Day approaches, Americans will be honoring those brave
souls who, as Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address, ``gave
the last full measure of devotion'' to our nation, by flying the
American Flag at their homes and places of business.
However, there is one place where the flag will not be waving, and
that is in the Republic of Haiti, on American outposts where our
servicemen and women are leading humanitarian efforts to aid those
adversely effected by the magnitude 7 earthquake that devastated the
island nation.
The President has decided that the stars and stripes would be viewed
with disdain in Haiti. That our servicemen and women providing basic
essentials would be viewed as an occupying force if they did it under
our flag. So he has ordered the Department of Defense not to fly our
flag in Haiti, for fear of being viewed unfavorably by the rest of the
world.
I strongly disagree with the President, and I believe he could not be
more wrong about how the world views the United States and our flag. I
submit that every member of this body will agree with me when I say
that when tasked with a mission of mercy, there are no better
ambassadors for the United States than our men and women in uniform. In
Berlin after World War II, and most recently in places like The
Philippines, Bolivia, Djibouti, and Colombia, it has been our service-
members who have delivered hope to those who have none.
In all these places our Flag has flown proudly over these merchants
of mercy. The situation is no different in Haiti, our servicemen and
women are still giving hope to an impoverished people, they should be
allowed to do this under the symbol that embodies all that we hold
dear.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that honors our
military and their efforts in Haiti, and encourages the President to
allow them to serve under our proud flag.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to a gentleman who is an Appropriations subcommittee chairman
and who has taken the lead on making sure that the use of private
contractors is done properly, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment extending
oversight and accountability for security contractors overseas, for
contractors performing security functions, as one element of this en
bloc amendment.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) joins me in this
effort, and I also want to acknowledge the leadership of other Members,
especially that of Ms. Schakowsky, in this critical area of defense
policy.
This amendment is brief and straightforward. It would simply extend a
section of the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill that
strengthened the oversight of private security

[[Page H4047]]

contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to additional areas in which there
is or could be a significant security contractor presence.
I don't need to recount here, Mr. Chairman, the arguments in favor of
greater oversight and accountability for armed contractors,
particularly those operating in areas in which our military is
operating. The high-profile incidents of contractor misconduct that
have punctuated our campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should speak for
themselves.
In responding to these incidents, Congress has come a long way toward
improving Federal management and oversight of private security
contractors, most notably through several important reforms, including
those in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill. These reforms,
many of which were drawn from my broader contractor accountability
legislation, have been credited with improving both the operational
capabilities of the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and Congress'
ability to conduct effective oversight of private security contractors.
As our military faces new and emerging threats in other areas of the
world, it is critical that these effective oversight measures be
maintained and extended. This amendment seeks to do just that by
extending several of the key reforms enacted in 2008 to additional
areas with significant contractor presence. The amendment lists four
such areas by name, but its broader intent is to give the Defense
Department, the State Department, and USAID the tools and authority
they need to apply these coordination and oversight mechanisms to any
area in which our military is conducting significant operations.
I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon and the Armed
Services Committee for their leadership in drafting this legislation as
well as for their support and cooperation in the effort to improve
transparency and accountability in the use of contractors.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure at this point to yield 1
minute to a gentleman who has been in the forefront of trying to
promote American jobs through this bill, the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Chew on this fact.
In 2007, there were 14,000 waivers granted to the Buy American law by
DOD. One year later, in 2008, that number jumped to 65,000. That's a 1-
year 450 percent increase in Buy American waivers that likely cost tens
of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of U.S. manufactured jobs.
That's why the amendments being offered in this block by myself, by
Representative Edwards, and by Representative Lipinski are so
important, because we need to start shining a light on this outrageous
flow of U.S. defense jobs overseas.
My amendment would specifically require DOD to explain large
increases in waiver approvals from one year to the next, and it would
require the DOD to explain if they even looked for American-made
products before they granted these waivers. We want to grow American
manufacturing. We need to start with the billions and billions of
American taxpayer dollars spent at the Department of Defense.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to thank especially Chairman Skelton and the House Armed
Services Committee for their leadership on this issue and for their
continued commitment to what it takes for our servicemembers and their
families.
I want to thank most especially my colleagues, Representatives
Lipinski from Illinois and Chris Murphy from Connecticut, for working
with us, for working together to advance provisions that bolster
domestic job creation. There are no better advocates for domestic job
growth than these two gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge a ``yes'' vote on this en bloc
amendment as well as on the underlying legislation.
Most specifically, the amendment that I led directs the Department of
Defense to start accounting for the domestic employment impact of major
defense acquisition programs. With the DOD's spending billions of
dollars a year, it is necessary that we are able to analyze the impact
of this spending on our economy.
The amendments led by my two colleagues are as equally important.
They seek to ensure that our domestic companies are included on
procurement opportunities for use by the DOD overseas. The amendments
also strengthen transparency of the Buy American waiver process. Taken
together, these provisions close major loopholes and fix major
deficiencies.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this en bloc amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I am privileged to yield 1
minute to another champion of growth of American jobs here from the
runner-up city in this year's Stanley Cup finals, the gentleman from
Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. I would like to commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking
Member McKeon for all of their work on this bill and for our troops.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of three Buy American
amendments that I've offered, I along with Ms. Donna Edwards and Mr.
Chris Murphy. These amendments would bolster national security, and
they would create American jobs--two critical goals for America.
In this recession, the loss of our manufacturing base to countries
such as China has only sped up. This is bad enough when it involves
consumer goods, but depending on foreign companies to supply America's
military weakens our national security.
When the Buy American Act was first passed in 1933, it exempted goods
used abroad because of shipping time and expense, but that has changed,
and it is time American manufacturers competed for these contracts. In
2008, the DOD spent over $8 billion on products used abroad. My
amendment would give U.S. companies a chance to compete by requiring
the DOD to solicit bids from American suppliers.
This and the other Buy American amendments will strengthen our
national security and will create American jobs. I urge my colleagues
to support these amendments, the en bloc amendments.
Go, Hawks.

{time} 1930

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It has been a while since I read any of these letters. Maybe some
people haven't heard of these letters yet, so I would like to read
them. We are only given 5 minutes to discuss Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so
we have to talk about it when we get an opportunity, because this is
something that I think is going to affect the 2.5 million people in the
military plus their families. So we have very strong feelings about
this. It is unfortunate that the majority has only given us 5 minutes
in which to express our views and have a chance to let the people of
America know what is happening here.
This is a letter from Secretary Gates that was written April 30, and
then 2 days ago he reaffirmed his stand, that he still stands by what
he wrote to Chairman Skelton:
``Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing in response to your letter of April
28th requesting my views on the advisability of legislative action.''
So he is talking about the possibility that the Murphy amendment
would be made in order for this legislation taken to repeal the so-
called Don't Ask, Don't Tell statute prior to the completion of the
Department of Defense review of this matter.
``I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must,
prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct
a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such
a policy change, develop an attentive, comprehensive plan, and provide
the President and the Congress with the results of this effort in order
to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective
manner.
``A critical element of this effort is the need to systematically
engage our

[[Page H4048]]

forces, their families, and the broader military community throughout
this process. Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform
us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions if we are to carry out
this change successfully.
``Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change
this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process.
Further, I hope Congress will not do so, as it would send a very
damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their
views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such
direct impact and consequence for them and their families.''
Signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense.
May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining; the gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to yield myself such time
as I may consume.
What the Secretary is saying here is there was a process set in
place. The President, in the State of the Union, said he wanted the
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell by the end of this year. The Secretary,
in response, set up a process whereby the military could be contacted,
their opinions could be heard, the opinions of all of them that are
contacted could be taken under advisement by the Chairman, by each of
the Chiefs. They could give their best military advice to the
Secretary, which he could then give to the Congress and to the
President as to how we proceed on this matter.
That was supposed to be done before December of this year. They are
on track to do it. This month, a company was hired by competitive bid
to go into the field to interview people, which they will do with
various methods, to give us a comprehensive answer as to what people
feel about this. They will survey 350,000 people.
Now, if this passes tonight, if this amendment passes, I know the
amendment says nothing will take place prior to that study being handed
in, but we all know, it is like we say we are going to talk to you, but
we have already made the decision. So, go ahead, tell us whatever you
want. It is like they will know that their opinions really don't matter
because the vote has already taken place, the decision has already been
made, and they are left out of the loop.
As the Chiefs of the various services told me, this disrespects the
military, and it should not be done. Each of them have stated on the
phone to me and in letters that this should not be done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, through the Chair I would say to my friend
from California, we have only Mr. Kennedy left to speak, and I believe
we have the right to close on this. So does the gentleman intend to
speak again?
Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I would be happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. McKeon and obviously
Mr. Andrews for their great stewardship of this important legislation
and say the real Don't Ask, Don't Tell question that we have for our
military is don't ask how many antidepressants you are on because this
Nation had to call you up, not once, not twice, but three and four
times.
The real Don't Ask, Don't Tell question is don't ask how many parents
or how many wives are at home waiting with their children, worried
about their families getting called up over and over and over again
because we won't up the standing military so that we don't have to
overextend these tours of duty over and over and over again, creating
the largest generation of military men and women who are going to be
permanently scarred because of their overextension of service of duty.
That is the real Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell is what is the long-term cost to this
country, mental health-wise, for this terrible neglect of our men and
women in uniform.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Rhode Island has
expired.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, because
one more thing you won't hear the answer to is that 72 percent of the
health care for veterans is going to be the private insurance market,
and thanks to this gentleman, Mr. Andrews, and many others, who led the
way for the private insurance market covering, with no preexisting
condition, no annual or lifetime caps, those 72 percent of veterans out
there today are going to have their cognitive neurological disorders,
the traumatic brain injury, covered, covered, covered by the private
insurance system, thanks to this gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Andrews, and his colleagues on the Democratic side.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Rhode Island's
passion, and I share that with him. I have very deep concerns about the
military. They have been asked over and over again, and they have
responded over and over and over again. I have been to funerals and I
have looked into the parents' eyes and talked to them. I also know in
war there are no unwounded, as somebody more eloquent than I stated,
and that is one of the tragedies.
The other tragedy is what happened on 9/11, where we were attacked,
and now we have been engaged in this worldwide war on terrorism. It is
not something we asked for. It is just something that our Nation has
responded from the days of the creation of this Nation, when the men
rode to the sound of the guns, when they died at Valley Forge, frozen
to death, starved to death. They have sacrificed for years.
I am saying, give them an opportunity to have their say, to follow
through with the plan that has been set.
I yield back my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the
time to the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I would say, of course we
recognize our duty to listen to those who serve in uniform. We also
recognize our duty to raise their pay, to give them the tools and
weapons necessary to do their job, to support their families, and to
give them the strategy that works to defend this country. This bill
does all of those things. We should support the bill and support the en
bloc amendment before the body.
I yield back the balance of our time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. McMahon

