[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16394-16432]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Arizona has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from California has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, haven't I yielded just 4 minutes 
thus far? I yielded myself 2 minutes in the beginning, Mr. McKeon 1 
minute and Mr. Turner 1 minute?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona went 30 seconds over his 
time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Griffith) 1 minute.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this difficult situation. I 
believe that as the budget was formed and the decisions were made, 
North Korea was not as aggressive, nor was Iran. I stand in support of 
the Franks amendment. I share the gentlelady's concern that 
accountability needs to be increased; but in this time of increasing 
threat, I would prefer that we err on the side of the Franks amendment, 
even if we must attach certain conditions to it in conference. But I 
would urge Members to support it.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a longstanding member of the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Chairman 
Skelton and Chairwoman Tauscher have crafted a bill that protects the 
United States and our allies from real ballistic missile defense. And I 
think it is the right balance. There is no doubt that this Nation needs 
a robust ballistic missile defense, and we have properly invested our 
resources into those areas of ballistic missile defense that are 
working and have the most promise.
  The underlying bill provides $9.3 billion for missile defense, 
supporting critical programs that are testing and operational and 
eliminating unnecessary and unproven programs that waste taxpayer 
dollars.
  The Franks amendment, in contrast, would direct precious resources to 
flawed programs that, to paraphrase Secretary Gates, will enhance 
neither the efficacy of our missile defense nor the security of our 
citizens.
  In his opening statement the gentleman, the sponsor of the amendment, 
said that the greatest threat that we face is a ballistic missile from 
a rogue nation. That is not accurate. There is no doubt that is a 
threat, we have to be concerned about it, but realistically the 
greatest threat is from fissile material or a nuclear weapon being 
smuggled into the United States and being detonated. That is not just 
my opinion, but that of many national security experts.
  I have had the privilege of serving on almost every major national 
security committee in this Congress, both on the Intelligence Committee 
and on the Armed Services Committee. On the Armed Services Committee, I 
served as subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats. That is the greatest threat that we face; and this mark, the 
chairman's mark, contains more support for counterproliferation 
programs to secure fissile material or nuclear weapons that could be 
smuggled into the country. That is the right approach.
  Meanwhile, the proposed cut to DOE's environmental cleanup would 
eliminate as many as 33 jobs when America can least afford it. This 
bill balances our security needs with realistic budget considerations. 
Funding proven systems like Aegis BMD and THAAD with significant 
increases to prevent rogue nation threats to our country.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the 
remainder of the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, when the gentlelady from California says 
that we are fully funding the administration's request, that is true. I 
accept that at face value. But what if the administration is wrong? 
What if they have made the wrong request? Remember, this is an 
administration that has said Iran has legitimate nuclear ambitions. No, 
they don't. There is no legitimate pursuit of nuclear power in Iran; it 
is all for an evil and despicable purpose.
  This is an administration that got it wrong on the Iranian dissidents 
and has sort of back-pedaled over the past several days and recast 
their support of the dissidents when they really missed the mark. So I 
take the gentlelady at face value that they are fully funding the 
request; but in my opinion, the request is wrong.
  The gentleman from Arizona is right: this is an aggressive regime 
that ought not to be coddled. This is an effort to make sure that all 
of us are safe, and this is a sacred duty. I urge the adoption of the 
Franks amendment.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Before I yield, I would just like to engage the new 
Member from Illinois. I know you are a new Member, sir, but the truth 
of the matter is over the last 8 years of the Bush administration where 
all we did was spend money without very much oversight, we would have 
had, after spending all that money, $120 billion, we should have a 
system that is operationally effective and actually achieved credible 
deterrence.
  You have to ask yourself why that hasn't happened after $120 billion. 
The question is not how much money you spend; it is whether you spend 
it smartly. That is what this budget does.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I thank the gentlelady from California for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to the Franks amendment.
  The committee's bill does provide $9.3 billion for missile defense 
which fully funds the capabilities that the United States needs to 
protect our country. The threat to our Nation from ballistic missiles 
is real. Our adversaries have a multitude of short- and medium-range 
missiles and are developing more advanced missiles as well.
  This budget will help keep our Nation and our servicemembers safe 
from the threats that we face. For instance, the number of Aegis ships 
will grow from 21 to 27; the number of SM-3 interceptors from 131 to 
329; and the number of THAAD interceptors from 96 to 287. These are 
urgently needed investments to protect our troops in the field. This 
budget also includes funding for the operation, testing and sustainment 
of Ground-based Midcourse Defense, and follows Secretary Gates and the 
Missile Defense Agency recommendations to have that number of 
interceptors at 30.
  Secretary Gates has also said at the level of capability that North 
Korea has now and is likely to have for some years to come, 30 
interceptors, in fact, provide a strong defense against North Korea.
  But even more so, for the first time ever, combatant commanders were 
part of developing this budget, and the combatant commanders have said 
that this budget meets their needs as well.
  I also have to oppose this amendment because of where the offset is 
coming from: $1.2 billion from the DOE's environmental cleanup. We had 
this debate in committee in some respects, not over this amount, $1.2 
billion, but over some amount. I think we need to understand that 
cleaning up the nuclear legacy, the Cold War legacy in this country is 
an obligation. Some people have called this an obsession. Is it an 
obsession to clean up nuclear waste that is in the groundwater around 
communities in this country?

