[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Tell policy repealed before the end of the year.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

  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. Again, we appreciate the efforts of Members on both 
sides of the aisle in working through a wide array of problems in a 
very thoughtful way. Each of these amendments has been reviewed and 
accepted by both the minority and majority staff. We thank the Members 
for their efforts.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of one of the en bloc 
amendments, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered is an amendment that 
makes great sense, especially given the

[[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

  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 218, 
noes 210, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [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

  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 253, 
noes 172, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________