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 62
printed in House Report 111-498.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. McMahon:
Page 284, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 727. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Section 717 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 1073
note) directed the Secretary of Defense to enter into a
contract with the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and make
recommendations regarding the credentials, preparation, and
training of licensed mental health counselors.
(2) In the study, the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences recommends permitting counselors to
practice independently under the TRICARE program.
(3) In addition, the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences recommends that TRICARE implement a
comprehensive quality management system for all of its mental
health professionals.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense

[[Page H4049]]

should implement the requirements of subsection (a) of such
section 717 by not later than December 31, 2010, because such
implementation will increase the urgently needed mental
health staff of the Department of Defense and ensure that
members of the Armed Forces will receive timely and
confidential post-deployment screenings with a mental health
professional.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McMahon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the House Committee on Armed Services, led by
the great gentleman from Missouri, for recognizing the significance of
the increasing suicide rates in our armed services and the need to
increase mental health professionals to combat this disturbing trend. I
would also like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Tom Rooney, Harry
Teague and Ben Lujan for their partnership with me on this amendment
and on veterans' mental health issues we have tackled in a very
bipartisan fashion.
Mr. Chairman, serving in the military can have lingering effects on
servicemembers and the families that support them. For this reason, the
mental health care needs of the TRICARE population are large and
diverse, requiring a skilled group of professionals to diagnose and
treat a variety of disorders. Unfortunately, these professionals do not
currently exist, and the mental health needs of our servicemen and -
women are, quite frankly, not being met.
But Congress can help increase this pool by implementing the
recommendations of the congressionally mandated Institute of Medicine
study, which makes recommendations for permitting counselors to
practice independently under the TRICARE program. In addition, the
committee recommends that TRICARE implement a comprehensive quality
management system for all its mental health professionals.
Under current TRICARE rules, mental health counselors are required to
practice under a physician's supervision, and their patients must be
referred to them by a physician in order for their services to be
eligible for reimbursement. This requirement distinguishes them from
other mental health professionals who practice without such
restrictions.
This amendment would encourage the Secretary of Defense to implement
these goals by the end of the year and to increase mental health
professionals available to our men and women in uniform. We need to
provide the coverage, but we also need to provide the professionals who
can provide the care.
We see in so many cases the high rates of suicides of our returning
warriors, and we must address this. Eventually, this increase will
reduce the stigma of seeking mental health treatment and reduce the
aberrantly high levels of suicide in the armed services, as I
mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I don't oppose the amendment, but I rise to
claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, if we had been given the time to discuss Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, we could have spent more time talking about all of the good
things in the bill. But only having 5 minutes to discuss that, we have
to use whatever time we can to explain to people what is going on.
When I talked to members of the Joint Chiefs a couple of days ago,
one of them said one of the reasons that he opposes doing anything
right now in opposition to the plan that was set up earlier this year
was because, he says, I am here. I understand the innuendoes around the
Hill. I understand the process of the amendment, and I understand that
it doesn't really kick in until later. But, he said, the people in the
field, the service people that we promised to hear from before we take
action, don't understand that.

{time} 1945

And he said, the headline will read, Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed.
Well, they don't even have to wait for us. The Senate already did it.
The breaking news alert on Fox News is: ``The Senate Armed Services
Committee votes to repeal military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on
gays.'' And then if we follow through and do the same thing tonight
with the Murphy amendment, that will be the headline. So the young men
and women in Afghanistan, when they're watching on Fox News, that's
what they're seeing right now.
So then when we do get around to this company that we hired to make
this survey to reach out to 350,000 of our servicepeople and their
families, when they hear the question they're going to say, what,
you're asking us now, after the decision?
What kind of respect is that to show to our young men and women who
are out there laying their life on the line?
They signed a contract. They joined the military. They're an all-
volunteer force. And they signed under certain circumstances, and now
those are going to be changed without any input from them.
Oh, yeah. We're going to follow through with the charade. We will
have the survey, it will be turned in in December, but the die is
already cast if that amendment passes tonight. And I don't think that
is the way that we should be treating our military, especially the
people on this committee.
Our responsibility is to look out for those young men and young women
that are out there defending us and defending freedom around the world.
And the lack of respect to give them the opportunity to have input on
this very important issue, one that we've lived with now for 17 years,
that has to be changed now, just doesn't make sense.
A Member earlier this evening talked about common sense and the lack
of it that we see around here. And one of the reasons why we're given
an 18 percent vote of approval from the American people, because we
show a lack of common sense, we show a lack of respect. This amendment
will show a lack of respect to the young men and young women in uniform
and their families.
Again, let me read from Admiral Roughead's letter, the admiral, he's
the Chief of Naval Operations.
He says, I share the view of Secretary Gates that the best approach
would be to complete the Department of Defense review before there is
any legislation to change the law. My concern is that legislation
changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used in
this--and this amendment was written very carefully--may cause
confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review
process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input
matters.
And he is right on target.
Obtaining the views and opinions of the force and assessing them in
the light of the issues involved will be complicated by a shifting
legislative backdrop and its associated debate.
I plead with you to give the time necessary to have the evaluation,
to follow the process that's been set.
What are we afraid of?
Is something going to happen that you think is going to change this
process?
Why not let them have their input? Why not follow through with the
process that was set by the Secretary?
The company that's been hired to go out and reach out to these
350,000 of our 2.5 million serving, let's follow through with the
process; let's respect our young men and women in uniform and follow
through with the process that has been determined.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to my good friend, the gentleman from
California, because perhaps my New York accent wasn't, my pronunciation
wasn't clear enough, or perhaps I did not speak loudly enough.
The amendment that I am proposing seeks to provide to our returning
warriors when they come home and when they continue their lives here in
this country, to get the mental health treatment that they need that
they cannot currently have.
Mr. Chairman, the issue that I spoke to in my remarks dealt with a
very important issue, and that is how to make

[[Page H4050]]

sure that this country provides the mental health services for our
returning warriors. I did not think that that issue would be one that
would be picked up, in my eloquence, by Fox News. I'm not quite sure
how it dealt with the other issues, but I just want to be clear, and I
want the record to be clear that I was speaking to amendment 62, which
is, I think, a very important issue, a very important issue that
everyone in this body addresses and deals with, and that is providing
adequate mental health services for our returning warriors. That's all
I spoke to.
That being said, at this time, I yield the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc No. 7 Offered by Mr. Skelton

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, I offer
amendments en bloc No. 7.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 7 offered by Mr. Skelton consisting of
amendments numbered 38, 49, 53, 60, 72, 73, and 75 printed in House
Report 111-498:

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Ms. Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 415, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 1047. REQUIRED REPORTS CONCERNING BOMBER MODERNIZATION,
SUSTAINMENT, AND RECAPITALIZATION EFFORTS IN
SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY.