                              {time}  1215

  It is not an obsession; it is an absolute obligation. And if we cut 
these

[[Page 16395]]

dollars, we are cutting away that obligation.
  Something more important as well. Even though the Recovery Act put up 
to $5 billion in this budget, it's because we've neglected this 
obligation in the past.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Cutting these dollars from environmental 
cleanup continues to neglect that obligation that we have to 
communities all over the country to clean up America's ultimate toxic 
asset, the cold war legacy of nuclear waste in our communities.
  So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in strong support of the Franks 
amendment.
  I am closer to Korea than anybody in this room, and they are 
launching a missile on July 4. We have a missile defense site in Alaska 
that has missiles there now that can shoot that down. We just want to 
finish it, and this money would finish it.
  It sends a wrong message to our enemies if we retreat from the 
missile defense we have today, and some people say, including Mr. 
Gates, it doesn't work. Well, I bet your dollar it does work, and it 
will work. But I don't like sitting in Alaska looking at that missile 
that can reach us and reach Hawaii, and we don't have the defense to 
shoot it down. Maybe today we might shoot one down, but we need to 
finish this Fort Greely missile defense site, and this money would do 
it. It's shovel ready.
  This is a good bill, this just makes it a little better. It's the 
right thing to do for America. It's the right thing to do for Alaska. 
It's the right thing to do for freedom of all of the world.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Skelton of Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Secretary Gates announced a series of changes in the missile defense 
program and so testified. I wish to compliment the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the subcommittee that 
covered this subject, for the excellent work that she and the 
subcommittee did regarding missile defense. They got it right. They 
increased funding for theater missile defense programs by $900 million. 
They capped the deployment for long-range missile defense interceptors 
in Alaska at 30 as opposed to the 44 previously planned. Right now, 
there are 26 currently deployed. And they cancelled the Multiple Kill 
Vehicle program, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, and the second 
Airborne Laser prototype aircraft because they were not working.
  Consequently, they did it right by allowing and authorizing $9.3 
billion for missile defense programs overall. I oppose the amendment. 
We did it right.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of 
the amendment to restore $1.2 billion in funding for missile defense.
  Just yesterday, North Korea threatened to wipe the United States off 
the map. It is unconscionable that we would decrease funding for our 
missile defense system during a period where North Korea and Iran's 
nuclear programs and ballistic missiles pose a real and increasing 
threat to the United States.
  In May, Iran test-fired a new two-stage, medium-range, solid fuel, 
surface-to-surface missile which could reach Europe, Israel, and United 
States forces deployed in the Persian Gulf. This $1.2 billion cut 
forces an unnecessary choice between protecting our homeland against 
longer-range missiles and protection of our forward-deployed troops and 
allies against shorter-range missiles. The threat will only continue to 
increase over the next decade as technology increases for them. We are 
decades behind in having a comprehensive multilayered system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 2 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds remaining and the 
right to close.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, we've been talking about missile defense here 
and an amendment that relates to missile defense. I think one of the 
things that is important, and maybe a little confusing, is the fact 
that there are different kinds of missiles that an enemy might send 
against us, and so we have different kinds of missile defense depending 
on the nature of what is sent against us.
  The debate here centers on the very long-range missiles that are 
known as intercontinental ballistic missiles. We have only one way to 
stop those missiles, and that is what's called ground-based defense. 
Now, we have started. We have dug the holes and built the silos for 
some additional ground-based missiles, and this budget is cutting the 
funding for something that we have already started. The amendment would 
restore those and finish something that we agreed to so we are not 
wasting money starting something and stopping it partway. So that is 
part of the amendment. And this is missile defense, which is important, 
along with the other kinds of missile defenses which are supported in 
this bill and have been done very well by the committee overall.
  The second component of this amendment restores what is known as the 
Airborne Laser, a very promising technology which is based more on 
trying to stop a missile as it's being launched. It has the benefit of 
being as fast as a flashlight beam that you put on the missile and you 
kill it right over enemy territory when it's being launched. The bill, 
the way it is proposed, is going to cut the funding for the Airborne 
Laser. This amendment restores that important funding. Again, this is a 
program that we've started, invested a whole lot of money in, and it 
needs to go forward.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds remaining, 
and she has the right to close.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, an ICBM landing in the United States or over the United 
States could subject us to an EMP tragedy or destroy one of our cities 
and change our concept of freedom forever. The only system that we have 
to defend us in a tested and proven way from that threat is our Ground-
based Midcourse Defense. The budget, as it stands now, cuts it 35 
percent. This amendment would restore that money to protect our 
children and families from such a threat.
  We need to protect this country from madmen like Mr. Ahmadinejad and 
madmen like Mr. Kim Jong-Il. It is our first duty under the 
Constitution to do so, and I adjure this body to pass this amendment.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I could not make a better argument for 
rejecting the Franks amendment.
  Let's get it right. We are investing $9.3 billion for missile defense 
because we believe what the President has said is right, that we need 
to have defenses that are going to defeat long-range, short-range, and 
medium-range systems that are raid against the United States, our 
forward-deployed troops, and our allies. Don't take the money from cold 
war legacies. We are going to lose 10,000 jobs of people that are 
cleaning up sites around the country.
  We need to defeat this amendment because we want to invest money 
smartly. We don't want to follow what

[[Page 16396]]

we've done for the last 8 years, which is just spend money and not have 
any oversight.
  Let's get this right. Let's have strong missile defense. Defeat the 
Franks amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment 
which restores $1.2 billion to the Missile Defense Agency's budget. 
However, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the 
misguided and downright dangerous priorities of this Administration and 
the Democrat Majority with this Defense Authorization.
  For the past three years, the defense of our nation has been ranked 
at the bottom of this Democrat Majority's agenda. Between FY 2007 and 
FY 2009, the Democrats have increased non-defense funding by 85 
percent; an increase of $358 billion. However, funding for our national 
defense is found at the very bottom of the list with spending increases 
of only 9 percent.
  With the increasing threats of nations like North Korea and Iran--
especially considering North Korea's preparations to launch a ballistic 
missile in the direction of Hawaii on or around July 4th--it is 
essential that Congress provides the U.S. with the appropriate defense 
mechanisms to protect our country. Yet the Democrat Majority still has 
the audacity to cut $1.2 billion from our missile defense systems.
  Mr. Chair, this Majority has a false set of priorities which is not 
only misguided but endangers the security of our nation.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Franks-Cantor-
Sessions-Broun-Roskam Amendment and in support of the fundamental 
obligation this body has to fully fund our Nation's Environmental 
Management Program.
  I support my colleagues' efforts to increase funding to the Missile 
Defense Agency. The decision to cut funding for this program is 
dangerous and short-sighted, especially at a time when countries like 
Iran and North Korea are seeking nuclear weapons programs that put our 
country and its citizens at risk. However, while I support the efforts 
to restore funding, I cannot support the offset and the repercussions 
that cutting funding for our Nation's Environmental Management Program 
would have.
  There is nothing conservative about cuts that the Franks-Cantor 
Amendment would make or the impact they would have. These cuts 
ultimately will slow the pace of cleanup at our Nation's nuclear 
contaminated sites, thus costing taxpayers more money in the long-run.
  In sites across the country, including in my home State of Idaho as 
well as in Washington State, South Carolina, Tennessee, and a number of 
other states, rest the nuclear remnants of the Cold War. These sites 
are contaminated with, and home to, some of the most dangerous 
materials in the world. The people who work at these sites, and the 
states that host them, have been through a great deal over the past 
fifty years to accommodate the defense of our Nation.
  In return, they expect the Federal Government to make good on its 
promise, and legal obligation, to clean up these sites and protect the 
environment of future generations. Many of these states have legally-
binding agreements with the Federal Government that dictate when and 
how these materials will be remediated and then disposed.
  The Franks-Cantor Amendment will slow the pace of work at these sites 
and put the Federal Government at significant risk of missing legally-
binding deadlines. Those missed deadlines mean penalties which will be 
paid for by the taxpayers. In addition, the cost of doing this work 
goes up substantially each year it is delayed, again putting taxpayers 
at risk.
  I recognize the argument that the EM program was recently awarded a 
huge sum of money in the stimulus program and can easily withstand a 
$1.2 billion reduction this year. I don't agree with the argument, but 
I understand where my colleagues are coming from when they make it.
  Mr. Chair, their argument is one that gives me great heartburn. When 
the Senate added $6 billion for the EM program to the stimulus bill, I 
knew I would hear this argument used time and again to undermine the 
base budget of the EM program that Members like Doc Hastings, Zach 
Wamp, Gresham Barrett, myself, and others have worked so hard to 
increase and stabilize over the past 10 years.
  I was worried when we passed the stimulus bill that my colleagues 
would see the EM program as a slush fund, flush with stimulus cash, 
from which they could seek offsets for increases to priorities 