(a) Air Force Report.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 360 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air
Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees,
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and the
Comptroller General of the United States a report that
includes--
(A) a discussion of the cost, schedule, and performance of
all currently planned efforts to modernize and keep viable
the existing B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber fleets and a
discussion of the forecasted service-life and all sustainment
challenges that the Secretary of the Air Force may confront
in keeping those platforms viable until the retirement of
such aircraft;
(B) a discussion, presented in a comparison and contrast
type format, of the scope of the 2007 Next-Generation Long
Range Strike Analysis of Alternatives guidance and subsequent
Analysis of Alternatives report tasked by the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in the
September 11, 2006, Acquisition Decision Memorandum, as
compared to the scope and directed guidance of the year 2010
Long Range Strike Study effort currently being conducted by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense's Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation Office;
(C) a discussion of an objectivity and sufficiency review
of the final report issued subsequent to the 2010 Long Range
Strike study effort currently being conducted by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
Office;
(D) a discussion of the progress of efforts to field a next
generation long-range strike platform, including a review
of--
(i) the next generation long-range strike requirements
development and validation;
(ii) the threshold and objective key performance
parameters;
(iii) the acquisition strategy, the acquisition oversight
strategy, projected life-cycle costs, the cost-risk analysis,
the technology readiness levels of planned capabilities; and
(iv) the development, testing, production and fielding
timelines;
(E) a discussion of the costs, development, testing,
fielding and operational employment challenges, capability
gaps, limitations and shortfalls of the Secretary of
Defense's plan to field a long-range, penetrating,
survivable, persistent and enduring ``family of systems'' as
compared to the development, testing, fielding and
operational employment of a singular platform that
encompasses all the required aforementioned characteristics;
and
(F) a discussion of the planning efforts for developing and
fielding a transformational long-range strike capability in
the 2035 timeframe.
(2) Preparation of report.--The report under paragraph (1)
shall be prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses and
submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force for submittal by
the Secretary in accordance with that paragraph.
(b) Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation Report.--The
Director of the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees, the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office, and the Comptroller General of
the United States a report that includes--
(1) the assumptions and estimated life-cycle costs of the
Department's long-range, penetrating, survivable, persistent,
and enduring ``family of systems'' platforms; and
(2) the assumptions and estimated life-cycle costs of the
Next Generation Platform program, as planned and approved by
the Secretary of Defense, prior to the cancellation of the
program on April 6, 2009.
(c) CBO Report.--Not later than 360 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Congressional Budget Office
shall submit to the congressional defense committees and to
the Comptroller General of the United States a report that
includes--
(1) a life-cycle-cost analysis of the costs of modernizing
and sustaining the current fleet of B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers
to meet future long-range strike requirements compared to the
costs of development, testing, fielding, and operational
employment of a singular Next Generation Bomber platform to
replace the existing fleet of B-1, B-2 and B-52 platforms;
(2) a life-cycle-cost analysis of the costs of the
Secretary of Defense's plan to field a long-range,
penetrating, survivable, persistent, and enduring ``family of
systems'' compared to the costs of developing, testing,
fielding and operational employment of a singular Next
Generation Bomber platform;
(3) a life-cycle-cost analysis of the costs the Secretary
of Defense's plan to field a long-range, penetrating,
survivable, persistent and enduring ``family of systems''
compared to the costs of modernizing and sustaining the
current fleet of B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers to meet future
long-range strike requirements; and
(4) the results of an objectivity and sufficiency review of
the cost analysis described in subsection (b)(1).
(d) Access to Programmatic Information.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of the Air Force shall provide prompt access to programmatic
information requested by agency personnel for the purpose of
producing a report required under this section, including any
and all classified information pertaining to the Department's
``family of systems'' programs.
(2) Prompt access defined.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the term ``prompt access'' means access provided not later
than 15 business days after receiving a request.

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Childers of Mississippi

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 528, after line 17, insert the following:

SEC. 1523. REPORT ON MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED
VEHICLES.

(a) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on the
procurement of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles.
(b) Matters Included.--The report under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An evaluation of potential cost benefits and
manufacturing efficiencies with respect to mine resistant
ambush protected vehicles.
(2) An evaluation of the advisability and feasibility of
sustained low-level production of mine resistant ambush
protected vehicles across the industrial base as part of a
long-term sustainment fleet integration strategy.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Foster of Illinois

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 452, after line 10, insert the following:

SEC. 1065. STUDY ON OPTIMAL BALANCE OF MANNED AND UNMANNED
AERIAL VEHICLE CAPABILITY.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
commission a study by an independent, non-profit organization
on the optimal balance between manned and unmanned aerial
vehicle forces of the Armed Forces.
(2) Selection.--The independent, non-profit organization
selected for the study under paragraph (1) shall be qualified
on the basis of having performed work in the fields of
national security and combat systems.
(b) Matters Included.--The study under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) With respect to each military department (but in
particular the Air Force), an assessment of the feasibility
and desirability of a more rapid transition from manned to
unmanned vehicles for a range of operations, including combat
operations.
(2) An evaluation of the current ability of each military
department to resist attacks mounted by foreign militaries
with significant investments in research and development and
deployment of unmanned combat drones, including an assessment
of each military department's ability to defend against--
(A) a large enemy force of unmanned aerial vehicles; and
(B) any other relevant unmanned scenario the Secretary
determines appropriate.
(3) An analysis of--
(A) current and future capabilities of foreign militaries
in developing and deploying unmanned systems; and
(B) vulnerabilities to drone systems revealed in past war
games and other strategy materials.
(4) Conclusions on the matters described in paragraphs (1)
through (3) and what the independent, non-profit organization
conducting the study determines is the optimal balance of
investment in development and deployment of manned versus
unmanned platforms.

[[Page H4051]]

(c) Report.--Not later than December 1, 2011, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a
report that includes the study under subsection (a).
(d) Form.--
(1) Study.--The study under subsection (a) shall include a
classified annex with respect to the matters described in
subsection (b)(3).
(2) Report.--The report under subsection (c) may include a
classified annex.

Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 679, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 3115. ENHANCING PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYMENT THROUGH
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--The Administrator for Nuclear Security
shall encourage technology transfer activities at the
national security laboratories (as defined in section 3281 of
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C.
2471)) that lead to the creation of new private-sector
employment opportunities.
(b) Reports.--Not later than January 31 of each year, the
Administrator shall submit to Congress a report detailing the
number of new private-sector employment opportunities created
as a result of the previous years' technology transfer
activities at each national security laboratory.

Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Hinchey of New York

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. PROCUREMENT OF PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICES.

(a) Contract Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that each contract awarded by the Department of
Defense that includes the procurement of photovoltaic
devices, including contracts described in subsection (b),
includes a provision requiring the photovoltaic devices to
comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
(b) Contracts Described.--The contracts described in this
subsection include, but are not limited to, energy savings
performance contracts, utility service contracts, land
leases, and private housing contracts.
(c) Definition of Photovoltaic Devices.--In this section,
the term ``photovoltaic devices'' means devices that convert
light directly into electricity through a solid-state,
semiconductor process.

Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Hinchey of New York

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 839. REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
TO USE EMPLOYEES AND NOT INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS FOR PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES.

(a) Requirement.--Any contract in Iraq or Afghanistan for
the procurement of private security services shall contain a
requirement that, in the case of any contractor using
individuals who are United States citizens and required to
have a United States security clearance to perform private
security services under the contract, the contractor shall
use employees and not independent contractors for the
provision of such services.
(b) Contract in Iraq or Afghanistan.--In this section, the
term ``contract in Iraq or Afghanistan'' means a contract
with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, or
the United States Agency for International Development, a
subcontract at any tier issued under such a contract, or a
task order or delivery order at any tier issued under such a
contract (including a contract, subcontract, or task order or
delivery order issued by another Government agency for the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, or the United
States Agency for International Development), if the
contract, subcontract, or task order or delivery order
involves work performed in Iraq or Afghanistan for a period
longer than 14 days.
(c) Private Security Services.--In this section, the term
``private security services'' means activities engaged in by
a contractor under a contract in Iraq or Afghanistan and
includes--
(1) guarding of personnel, facilities, or property of a
Federal agency, the contractor or subcontractor, or a third
party;
(2) any other activity for which personnel are required to
carry weapons in the performance of their duties; and
(3) training in any activity covered by paragraph (1) or
(2).
(d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of State, or the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development may waive the
requirement in subsection (a) with respect to a contract of
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, or the
United States Agency for International Development,
respectively, if the Secretary concerned or the
Administrator--
(1) determines in writing that a waiver is necessary in the
interests of national security; and
(2) submits to Congress a notification of such waiver.

Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 12XX. REQUIREMENT TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES TO COUNTER VIOLENT EXTREMISM
IN AFRICA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall monitor and evaluate the
impact of United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) Combined
Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa's (CJTF-HOA) activities to
counter violent extremism in Africa, including civil affairs,
psychological operations, humanitarian assistance, and
operations to strengthen the capacity of partner nations.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the
following:
(1) An evaluation of the impact of CJTF-HOA's activities
described in subsection (a) to advance United States security
objectives in the Horn of Africa, including the extent to
which CJTF-HOA's activities--
(A) disrupt or deny terrorist networks;
(B) combat violent extremist ideology;
(C) are aligned with USAFRICOM's mission; and
(D) complement programs conducted by the United States
Agency for International Development.
(2) USAFRICOM's efforts to monitor and evaluate the impact
of CJTF-HOA's activities described in subsection (a),
including--
(A) the means by which CJTF-HOA follows up on such
activities to evaluate the effectiveness of such activities;
(B) USAFRICOM's specific assessments of CJTF-HOA's
activities; and
(C) a description of plans by the Secretary of Defense to
make permanent CJTF-HOA's presence in Djibouti.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the
amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the
majority and the minority.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that will ensure that
the Department of Defense supports the growing domestic solar energy
industry. The Department of Defense, as we know, is the largest
consumer of energy on this planet. Fortunately, the Pentagon is
beginning to more fully understand just how important energy is to our
national security. As the Department purchases solar panels to address
very serious energy security concerns at defense installations around
our country, we must ensure that those purchases support American
renewable energy manufacturing jobs rather than those at other
companies in other countries.
The Buy American Act requires products purchased directly by the
Federal Government to contain at least 50 percent American content.
This amendment applies the Buy American Act to the procurement of solar
panels purchased indirectly by the Department through subcontracts such
as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, land leases, and utility
service contracts. Establishing real energy security at our defense
installations is critical to our national security.
This amendment is a commonsense approach to ensuring that, as the
Department makes key investments in renewable energy, American
manufacturing jobs are supported and increased.
I urge the support of my colleagues, and I express my deep gratitude
to Chairman Skelton for his steadfast support for our national defense.
My second amendment will help strengthen our Nation's oversight over
armed security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and eliminate a tax
loophole that has been used by the defense contractor Blackwater. For
too long, the private armies of defense contractors have undermined our
Nation's