elsewhere. Sure enough, here we are, putting the base EM program at 
risk because of the desire to infuse the program with one-time money 
that may have short-term benefits, but will cause significant long-term 
damage down the road.
  I have spent my career defending the EM program and seeking stable 
funding so that our Nation can make good on its promise to our States. 
I remain as committed as ever to protecting the base program and 
keeping cleanup of these sites on track.
  Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, I strongly support my colleagues' 
efforts to restore funding for the Missile Defense Agency. However, I 
strongly oppose the funding reductions included in this amendment. In 
the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Franks-Cantor amendment and keep the EM program on track in Idaho, 
Washington, South Carolina, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio and the other 
States in which its work is so crucial.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, ensuring that our nation 
remains safe and strong is the top priority for this House. Because of 
the real and increasing nuclear threat from countries like North Korea 
and Iran, I agree with my colleagues who are offering this amendment 
that cutting funding for missile defense is the wrong choice for our 
country right now.
  While I certainly support efforts to increase funding for missile 
defense, I am unable to support the amendment offered by my colleagues. 
The significant decrease in funding for the Environmental Management 
included as an offset in the amendment will have a serious impact on 
the ability of our nation to fulfill its obligation to clean up our 
defense nuclear waste at several sites across the country, including 
one in my district, the Savannah River Site (SRS).
  For over fifty years, sites like SRS have played an indispensible 
role in keeping our nation secure. Now, the federal government has the 
responsibility to fulfill the commitment it made to the communities and 
the states that have hosted these sites by cleaning up the legacy 
nuclear materials that remain and providing a safe environment for 
future generations. The cuts made by this amendment will significantly 
delay the progress being made in cleanup efforts at these sites and 
will undoubtedly impact the highest risk activities--processing and 
disposing of tank waste, special nuclear materials, and spent nuclear 
fuel--across the complex.
  Additionally, failure to fully fund the Environmental Management 
program will result in missed regulatory milestones in many states 
where the sites are located, resulting in substantial fines and 
penalties from state and federal regulators. These fines will 
ultimately be paid by the American taxpayer.
  During my time in the House, I have proudly worked alongside my 
Nuclear Cleanup Caucus colleagues as well as the entire South Carolina 
delegation to ensure the safe and timely cleanup of Cold War-era 
nuclear waste. And I will continue to advocate for full and stable 
funding for the Environmental Management Program to keep nuclear waste 
cleanup on track.
  Consequently, even though I support my colleagues' efforts to restore 
funding for our nation's important missile defense program, I cannot 
support this amendment because of the detrimental effect the funding 
reduction will have on the Environmental Management program. We must 
remain committed to cleaning up our defense nuclear waste now for the 
benefit of generations to come.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, 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 Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Akin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 111-182.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Akin:
       At the end of title X (page 374, after line 6) add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1055. TRANSPARENCY REPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 14 days after the date on 
     which an employee of the Department of Defense is required to 
     sign a non-disclosure agreement in the carrying out of the 
     official duties of such employee (other than as such non-
     disclosure agreement relates to the granting of a security 
     clearance), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on such non-
     disclosure agreement, including--

[[Page 16397]]

       (1) the topics that are prohibited from being discussed 
     under such non-disclosure agreement;
       (2) the number of employees required to sign such non-
     disclosure agreement;
       (3) the duration of such non-disclosure agreement and the 
     date on which such non-disclosure agreement terminates;
       (4) the types of persons to which the signatories to such 
     non-disclosure agreement are prohibited from disclosing the 
     information covered by such non-disclosure agreement, 
     including whether Members or staff of Congress are included 
     in such types to which disclosure is prohibited;
       (5) the reasons employees are required to sign such non-
     disclosure agreement; and
       (6) the criteria used to determine which matters were 
     included as information not to be disclosed under such non-
     disclosure agreement.
       (b) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any non-disclosure agreement 
     entered into by an employee of the Department of Defense on 
     or after January 1, 2009.
       (2) Initial report.--The report required under subsection 
     (a) (as applied in accordance with paragraph (1)) with 
     respect to non-disclosure agreements entered into on or after 
     January 1, 2009, and before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, shall be submitted not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we're bringing to the 
floor here is dealing with a situation that has become increasingly 
difficult between the legislative branch and the executive branch, but 
specifically the Pentagon. That is that the leadership at the Pentagon 
is requiring generals or admirals to sign nondisclosure agreements; 
that is, they're not allowed to share their opinions with Members of 
Congress.
  In the past, our relationship with the Pentagon has been one of 
openness and trying to work together as a team. The Armed Services 
Committee has always been a very bipartisan committee who worked well 
together. We've always tried to have a win-win kind of situation both 
between the parties, but also between the legislative branch and the 
Pentagon. Unfortunately, these nondisclosure statements have a 
tendency, we are concerned, with muzzling our admirals and generals and 
preventing them from giving us data that we need to be able to do our 
job.
  This amendment is being brought also by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Forbes), and I would yield 2 minutes to him.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, if we don't listen to anything else on this 
debate, we need to pause just a moment and listen to what's happening 
right now.
  Just a couple of moments ago in missile defense, we heard over there, 
``Unless you have oversight, you should not spend money on missile 
defense or other platforms,'' and yet the majority and this 
administration fights us at every juncture to deny the transparency we 
need for that very oversight.
  This administration came in. The first Executive order that they had, 
said, democracy requires accountability and accountability requires 
transparency. And the first things they do, when it comes to national 
defense, they issue gag orders to hundreds of people in the Pentagon so 
that they could not talk about the severity of some of these changes 
and some of the cuts taking place. They classified the inspections on 
our vessels so we can't know the difficulty we have with maintenance 
requirements. They refused to certify that the budget would meet our 
shipbuilding plan as required by law. They refused to even send over a 
shipbuilding plan. They refused to certify an aviation plan that the 
budget would meet, that as required by law. They refused to even send 
over an aviation plan, and they refused to give us the outyear 
projections on what the budget dollars would actually be.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a simple amendment that would try to rein in 
some of these gag orders, and the majority has already sent out a 
letter saying it's just too hard, it's going to impact all of these 
other programs, when they could have exempted every single one of those 
programs if they wanted to; they just refused to do it.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, when it comes down to transparency 
with this administration, here's what it means: We're going to be 
transparent to our enemies. We are going to tell them what questions we 
can ask them, what we can try to gather, information from them, when 
they're about to attack our Nation, our innocent civilians, but when it 
comes to transparency to the American people and what's going in the 
budget, we're not going to do that. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be 
the pleasure of this House to adopt this amendment and put some 
transparency back in this process.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. I had a law school professor by the name of Fratcher, 
and every once in awhile during discussion in the class he would say, 
``Read it. What does it say?''
  We read this amendment--which I know the authors seek to ensure 
congressional insight into the budget process and the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, and those are very worthy goals, but unfortunately, 
reading this amendment in the way it is drafted will overwhelm the 
Pentagon and harm critical Department of Defense efforts. They won't 
have time to do much more than comply with this amendment. It is 
drafted in such a way that it just couldn't be done. And I am sad that 
a worthy goal is being thwarted by the improper drafting thereof.
  The Department of Defense routinely enters into such agreements to 
protect the privacy of servicemembers and, of course, to protect 
sensitive information. As a result, the amendment would require several 
reports on thousands of nondisclosed agreements. For instance, casework 
for wounded warriors, health care quality assurance processes, criminal 
and administrative investigations, accident investigations, contract 
source selections, accepting proprietary data from private industry, 
other business transactions that require confidential treatment until 
concluded.