[[Page H4052]]

mission in Afghanistan and Iraq through the conduct of their personnel.
The key to American success is the ability of U.S. forces to win
support from the Afghan and Iraqi people, many of whom do not
distinguish between armed security contractors and the U.S. military.
For this reason, every time a contractor kills or injures innocent
civilians, the very people we seek to protect, it is a devastating blow
to our country's strategy to protect the local population.
Let us recall one example. On May 5 of last year, two independent
contractors working for Paravant, a Blackwater front company, fired
their weapons, killing two Afghan civilians and wounding a third.
Adding insult to injury by classifying workers in Iraq as independent
contractors rather than employees, Blackwater appears to have avoided
at least $31 million in employment-related taxes.
This amendment, sponsored by myself and Schakowsky and Moran, is an
amendment that requires armed private security contractors who are
using U.S. citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan to hire those individuals as
direct employees rather than independent contractors. The amendment is
narrow and it is focused. It applies only to U.S. citizens who are
required to have security clearances for armed security contracts in
Iraq or Afghanistan. The amendment also contains a national security
waiver provision.
This amendment will help close the door on a tax loophole and ensure
contractors have full responsibility and better oversight over
employees. I urge support for this amendment, and I again thank
Chairman Skelton for his work on this bill and deep commitment to the
men and women of the United States military.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to take the time in opposition
although I don't oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. McKEON. I will reserve my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
I want to speak specifically to this amendment that addresses a
duplicitous employment practice by private security contractors in
Afghanistan. Last year, four employees of Paravant, a Blackwater
subsidiary, were involved in a shooting incident where a number of
Afghan civilians, one was killed, others were wounded. A subsequent
investigation found that Paravant employees were not classified as
employees but were, instead, classified as independent contractors.
Then it was revealed that Paravant classified them as independent
contractors in order to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.
Raytheon, who was the main contractor on the Afghan Border Police
contract, attempted to sever ties with them, but they were rebuffed
because this company claimed to have no responsibility for or oversight
over the four in question, even though they had hired them and were
paying for them. This can't be permitted. There has to be
responsibility for private contractors. They can't be free agents doing
what they want over there. They are recognized as working for the
American Government. We need to make employers responsible for their
employees.
This is a duplicitous method of avoiding taxes, but most importantly,
direct responsibility for the actions of private security contractors.
It needs to be ended. And I support the other amendments that address
the accountability and oversight over private security contractors.
Mr. McKEON. May I inquire of the chairwoman what the time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. McCollum). The gentleman from Missouri has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 10 minutes
remaining.

{time} 2000

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Again, I am sorry that we weren't given more time to debate Don't
Ask, Don't Tell, but in using the time that I do have, I would like to
read a couple more letters into the Record. This first one is from the
American Legion, from the national commander, and this is a letter that
he sent to President Obama.
``Dear Mr. President, The American Legion is concerned about reports
that you might seek an amendment in Congress which would end the
military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy,'' which amendment will be
before us shortly this evening.
``As the Nation's largest wartime veterans organization, we feel
strongly that the current policy has served the U.S. military well for
17 years and it would not be wise to make a major cultural change in
the middle of two wars and with tension rising on the Korean Peninsula.
Moreover, the Department of Defense has already directed a study on the
policy, and it would be premature to act before the commission
conducting the study releases its finding. It defies logic.''
I will put that letter in the Record.

The American Legion,
Indianapolis, IN, May 25, 2010.
Hon. President Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President, The American Legion is concerned about
reports that you might seek an amendment in Congress which
would end the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' (DADT)
policy.
As the nation's largest wartime veterans organization, we
feel strongly that the current policy has served the U.S.
military well for 17 years and it would not be wise to make a
major cultural change in the middle of two wars and with
tension rising on the Korean peninsula. Moreover, the
Department of Defense has already directed a study on the
policy and it would be premature to act before the commission
conducting the study releases its findings. It defies logic.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, who
sat on the committee when DADT was implemented, opposes its
repeal. Additionally, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James
Conway and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey have also
voiced concerns about the impact such a change would have on
the current forte structure.
The military is a unique environment, in which DADT has
worked well without diminishing our nation's war-fighting
capability. Indeed, the core purpose of our military is to
fight and win our nation's wars. We believe that repealing
the DADT policy at this time may well be detrimental to the
security of our nation. Therefore, we urge you to postpone
any such decision until the wisdom of this action has been
fully studied.
Sincerely,
Clarence E. Hill,
National Commander, The American Legion.

The second one is from the National Military Family Association. The
letter says, ``The National Military Family Association has long been
an advocate for improving the quality of life of our military family
members who have sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. While our
association does not have a position on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell
policy, we are pleased that Secretary Gates has appointed a working
group charged to look at the true views and attitudes of our
servicemembers and their families if that policy is repealed. We
believe inclusion of servicemembers and their families in the process
is imperative and that the review process must be allowed to run its
course.
``Our association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen that
the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior to any legislative
action, the opportunity to complete the assessment of the impact of
such a policy change, and most importantly, develop an attentive
comprehensive implementation plan. Our servicemembers and their
families deserve no less.''
I will include that letter in the Record.

May 21, 2010.
Hon. John Boehner,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Boehner: The National Military Family
Association has long been an advocate for improving the
quality of life of our military family members, who have
sacrificed greatly in support of our Nation. While our
Association does not have a position on the Don't Ask, Don't
Tell policy, we are pleased that Secretary Gates has
appointed a working group charged to look at the true views
and attitudes of our service members and their families if
that policy is repealed. We believe inclusion of service
members and their families in the process is imperative and
that the review process must be allowed to run its course.
Our Association agrees with Secretary Gates and Admiral
Mullen that the Department of Defense must be allowed, prior
to any legislative action, the opportunity to complete the
assessment of the impact of

[[Page H4053]]

such a policy change, and most importantly, develop an
attentive comprehensive implementation plan. Our service
members and their families deserve no less.
We join with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen in opposing
any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to
completion of the assessment process. Should you have any
questions please contact Kathleen Moakler, Government
Relations Director.
The National Military Family Association is the only
national organization whose sole focus is the military family
and whose goal is to influence the development and
implementation of policies that will improve the lives of the
families of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast
Guard, and the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health
Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. For over 40 years, its staff and volunteers,
comprised mostly of military family members, have built a
reputation for being the leading experts on military family
issues.
Sincerely,
Joyce Wessel Raezer,
Executive Director.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).
Mr. CHILDERS. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and the Armed Services
Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor and for
allowing me to introduce this amendment.
The uncertainty of whether or not a company will be awarded a
military contract, as well as the finite period of time required to
fulfill a contract, means that many times contractors are stuck in a
cycle of ramping up and ramping down employment and, consequently,
hiring, laying off, and rehiring employees. My amendment addresses this
issue in the production of the various types of MRAPs our soldiers use
for transportation and protection from IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The First District of Mississippi calls itself home to Navistar
Defense, which produces the MRAP. Last year, Navistar was forced to lay
off hundreds of employees when one of its contracts ended. More
recently, Navistar was awarded another contract, requiring them to
rehire 800 employees in order to meet the production deadlines put in
place by the military. But the majority of these employees will be laid
off again in October when the contract is completed.
My amendment ensures that the Department of Defense begins to look at
ways that we can meet our military needs while at the same time making
contracting decisions that save taxpayer money and keep skilled workers
employed for sustainable amounts of my time.
I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. May I inquire again of the time remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the ranking member for his
graciousness. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the management
of this bill. I appreciate the bipartisan leadership the committee has
provided on these issues. Let me also thank you for working with the
House Foreign Affairs Committee and myself on this amendment, which
requires the Secretary of Defense to establish monitoring and
evaluation metrics for its activities in the Horn of Africa,
specifically the Combined Joint Task Force.
Among other things, this task force partners with the Navy and
CENTCOM forces to conduct maritime security operations to protect
shipping routes in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia, the Gulf of Oman, the
Arabian Sea, Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean. The task force currently
does not use any form of metric to evaluate the effectiveness of its
activities. According to a GAO report, the task force is not currently
evaluating whether its activities are, in fact, achieving the desired
results. This amendment would make that requirement.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of the
amendment and urge its adoption.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would like to remind those in the Chamber
to keep their conversations down to a minimum. Even the Chair had a
difficult time hearing the last speaker.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I want to thank the chairman, who is one of the giants on behalf of
national security, military defense, quality of life for our troops,
who for decades has been one of the outstanding spokespersons for
making sure that we had the defense we needed and that our troops had
the equipment, the resources, the quality of life that we would expect
to have our young people have. So I congratulate him. I thank Mr.
McKeon, as well, for his cooperative spirit in bringing this bill to
the floor.
Democrats in Congress have worked closely with President Obama to
fight our enemies, promote our interests, and support our troops and
their families, compiling a record of securing our Nation in stronger
and smarter ways. We have strengthened America's military by putting
new and better weapons into the battlefield, like more aerial drones.
We have killed or captured much of the top leadership of al Qaeda and
the Taliban. And for the first time, there is a clear plan for a way
forward in Afghanistan, which, frankly, was neglected for years under
the previous administration.
Democrats, often in the face of Republican opposition, have increased
funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity, and security
for our skies, our ports, and our borders. All of this was necessary
and appropriate. We are looking out for our troops, our veterans, and
our families.
Again, I say there is no Member of this body, and almost every
Member, indeed, of this body on both sides of the aisle has worked
together to maintain the quality of life for our troops and give them
the resources they need; none more so than Chairman Skelton, however.
Democrats are making sure that our troops get the body armor and
mine-resistant vehicles they need when they are in the field, and the
health care and opportunity for college education they deserve when
they return home. That's good for them and it's good for our country.
Today's defense authorization bill builds on that record, authorizing
crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. It promotes
efforts to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks and strengthens the
ability of our special forces to act directly against terrorist
organizations. It increases our international cooperation against
terrorists, especially against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
At the same time, it also insists on accountability, requiring
semiannual reports from the administration on the status of the Taliban
and the capacity of the Afghan Government and security forces. That
accountability is important and necessary.
Because the threats we face have changed in a post-Cold War world,
this bill also supports ballistic missile defense and nuclear
counterproliferation, including the President's effort to secure all of
the world's known vulnerable nuclear material in the next 4 years. The
conference the President convened here in Washington was an
extraordinary step forward in that effort.
Further, this bill invests in the well-being of our troops and the
strength of our Armed Forces. It keeps TRICARE strong and ensures that
the military families can keep their children on TRICARE policies up to
the age of 26, just as all Americans can do under the health reform law
that we passed.
It also reduces strain on our forces by providing for 7,000 more
personnel for the Army and 500 for the Air Force, while helping all of
the services rebuild the equipment and weapons systems that have been
severely worn down by two wars. Now, maybe because there is an
agreement on that we haven't talked about it very much.
Finally, the bill strengthens our military by providing for a process
to repeal a discriminatory provision. Now, I want my friends to listen
to this, and they are not going to be happy with me. I am 70 years of
age. I was in college in the late fifties and early sixties. Now, Bill
Clinton was in college in the late sixties. His generation of Americans
were motivated by the Vietnam

[[Page H4054]]

war one way or the other. Now, frankly, I was a member of the State
senate and supported that effort in the State senate.
But in the late fifties and early sixties, the motivating force for
young people in this country was civil rights. It was about living out
the promise of American equality. It was about a commitment of this
country, which was the bedrock of this country, that all men were
created equal and endowed not by us, but by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights. And I will tell my friends, I have some rhetoric
here that was used in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, when
there were some Americans you didn't have to ask, they didn't have to
tell, because you knew they were African Americans. There was no hiding
that. And we segregated them.
And I heard Strom Thurmond stand on the floor of the Senate, he was a
Democrat, speaking about discriminating against people because of the
color of their skin. Separate but equal. I have heard the same
rhetoric. Let me read some of it.
``The Army is the wrong place for social experiments. Keep African
Americans in their place.''
I was angered in the 1950s and 1960s when I saw that kind of rhetoric
because I thought that was not the America that I was so proud of. Hear
that language that was used back in 1948 and read the transcripts
today.
In 1990, I was the sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
There was an amendment offered that said people with AIDS could not be
waiters and waitresses. Why? Because people wouldn't come into
restaurants if they knew that somebody with AIDS was serving them. Of
course all the scientists, all the medical personnel said there was no
way to transmit AIDS by handling plates or food. And I pulled out some
rhetoric, interesting enough, from 1965, when the public accommodations
law was considered on this floor. And guess what they said? They said,
If we have African American waiters and waitresses, people won't come
into our restaurant. That's why we don't have African American waiters
and African American restaurants.
That was not the America for which I stand.
Strom Thurmond, however, said, and other Democrats--now, he didn't
stay a Democrat, as all of you know, throughout his career--said no, we
will keep people separate. And because you are driving down Route 1
from New York to Florida, and you stop and your little girl asked when
the Howard Johnson's comes by, ``Can I have an ice cream cone?'' And
you say to your little child, ``I am sorry, you can't go in there. You
are the wrong color. Can't stay at that hotel.''
Now, in their era they thought they were being good Americans, I
presume, and there were filibusters after filibusters to stop treating
people as people with their God-given, unalienable rights.
Ladies and gentlemen, look to your hearts and your conscience. Look
at the debates of 1948.
Is there one of us, is there one of us that would say General Powell,
as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, undermined the morale and the
effectiveness of the United States Army? Is there one of us? I will
yield to anybody who wants to say that he undermined the morale of our
services. No one? No one? This is not a social experiment any more than
that was a social experiment.

{time} 2015

Anymore than 1990 when we wanted to deal with those with
disabilities. It was a social experiment. It was the bedrock of what
America is.
Now, I think it's unfortunate that we've spent so much time on this
issue. Almost every speaker. In the beginning of my talk, I talked
about the substance of this bill: fighting terrorists, keeping America
safe, making sure that we have the strongest Armed Forces in the world
bar none, that technically they are able to confront any enemy,
anywhere, any time because we owe that to the American public to keep
them safe. That is what we're committed to, a strong defense.
Barry Goldwater said when this issue came up, I care whether they can
shoot straight, not whether they are straight. Why? Because he wanted
to look at the content of their character, the content of their
ability, the content of their commitment to this country and to their
service. They were patriots. And he thought if they're patriots and
they shoot straight--now let me tell you, something, friends. I don't
want anybody bothering me. I don't care who they are. You hear me? And
I don't want any male member of the Armed Forces bothering any female
member of the Armed Forces, and I don't want anybody else bothering
anybody else. Why? Because that's against the law, and it's against
morality.
But I tell you, my friends, this bill is about our national security.
This bill is about people who perform their service to our country.
This bill is about making sure that America is safe. This bill is about
making sure that we defeat terrorism and keep America safe. Let's focus
on that. Let's not be distracted. Let's focus on protecting America,
defeating terrorists, and taking care of our troops.
Mr. McKEON. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, I listened raptly to the majority leader. I always try to.
He always has a lot to say, and he says it very well. And that was a
very eloquent speech, and because you are a Member of Congress and
because we are Members of Congress, we can come here to the floor and
we can express our opinion. I'm asking that the members of the armed
services have the same opportunity before we have this vote tonight on
the Murphy amendment.
And the reference was made to General Powell. And I was not on the
committee at the time. But when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was instituted,
he was a strong proponent. And he also mentioned that he didn't believe
the comparison held up between the blacks having civil rights and the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
So while I think that your comments were very, very well spoken, I
think all of us should have that opportunity to have that great debate.
I just think that we should follow the process that's been established
where the Secretary appoints this study. They make the study, and then
after the study is presented to us in December, after the military has
a chance to give their say, that after the study is released, we follow
the process.
I don't know why we're so afraid to stick with the policy, to listen
to the members of the armed services, to give them the opportunities
they have. I have letters from each of the Chairmen and the members of
the Joint Chiefs saying we owe that to them. We should not break faith
with them. They went out in good faith after the Secretary set that
policy, and now we're short circuiting.
I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I agree with my
friend. As a matter of fact, I talked to Bob Gates today, and I talked
to him 2 weeks ago about this issue. I was concerned about this issue
and shared his view that we certainly ought to solicit the views of how
and why we ought to proceed.
That is why I worked to make sure that this amendment, which was the
exact same amendment adopted in the Senate Armed Services Committee a
little earlier today, did in fact provide that both the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen--who has made his comments on this pretty
clear, as you know--Secretary Gates, and the President of the United
States have to certify that the processes are in place. I understand
the difference of opinion here is that, and I am sympathetic with your
view.
Mr. McKEON. Let me reclaim my time because here's what's actually
going to happen. And as I talked to the chiefs on the phone, one of
them said very clearly, Look. I know how this works around here. I know
what this means. I know how the amendment was written, that we take the
vote tonight and then we follow through the process. But it becomes a
sham because the headline, as he said, would be ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell,'' is repealed. And it's already on the headline. I just saw the
news alert. ``Senate votes to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' He says,
I understand that. But those troops out at the FOBs in Afghanistan,
when they

[[Page H4055]]