                              {time}  1230

  The amendment will result in the reporting of thousands of 
transactions to Congress, each requiring an individual report 
containing large volumes of information and justification. Due to the 
administrative burden and the chilling effect of this amendment, the 
Department of Defense may be forced to reduce efforts to assist wounded 
warriors and otherwise help servicemembers solve their problems.
  I commend them for their worthy goal, but in the lesson taught me by 
my professor, Mr. Fratcher, reading it just makes it impossible for the 
Department of Defense to comply with it.
  So, consequently, I seriously am strongly opposed to this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment would 
require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on the use 
of nondisclosure agreements within the DOD. The use of nondisclosure 
agreements is a new and troubling way of gagging our military and DOD 
civilians. Congress should be aware of any effort by the Department to 
restrict information.
  This amendment is about transparency. Congress cannot sit back and 
let the Department of Defense stiff-arm us. Congress has a 
constitutional duty to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a 
Navy, to make rules for the government, regulation of the land and 
naval forces. We can't allow the Department of Defense to prevent us 
from exercising our constitutional duty.
  I understand the chairman has concerns about the language, but I 
would urge him to support the amendment and work with us in conference. 
We have lots of time left to work on this.

[[Page 16398]]

I think, together, we can strengthen this. I think we're in agreement 
on concept. We need to know what we need to know to do our duty.
  With that, I ask support of the amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman. I rise in opposition. Here's the 
concern that we have about this amendment. Let's say that we have a 
servicemember who is suspected of sharing sensitive information with 
another country or someone they shouldn't share it with, and those 
investigating the alleged offense enter into a confidentiality 
agreement not to share any information about the investigation because 
it would impair the investigation.
  As I read this amendment, within 2 weeks of entering that agreement 
it would have to be reported to the committees of the Congress 
substantial information about it. I don't see any protections in the 
amendment that would say that the disclosure of the agreement would 
have to be done in such a way so as not to impair the investigation.
  Look, there's a difference between transparency and redundancy. 
There's a difference between transparency and paralysis. We need to 
have transparency so we can do our constitutional job. But if we have 
paralysis, we impair the executive branch from doing its job.
  We share the goal of this amendment, but we reject the means, and we 
would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. AKIN. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) has 1 minute 
remaining. The other gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. AKIN. I very much appreciate the tremendous cooperation that so 
existed on the Armed Services Committee. I'm sensitive to your concerns 
about this being overly broad in its drafting. I hate redtape and 
paperwork and am very open-minded to work along these lines. I think 
our concerns are very much the same on this issue. And I look forward 
to working with you.
  Unfortunately, in trying to get the thing drafted the way we wanted, 
we ran out of time today. So we're just going to go ahead and offer the 
amendment, but I look forward as we have time in the weeks ahead.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. The bill that we sent to the Senate and subsequently 
sent to the President for his signature is supposed to mean exactly 
what it says. It's in English language, it's clear, and we expect the 
Department of Defense to follow it to the letter, and those we direct 
duties to, to fulfill those duties correctly. And to send them a 
message that cannot be fulfilled, sadly, that this amendment requires, 
is just wrong.
  So, consequently, I oppose this and hope that it will not pass.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, 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 Missouri 
will be postponed.


            Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer 
amendments en bloc entitled No. 2.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc printed in House Report 111-182 consisting of 
amendments numbered 10, 11, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 
42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, and 58 offered by Mr. Skelton:


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Kratovil

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 1230. MODIFICATION OF REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD SECURITY 
                   AND STABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Matters to Be Included: Strategic Direction of United 
     States Activities Relating to Security and Stability in 
     Afghanistan.--Subsection (c) of section 1230 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
     110-181; 122 Stat. 385) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) The specific substance of any existing formal or 
     informal agreement with NATO ISAF countries regarding the 
     following:
       ``(i) Mutually agreed upon goals.
       ``(ii) Strategies to achieve such goals, including 
     strategies identified in `The Comprehensive Political 
     Military Strategic Plan' agreed to by the Heads of State and 
     Government from Allied and other troop-contributing nations.
       ``(iii) Resource and force requirements, including the 
     requirements as determined by NATO military authorities in 
     the agreed `Combined Joint Statement of Requirements' 
     (CJSOR).
       ``(iv) Commitments and pledges of support regarding troops 
     and resource levels.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Non-nato isaf troop-contributing countries.--A 
     description of the specific substance of any existing formal 
     or informal agreement with non-NATO ISAF troop-contributing 
     countries regarding the following:
       ``(A) Mutually agreed upon goals.
       ``(B) Strategies to achieve such goals.
       ``(C) Resource and force requirements.
       ``(D) Commitments and pledges of support regarding troops 
     and resource levels.''.
       (b) Matters to Be Included: Performance Indicators and 
     Measures of Progress Toward Sustainable Long-Term Security 
     and Stability in Afghanistan.--Subsection (d)(2) of such 
     section is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``individual NATO ISAF countries'' and 
     inserting ``each individual NATO ISAF country''; and
       (B) by inserting ``estimated in the most recent NATO ISAF 
     Troops Placemat'' after ``, including levels of troops and 
     equipment'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (K) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (L), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) With respect to non-NATO ISAF troop-contributing 
     countries, a listing of contributions from each individual 
     country, including levels of troops and equipment, the effect 
     of contributions on operations, and unfulfilled 
     commitments.''; and
       (4) in subparagraph (I) (as redesignated)--
       (A) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (B) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
       ``(ii) The location, funding, staffing requirements, 
     current staffing levels, and activities of each Provincial 
     Reconstruction Team led by a nation other than the United 
     States.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (d)(2) of such 
     section, as amended, is further amended in subparagraph (J) 
     (as redesignated) by striking ``subsection (c)(4)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (c)(5)''.