see it, when they hear it, they're going to see it's repealed. Why are
you now asking me my opinion? It's done. It's a done deal.
So while we may understand that by law that it will follow through
this process, in reality, it will be set tonight. And that's why we
should have had more than 10 minutes, 5 minutes on our side, to discuss
this. All we were given was 5 minutes. And that's why we've had to take
time.
We could have spent time talking about all of the wonderful things in
this bill, and yet we've had to talk because this thing is going to
have more impact on our military and on our country.
You smile, Mr. Leader. And if you really feel that, then why don't we
just follow the process?
And I'll be happy to yield.
Mr. HOYER. I smile only because that rhetoric was the same rhetoric
that was used in 1946.
Mr. McKEON. Well, I'm sorry. I have not read that. And I'm not
quoting from that same rhetoric. And as Colin Powell said, it is not
the same.
In fact, this is Mr. Powell's quote: ``Skin color is a benign, non-
behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most
profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is
a convenient but invalid argument.''
Mr. Powell's comment.
Mr. HOYER. I didn't quote Mr. Powell. I referred to him.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment to optimize the
technological posture of our Armed Forces, but I am also the son of a
civil rights lawyer who wrote a lot of the enforcement language behind
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And I am proud to serve with our majority
leader and the representative of the Pennsylvania Eighth district.
I rise in support of an amendment which would direct the Secretary of
Defense to commission an independent study assessing the optimal
balance of manned versus unmanned aircraft, as well as whether our
military is capable of defending against an enemy force consisting of
unmanned aerial vehicles. I believe it's the duty of Congress to ask
hard questions and to take the long view of matters on national
security.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, we've already seen how UAV technology has
revolutionized warfare and how rapidly we can launch an attack half a
world away without risking a single American life. Between 2002 and
2008, the number of unmanned aircraft used by the Department of Defense
increased from 167 to over 6,000. This year for the first time in
history, the Air Force trained more UAV pilots than traditional fighter
pilots.
This amendment will help us optimize the balance between manned and
unmanned aircraft, and I urge its support.
Mr. McKEON. I yield 30 seconds to the Army colonel in the Reserve,
Mr. Buyer from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. I want to thank Ike Skelton for, years ago, his thoughtful
considerations to make this policy the law. And we should not be
changing this policy. It is very clear that homosexuality is
incompatible with military service. The purpose of the military: We
kill and break things. We inculcate young men and women with values,
and those values are extremely important.
Now there are some that are trying to make this argument somehow that
tolerance requires a moral equivalency. It does not when it comes to
homosexuality. If in fact military is the inculcation of values, to say
that we're going to say that sodomy now should be repealed from the
Uniform Code of Military Justice is wrong.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California
controls the time.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Chair, I yield that time to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. Thank you for yielding an additional minute.
As I was explaining that this year for the first time in history, the
Air Force trained more UAV pilots than traditional fighter pilots.
However, our fleet of unmanned aircraft has expanded, and we have also
maintained and continued to build a large force of conventional manned
aircraft.
This study will help Congress better understand the optimal most
cost-effective balance between the two for a range of operations. It
will also help us determine the feasibility and desirability of a more
rapid transition to unmanned aircraft for these operations.
This study will also force the Department of Defense and Congress to
confront the fact that the United States is not the only Nation capable
of building and deploying these very effective, very lethal
technologies. If the future of warfare lies in unmanned technology,
will our military be prepared to defend the United States and its
allies against attacks by enemies who possess large numbers of unmanned
aircraft?
It's my hope that this study will help Congress prioritize and plan
for this future and adopt the most cost-effective mix of manned and
unmanned aircraft. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and
I thank Chairman Skelton for his hard work in bringing this amendment
to the floor.
Mr. McKEON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. GOHMERT. I was shocked to hear the majority leader bring up the
Americans with Disability Act. It was a wonderful thing that this
Congress did in making all areas accessible to those with disability.
But to bring it up in this debate next brings the question, will this
majority not stop meddling with the military, and next we expect an
extension of the ADA so that the military will next be required to put
those who are disabled on the front lines to defend the Nation?
It's time to stop meddling. Let the military do the job for which
they were assigned and for which they volunteered. Put the military in
charge.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

{time} 2030

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79
printed in House Report 111-498.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 79 offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of
Pennsylvania:
At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following new
section:

SEC. 5__. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal
of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654.--
(1) In general.--On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense
issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the
Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 (section
654 of title 10, United States Code).
(2) Objectives and scope of review.--The Terms of Reference
accompanying the Secretary's memorandum established the
following objectives and scope of the ordered review:
(A) Determine any impacts to military readiness, military
effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and
family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and
recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such
impacts.
(B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on
standards of conduct and new policies.
(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and
regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding
personnel management, leadership and training, facilities,
investigations, and benefits.
(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.
(E) Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to
repeal 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 and proposals that may be
introduced in the Congress during the period of the review.
(F) Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce
climate and military effectiveness that support successful
follow-through on implementation.

[[Page H4056]]

(G) Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation
involving 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (f)
shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of
the following occurs:
(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report
required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in
subsection (a).
(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense
committees a written certification, signed by the President,
the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:
(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the
recommendations contained in the report and the report's
proposed plan of action.
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the
necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion
provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).
(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and
regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the
amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the
standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit
cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy.--Section 654 of
title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until
such time that all of the requirements and certifications
required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and
certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United
States Code, shall remain in effect.
(d) Benefits.--Nothing in this section, or the amendments
made by this section, shall be construed to require the
furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1,
United States Code (relating to the definitions of
``marriage'' and ``spouse'' and referred to as the ``Defense
of Marriage Act'').
(e) No Private Cause of Action.--Nothing in this section,
or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to
create a private cause of action.
(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy.--
(1) Title 10.--Upon the effective date established by
subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended--
(A) by striking section 654; and
(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such
chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Upon the effective date
established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654
note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1404, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, when I served in Baghdad, my team did not care whether a
fellow soldier was straight or gay. We cared if they could fire their
M-4 assault rifle or run a convoy down Ambush Alley; could they do
their job so that everybody in our unit would come home safely.
With our military fighting two wars, why on Earth would we tell over
13,500 able-bodied Americans that their services are not needed? This
policy hurts our national security, and it has cost the American
taxpayers over $1.3 billion already on this unjust policy.
Our troops deserve a Congress that puts their safety and our
collective national security over rigid partisan interests and a close-
minded ideology.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support the brave
men and women willing to take a bullet for our families.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But before doing that, I ask
unanimous consent that the time for debate on amendment No. 79 offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) be extended
by 30 minutes, evenly divided between opponent and proponent.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, in that case, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, the bill before us is an excellent piece
of legislation; it's one of the best that our committee has written.
It's strong on our attempt to quell terrorism, it takes care of the
troops, and it looks after their families.
On this issue before us, inquiry was made of Secretary Gates and
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen. A letter dated
April 30 states: ``Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that
seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital
assessment process. Further, I hope Congress will not do so as it would
send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that, in
essence, their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an
issue with such direct impact and consequence for them and their
families.''
I oppose the amendment.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield 30
seconds to my fellow Blue Dog and strong leader on this issue, Mr.
Matheson of Utah.
Mr. MATHESON. Madam Chair, anyone who is willing to put on this
country's uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our
freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to
discrimination. Repealing this flawed policy is an important way for us
to show that respect. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WAMP. Could the Chair tell me if it might be in order for the
time to be extended on this very, very important matter before the
House at least equal to the time that might be taken by the Speaker of
the House?
The Acting CHAIR. Only by unanimous consent, which was just
unsuccessful.
Mr. WAMP. May I ask unanimous consent, then, that the time be
extended equally so that the time that the Speaker may claim to speak
on her side of this issue might be allotted to the minority?
The Acting CHAIR. Can the gentleman state a specific amount of time?
Mr. WAMP. I wish we could; we don't know. I just think 5 minutes per
side is not sufficient on a matter this important before the House.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will restate his unanimous consent
request.
Mr. WAMP. I ask unanimous consent that the time on this amendment be
extended by 15 minutes per side.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Tennessee?
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Do the records of the House contain the
length of time of the speech made by the minority leader on the health
care bill under a 1-minute recognition?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair cannot serve as historian.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HUNTER. Is it proper for the gentleman who this amendment belongs
to to object to debate on his own amendment?
The Acting CHAIR. Any Member may object.
Mr. HUNTER. Even to their own, which they should want to discuss,
Madam Chair?
The Acting CHAIR. Any Member may object.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairwoman, may I yield 5 seconds to the sponsor of
the amendment to say why you don't want it discussed fully?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may yield.
Mr. McKEON. The gentleman doesn't wish to respond?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.

[[Page H4057]]

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairwoman, next Monday is Memorial Day. Americans will pause
in many ways and in many places to honor and celebrate the courage,
sacrifices, and patriotism of those who have served and are serving
this Nation in the Armed Forces.
The Hill newspaper yesterday carried a special insert entitled, ``A
Tribute to the Troops.'' Among the contributors were Mrs. Michelle
Obama and Dr. Jill Biden. They coauthored a piece emphasizing that ``it
is our sacred obligation as Americans to take care of the men, women,
and families who protect and serve this country.''
I could not agree more with them. We do have a sacred obligation to
those who care to serve. That is why today I rise in strong opposition
to the amendment being offered by Representative Murphy that would have
Congress act to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell even before the
comprehensive review directed by the Secretary of Defense is completed
and even before Congress has received the comprehensive views of those
who will be most directly affected by any change in the law.
They have unhesitatingly and selflessly responded in a magnificent
manner, without hesitation, putting mission and Nation ahead of self
and family. Now the proponents of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell want
to rush a vote to the floor, disrupting the process that was put in
place earlier this year to get input from those people most affected by
this decision.
After making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the
course of 8 years, the men and women of our military deserve to be
heard. Congress acting first is the equivalent of turning to our men
and women in uniform and their families and saying, your opinions don't
count.
I've read into the Record letters from the chairmen of each of the
services asking us to not do this. Don't disrespect the military. Give
them the opportunity to have their input.
The Secretary also sent us a letter, and his letter said: ``I believe
in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any
legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough,
objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy
change. A critical element of this effort is the need to systemically
engage our forces, their families, and the broader military community
throughout this process. Our military must be afforded the opportunity
to inform us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions if we're to
carry out this change successfully. Therefore, I strongly oppose any
legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of
this vital assessment process.
``Further, I hope Congress will not do so as it would send a very
damaging message to our men and women in uniform that, in essence,
their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with
such direct impact and consequence for them and their families.''
Now, I know that this amendment and those proponents will say, well,
we're going to take this vote, but we will still follow the process. We
will have the survey. But you all know, I mean, you have to know that
when the surveyors go out into the field, they're already going to have
heard on the news--as was already reported on Fox News tonight--the
Senate repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So how are they given an
opportunity to--I mean, this is a sham. It is a total sham from here
forward if this amendment passes tonight.
You have the chairman of the committee, a man who has devoted years
of his life to our young men and women in uniform, and it's not an easy
thing for him, but he stands up to say no on this amendment. I join him
in saying no on this amendment. Most of the members of the committee--
if we had had a chance to bring this up in committee where it should
have been, it wouldn't be here tonight.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield 30
seconds to the chairwoman of the Personnel Subcommittee on the House
Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Davis from California.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Chair, we are listening to our troops
and military leaders. I held two hearings on this policy. DOD is
gathering service and family member feedback. Remember, this process
was set up to understand how to implement reform, not whether it should
happen. That in 10, Madam Chair, is contained in the amendment.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell weakens our national security by asking
servicemembers to lie, firing them for being gay, and telling able
recruits, We don't want you. Please, America can do better. Vote
``yes.''

=========================== NOTE ===========================

May 27, 2010 on Page H4057 the following appeared: Vote ``yes.''
PERMISSION TO SUPPORT CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER IN OPPOSITION TO
AMENDMENT Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Chair, I rise for a unanimous consent
request.

The online version should be corrected to read: Vote ``yes.''
Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Chair, I rise for a unanimous consent request.

========================= END NOTE =========================

Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Chair, I rise for a unanimous consent request.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his request.
Mr. TAYLOR. I request unanimous consent to support the wishes of
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Michigan, a freshman Congressman, a
former lieutenant commander of the United States Navy Reserve, Mr.
Peters.
Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, as a former lieutenant commander in the
United States Navy Reserve, I strongly support Representative Murphy's
amendment. We must allow our military to recruit and retain any
qualified, patriotic, and courageous American who wants to serve our
country.
During my service in the United States Navy Reserve, I served with
many brave, patriotic, and dedicated men and women who were always
ready to serve their country anytime and anywhere. I was never
concerned about their sexual orientation, just their ability to serve
the United States honorably. I urge passage of the Murphy amendment.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota, the highest ranking enlisted
soldier ever to serve in the United States Congress, Command Sergeant
Major Tim Walz.

{time} 2045

Mr. WALZ. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, the greatest privilege I've had in my life has been in
serving this Nation for almost 25 years in uniform. I know how
important it is to fill our military with qualified professional and
motivated volunteers. We are blessed in this Nation. That's exactly
what we have. It is time for us to honor their professionalism and know
that they are ready to end this discriminatory practice.
I support this amendment because it allows for the study of
implementation, and it allows the Department of Defense to implement it
after their study is done.
We do this all the time in the military. It took us 6 months to
change from hats to berets. The process will be orderly. It will be
right down the line the way it needs to be, and at the end of the day,
don't question their ability to do it. I support the amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I have a unanimous consent request, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his unanimous consent
request.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, as a 20-year Army veteran, 5 years of
active infantry and Airborne Ranger--I don't wear it on my sleeve--I
support Ranking Member McKeon and Chairman Skelton. This is devastating
to the warfighters and to the combat infantrymen.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognized the gentleman for a unanimous
consent request, but not for debate.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, it is my great
privilege to yield 30 seconds to my mentor on civil rights, the Freedom
Rider and great civil rights leader, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
John Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Chair, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' What
does it mean? It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.
Just like the military helped end segregation based on race, we
should have put an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[[Page H4058]]

long ago. It is an affront to human dignity and to the dignity and the
worth of every man and woman serving in our military.
We cannot wait. We cannot be patient. We must end discrimination in
the military, and we must end it now. Discrimination is wrong, and we
must end it now.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute
to the Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership
and service to our country.
Madam Chair, this weekend, on Memorial Day, America will come
together to honor all those who have served our Nation in uniform, and
those brave Americans have no better friend than the chairman of our
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
Today, by repealing the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy,
we also honor the service and sacrifice of all who dedicated their
lives to protecting the American people. We honor the values of our
Nation, and we close the door on fundamental unfairness.
In 1993, I spoke on this same House floor, calling on the President
``to act definitively to lift the ban that keeps patriotic Americans
from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces because of their sexual
orientation.'' Instead, despite everyone's good intentions, Don't Ask,
Don't Tell was enacted--a policy which has been discriminatory to our
brave men and women in uniform.
Under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, more than 13,000 men and women in
uniform have been discharged from the military. Thousands more have
decided not to reenlist. Fighter pilots, infantry officers, Arabic
translators, and other specialists have been discharged at a time when
our Nation is engaged in two wars.
That is why I support repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and that
support has come from all over the country. Nearly 8 out of 10
Americans want to end this era of discrimination.
Admiral Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, ``It
is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly
would be the right thing to do. We have in place a policy which forces
young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their
fellow citizens.'' He went on to say, ``For me, personally, it comes
down to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as institutions.''
General Colin Powell, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when this
policy was implemented, has said that he now thinks this restrictive
policy should be repealed.
Then, in a letter to Congress, 51 retired generals, admirals, and a
former Army Secretary called for the repeal of this policy, saying that
they ``have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens
to believe whatever they wish.''
Passing this amendment today respects the timeline of the Pentagon's
Implementation Study Group. Repeal would take place only after the
study group completes its work in December 2010 and after the
President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense all
certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion.
No one in this body would jeopardize our national security.
America has always been the land of the free and the home of the
brave. We are so because of our brave men and women in uniform who have
been willing to fight for our country. Let us honor their service by
recommitting to the values they fight for on the battlefield.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of this discriminatory
policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to make America more American.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the leadership of several members in
bringing this amendment to the floor today:
Congressman Patrick Murphy. Before Congressman Murphy came to the
House, he was a Captain in the 82nd Airborne Division and served as a
paratrooper in the Iraq War. He understands the issue of military
readiness and has demonstrated tremendous leadership on repealing a
policy that harms our national security.
Chairman Barney Frank.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.
Congressman Jared Polis.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, former Air Force
Sergeant David Hall was walking into this gallery when I was walking in
today.
Sergeant Hall wasn't asked. Sergeant Hall didn't tell. Someone outed
him for being gay, and he was kicked out of the Air Force. He had
already served in the Middle East.
He said to me, ``I assure you I am fit for military duty. Please stop
discharging patriotic Americans who just want to serve the country they
love.''
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I was a member of Congress and served on
the House Armed Services Committee, when the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
policy was adopted. It was a clever solution, but the policy and its
consequences deserve an updated review.
The Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, has proposed such a
review. He told the House Armed Services Committee that he had managed
several large institutions, like the Department of Defense and the
Central Intelligence Agency, and had found that when imposing major
policy changes, it was better not to cram change from the top-down, but
to help it percolate from the bottom-up. What Secretary Gates proposed
was a year-long review, bringing the troops into the dialog, and
weighing issues like fraternization and problems not even apprehended
at this point.
In a letter to Chairman Ike Skelton dated April 30, Secretary Gates
wrote: ``I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department
must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to
conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact
of such a policy change; develop a comprehensive implementation plan,
and provide Congress and the President with the results of this effort
in order for it to be taken in the most informed and effective manner.
A critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage
our forces, their families, and the broader military community
throughout this process. Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation
that seeks to change this policy prior to completion of this vital
assessment process.''
I basically agree with Secretary Gates and will vote to support the
process of review that he and Admiral Mullen have laid out.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, as I listen to the arguments of those who wish
to continue the policy of driving gay or lesbian soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines out of military service, I am reminded that the
people of the United States are a pragmatic people.
Those who wish to exclude gays tell the American people that the
inclusion of gays would harm the morale, cohesion, and effectiveness of
the military in defending our nation. They ask everyone to ignore the
unmistakable parallels between their arguments and the arguments made
in the 1940's against the racial integration of the services. Never
mind, they say, that the same arguments about morale, cohesion, and
effectiveness were offered to preserve the despicable policy of racial
segregation. Never mind, they say, that back then it was claimed that
it would devastate our Army's effectiveness if white soldiers had to
share a barracks or bunkhouse or showerhouse with a black man.
Those who want to continue the practice of driving gays out of
military service ask everyone to ignore that gays do and always have
served in the U.S. military.
Suddenly all of American history became clear to me. Now I understand
the devastating effect of gays in our military. Now I understand why we
failed to win our independence from the British. Although I could never
understand before why the United States lost two wars to the Germans
and the Axis, now I realize it was because our military could not be
effective. The presence of gays, despite our nation's material and
economic might, so crippled our military morale, cohesion, and
effectiveness that we were helpless and hopeless. Now I understand that
is what happens if we allow gays to serve in the defense of our nation.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chair, I agree with the Secretary of
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the time has
come to repeal the current ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, which
dishonors men and women who are willing to give their lives in service
to our country and also prevents capable men and women with vital
skills from serving in the armed forces. However, I believe a vote
today is premature.
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen indicated initially that the
impact of such a drastic change in military and cultural policy should
be thoroughly reviewed, studied, and appropriate policies developed by
the Department of

[[Page H4059]]