                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Kratovil

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 597, after 
     line 7), add the following new section:

     SEC. 2846. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMS 
                   FOR MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY DEMAND OR REDUCTION OF 
                   ENERGY USAGE DURING PEAK PERIODS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 173 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 2919. Participation in programs for management of 
       energy demand or reduction of energy usage during peak 
       periods

       ``(a) Participation in Demand Response or Load Management 
     Programs.--The Secretary of Defense shall permit and 
     encourage the Secretaries of the military departments, heads 
     of Defense agencies, and the heads of other instrumentalities 
     of the Department of Defense to participate in demand 
     response programs for the management of energy demand or the 
     reduction of energy usage during peak periods conducted by--
       ``(1) an electric utility;
       ``(2) independent system operator;
       ``(3) State agency; or
       ``(4) third-party entity (such as a demand response 
     aggregator or curtailment service provider) implementing 
     demand response programs on behalf of an electric utility, 
     independent system operator, or State agency.
       ``(b) Treatment of Certain Financial Incentives.--Financial 
     incentives received

[[Page 16399]]

     from an entity specified in subsection (a) shall be received 
     in cash and deposited into the Treasury as a miscellaneous 
     receipt. Amounts received shall be available for obligation 
     only to the extent provided in advance in an appropriations 
     act. The Secretary concerned or head of the Defense Agency or 
     other instrumentality shall pay for the cost of the design 
     and implementation of these services in full in the year in 
     which they are received from amounts provided in advance in 
     an appropriations Act.
       ``(c) Use of Certain Financial Incentives.--Of the amounts 
     provided in advance in an appropriations Act derived from 
     subsection (b) above, 100 percent shall be available to the 
     military installation where the proceeds were derived, and at 
     least 25 percent of that appropriated amount shall be 
     designated for use in energy management initiatives by the 
     military installation where the proceeds were derived.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``2919. Participation in programs for management of energy demand or 
              reduction of energy usage during peak periods.''.

                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of title V (page 180, after line 11), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 594. EXPANSION OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP DIVERSITY 
                   COMMISSION TO INCLUDE RESERVE COMPONENT 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       Section 596(b)(1) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 4476) is amended by striking subparagraphs (C), 
     (D), (E) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) A commissioned officer from each of the Army, Navy, 
     Air Force, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Reserves who 
     serves or has served in a leadership position with either a 
     military department command or combatant command.
       ``(D) A retired general or flag officer from each of the 
     Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Guard, and 
     Reserves.
       ``(E) A retired noncommissioned officer from each of the 
     Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Guard, and 
     Reserves.''.

                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Driehaus

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle H of title V (page 175, after line 
     11), add the following new section:

     SEC. 586. REPORT ON IMPACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON MILITARY 
                   FAMILIES.

       The Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing--
       (1) an assessment of the impact of domestic violence in 
     families of members of the Armed Forces on the children of 
     such families; and
       (2) information on progress being made to ensure that 
     children of families of members of the Armed Forces receive 
     adequate care and services when such children are exposed to 
     domestic violence.