Defense before Congress takes legislative action. Such a review and
policy development would be completed by December 1, 2010.
Therefore, I believe Congress should forgo legislative action until
appropriately informed by the Pentagon's impact study, policy
development, and implementation plan.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Murphy
Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to repeal ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell.''
The time to end this absurd policy is long past due. Since it was
implemented in 1994, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has resulted in more
than 13,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers being discharged for no
reason other than their sexual orientation. As the United States has
fought wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, hundreds of mission-critical
troops, including crucial Arabic and Farsi linguists, have been
discharged because the Department of Defense believed they were gay.
Such blatant discrimination is both morally wrong and, from a practical
perspective, self-defeating.
Last year, I received a letter from a gay soldier from Long Island
who has bravely served our nation for more than twenty years in two
branches of our military. Throughout his numerous tours of duty in
Afghanistan and in Iraq, he has earned multiple bronze stars. Although
he could retire, he did not want to leave the military when our nation
needed him most. So, he volunteered for another combat zone deployment.
In his letter, this soldier told me that he has served side-by-side
with gay soldiers from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia and
has seen no evidence to suggest that these nations, which have no
discriminatory policies against gay and lesbian servicemembers, have a
problem with unit cohesion. In fact, an openly gay officer from
Australia with whom he served was decorated with a U.S. medal at the
end of his tour.
This soldier concluded by asking if, after looking at his service
record, I thought the military and our nation would be better off
without his service. My answer is absolutely not. I thank him for his
service and proudly cast my vote to allow him and all other gay and
lesbian servicemembers to continue their service to our nation without
living in fear of being discharged for simply being who they are. Our
service men and women deserve a policy that honors the principles they
protect. I stand with our nation's principles. I support the Murphy
amendment.
Mr. HONDA. Madam Chair, I rise today to support the Repeal of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell. During his State of the Union address, President Obama
declared that his administration would work with Congress to end the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of excluding openly lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender, LGBT, Americans from serving their country
in the armed forces. I have long envisioned our country reaching this
moment, and am thrilled that the 111th Congress will soon take another
step forward in our long journey toward equality regardless of race,
nationality, gender, and sexual orientation.
Reflecting one of our country's last officially sanctioned forms of
bigotry, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy stigmatizes patriotic
Americans by excluding them from military life. This policy works to
silence LGBT personnel among the ranks of our military, making them
invisible to the American public they bravely volunteer to defend.
Notwithstanding the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, countless veterans
have served, and countless service members continue to serve selflessly
in the defense of our nation. Yet while thousands of our men and women
put their lives on the line to protect our freedom and liberty, many
are dismissed once their orientation or identification becomes known.
According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SLDN, over 1,200
service personnel were unfairly stigmatized when discharged as being
unfit for service in 2001. The contributions made by LGBT veterans and
those in active duty in an atmosphere hostile to them underscores the
tremendous sacrifices they make to serve this nation.
Another reason for the repeal of this government-sanctioned
discrimination is the law's disproportionate impact on women and
minorities. Servicemembers United compiled Department of Defense (DOD)
data showing that in 2008, 45 percent of troops discharged under Don't
Ask, Don't tell were minorities, while minorities comprised 30 percent
of the service. Similarly, women accounted for 34 percent of the
discharges but were only 14 percent of the military. That a
discriminatory policy has an even more discriminatory application is
another reason to celebrate its abolishment.
When President Obama called for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
Defense Secretary Gates reminded the Congress of their definitive role
in changing the intolerant policy. I am proud that this Congress is
acting. While I realize this repeal is still contingent on a completion
of the DOD Study and certification from the President, I am confident
that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is at its end. I appreciate the difficulty
of the DOD's task and I commend their courage to take this step forward
for our country. I am proud to cast a vote for repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell--we cannot let the opportunity to right this wrong pass us
by.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, it is time to repeal the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, Don't Pursue'' policy and to allow lesbian, gay and
bisexual persons to serve openly in the military.
From the initial introduction of this profoundly misguided policy in
1993, I have never wavered in my belief that our nation's armed forces
should not discriminate against otherwise qualified citizens on the
basis of their sexual orientation. Today, at a time when our nation is
engaged militarily in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the extent to which
the so-called compromise ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has damaged
America's military readiness has become even more apparent than it was
seventeen years ago.
The policy against allowing lesbian, gay, and bisexual service
members to serve openly has resulted in depriving our armed forces of
the abilities, experience and dedication of thousands of qualified
active duty personnel. This institutionalized discrimination is
completely illogical and counter-productive as we grapple with an
increasingly dangerous world, with our servicemembers serving all over
the world
The U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, has documented the
cost to our nation. In 2005, the GAO estimated the cost of
discriminating against service members on the basis of their sexual
orientation at nearly $200 million over the course of just the last
decade. This estimate may, in fact, be too low, as the GAO itself
acknowledged and as other studies conducted by reputable academic
institutions like the Michael Palm Center at the University of
California have documented.
Advocates for the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy continue
stubbornly to cite elusive factors to justify its inherent
institutionalized discrimination. The most common argument is the
specious insistence that ``unit cohesion'' among the armed forces will
suffer if lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons are allowed to serve
openly--an argument that even Richard Cheney, while serving as the
Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush,
acknowledged in congressional testimony was ``a bit of an old chestnut
to be tossed onto an open fire and consigned forever to the ashbin of
history.''
The fact is that many other nations--including trusted allies whose
armed forces are respected around the world such as Great Britain,
Israel, Australia, and Canada--have allowed their citizens to serve in
their armed forces regardless of their disclosure of their sexual
orientation. It is high time that the United States of America, which
prides itself as a beacon of liberty and equality, joins their ranks.
I urge the members of this House to vote to repeal this misguided and
counterproductive and un-American policy.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I am pleased that today we are finally faced
with an amendment on the floor to end the policy of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. Seventeen years ago, I introduced a bill to ban discrimination in
the Armed Forces on the basis of sexual orientation. I commend
Congressman Pat Murphy for his great efforts that have resulted in
finally getting this amendment on the floor today.
Now it is up to us to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell once and for all.
I opposed this policy and voted against it at its inception, I have
introduced legislation over the years to repeal it, and I am a proud
co-sponsor of H.R. 1246, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which
would end this policy. And I stand before you today to support its
inclusion in the Defense Authorization bill. Let us move promptly to
end this discriminatory policy and ensure that all service members,
regardless of sexual orientation, can enjoy the freedoms for which they
so selflessly fight.
This absurd and overtly discriminatory policy remains a stain on our
national conscience and tarnishes the march toward equality for all
Americans. And, in this time of incredible strain on our military, our
nation's security depends upon the recruitment--and retention--of every
person willing and able to serve. I entirely reject the argument that
allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would undermine troop
morale. We don't need any study to know that this canard is simple
prejudice, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. We should act as
President Truman did in 1948. No study--no delay. Just repudiate the
prejudice and end the discrimination.
To his great credit, President Obama has repeatedly declared his
commitment to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and he supports our
efforts today to do so.
I appreciate the fact that the Department of Defense has also
implemented regulatory changes concerning current enforcement of the
policy, which should lead to fewer unwarranted discharges. But in order
to repeal the policy we, Congress, must act, and that is exactly what
we are doing here today. We owe it both to our service members and to
LGBT

[[Page H4060]]

Americans to move forward now without further delay.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-498 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 82 by Mr. Inslee of Washington;
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Gutierrez of Illinois;
Amendment No. 42 by Ms. Eshoo of California;
Amendment No. 80 by Ms. Pingree of Maine;
Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania;
Amendment No. 47 by Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland.
Except for amendments numbered 80 and 79, the Chair will reduce to 5
minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this
series.

Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Inslee

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410,
noes 8, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 313]

AYES--410

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--8

Brady (TX)
Campbell
Flake
Hensarling
Herger
McClintock
Paul
Shadegg

NOT VOTING--19

Bishop (UT)
Boren
Braley (IA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Conyers
Costa
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Graves
Hastings (FL)
Marshall
Melancon
Moore (KS)
Pierluisi
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Wu

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 2117

Messrs. HERGER and SHADEGG changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. LUETKEMEYER and KING of Iowa changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Gutierrez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 372,
noes 52, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 314]

AYES--372

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman

[[Page H4061]]

Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--52

Akin
Alexander
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell
Carter
Cassidy
Conaway
Culberson
Flake
Fleming
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Hall (TX)
Hensarling
Herger
Issa
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Lamborn
Linder
Marchant
Minnick
Neugebauer
Owens
Paul
Pence
Petri
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Rooney
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Sullivan
Thornberry
Visclosky
Westmoreland
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--13

Boren
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Graves
Hastings (FL)
Melancon
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Sarbanes

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 2126

Mrs. BLACKBURN and Ms. FOXX changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Eshoo

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 315]

AYES--218

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Ehlers
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--210

Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins

[[Page H4062]]

Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Peterson
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Wamp
Watt
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Boren
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Graves
Hastings (FL)
Melancon
Pierluisi
Ryan (WI)
Sablan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 2134

Messrs. LEWIS of California, CLEAVER, BOCCIERI, and DICKS changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. MOLLOHAN and CAPUANO changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 80 Offered by Ms. Pingree of Maine

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Maine
(Ms. Pingree) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 231, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 316]

AYES--193

Altmire
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Christensen
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kagen
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lance
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Mack
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ross
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sherman
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Titus
Towns
Upton
Van Hollen
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Watt
Waxman
Westmoreland
Wu

NOES--231

Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Cao
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castle
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costello
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Goodlatte
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hunter
Inglis
Israel
Issa
Jordan (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Payne
Pence
Perriello
Peters
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

Slaughter
Waters
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--10

Boren
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Graves
Hastings (FL)
Melancon
Pierluisi
Ryan (WI)
Sablan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 2151

Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 194, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 317]

AYES--234

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)

[[Page H4063]]

Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (TN)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Ortiz
Paulsen
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Boren
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Graves
Hastings (FL)
Melancon
Pierluisi
Ryan (WI)
Sablan

Announcement By the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 5 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 2207

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement By the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery
that they are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of
approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of the rules of
the House.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 318]

AYES--253

Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--172

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)

[[Page H4064]]

Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Ehlers
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Boren
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Graves
Hastings (FL)
Linder
Melancon
Pierluisi
Radanovich
Ryan (WI)
Sablan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.

{time} 2216

Mr. BOYD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Capuano) having assumed the chair, Ms. McCollum, Acting 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. 5136) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.

____________________