                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Grayson

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII (page 291, after line 2), add the 
     following new secton:

     SEC. 830. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON DEFENSE CONTRACT COST 
                   OVERRUNS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress a report on cost 
     overruns in the performance of defense contracts.
       (b) Matters Covered.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) A list of each contractor with a cost overrun during 
     any of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009, including 
     identification of the contractor and the covered contract 
     involved, the cost estimate of the covered contract, and the 
     cost overrun for the covered contract.
       (2) Findings and recommendations of the Comptroller 
     General.
       (3) Such other matters as the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate.
       (c) Covered Contract.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     contract'' means a contract that is awarded by the Department 
     of Defense through the use of a solicitation for competitive 
     proposals, in an amount greater than the simplified 
     acquisition threshold, and that is a cost-reimbursement 
     contract or a time-and-materials contract.

                  Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Hare

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle F of title III (page 115, after line 
     25) insert the following new section:

     SEC. 356. EXTENSION OF ARSENAL SUPPORT PROGRAM INITIATIVE.

       Section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (10 U.S.C. 4551 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2010'' and inserting 
     ``2011''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``2010'' and 
     inserting ``2011''.

                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Hodes

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V (page 180, after line 11), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 594. EXPANSION OF SUICIDE PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY 
                   HEALING AND RESPONSE TRAINING UNDER THE YELLOW 
                   RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 122) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (15) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (14), respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Suicide Prevention and Community Healing and Response 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--As part of the Yellow Ribbon 
     Reintegration Program, the Office for Reintegration Programs 
     shall establish a program to provide National Guard and 
     Reserve members, their families, and their communities with 
     training in suicide prevention and community healing and 
     response to suicide.
       ``(2) Design.--In establishing the program under paragraph 
     (1), the Office for Reintegration Programs shall consult 
     with--
       ``(A) persons that have experience and expertise with 
     combining military and civilian intervention strategies that 
     reduce risk and promote healing after a suicide attempt or 
     suicide death for National Guard and Reserve members; and
       ``(B) the adjutant general of each state, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the 
     Virgin Islands.
       ``(3) Operation.--
       ``(A) Suicide prevention training.--The Office for 
     Reintegration Programs shall provide National Guard and 
     Reserve members with training in suicide prevention. Such 
     training shall include--
       ``(i) describing the warning signs for suicide and teaching 
     effective strategies for prevention and intervention;
       ``(ii) examining the influence of military culture on risk 
     and protective factors for suicide; and
       ``(iii) engaging in interactive case scenarios and role 
     plays to practice effective intervention strategies.
       ``(B) Community healing and response training.--The Office 
     for Reintegration Programs shall provide the families and 
     communities of National Guard and Reserve members with 
     training in responses to suicide that promote individual and 
     community healing. Such training shall include--
       ``(i) enhancing collaboration among community members and 
     local service providers to create an integrated, coordinated 
     community response to suicide;
       ``(ii) communicating best practices for preventing suicide, 
     including safe messaging, appropriate memorial services, and 
     media guidelines;
       ``(iii) addressing the impact of suicide on the military 
     and the larger community, and the increased risk that can 
     result; and
       ``(iv) managing resources to assist key community and 
     military service providers in helping the families, friends, 
     and fellow soldiers of a suicide victim through the processes 
     of grieving and healing.
       ``(C) Collaboration with centers of excellence.-- The 
     Office for Reintegration Programs, in consultation with the 
     Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and 
     Traumatic Brain Injury, shall collect and analyze `lessons 
     learned' and suggestions from State National Guard and 
     Reserve organizations with existing or developing suicide 
     prevention and community response programs.''.

     Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 249, after line 22, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       (6) With respect to dependents accompanying a member 
     stationed at a military installation outside of the United 
     States, the need for and availability of mental health care 
     services.

           Amendment No. 36 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title XII (page 453, after line 
     21), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. NO PERMANENT MILITARY BASES IN AFGHANISTAN.

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
     or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be 
     obligated or expended by the United States Government to 
     establish any military installation or base for the purpose 
     of providing for the permanent stationing of United States 
     Armed Forces in Afghanistan.


[[Page 16400]]

                Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle F of title V (page 155, after line 
     4), add the following new section:

     SEC. 563. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF THE 
                   REMAINS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WERE 
                   KILLED DURING WORLD WAR II IN THE BATTLE OF 
                   TARAWA ATOLL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On November 20, 1943, units of the United States Marine 
     Corps, supported by units of the United States Army and 
     warships and aircraft of the United States Navy, conducted an 
     amphibious landing on the Island of Betio, Tarawa Atoll, in 
     the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific Ocean.
       (2) The United States military forces faced an entrenched 
     force of 5,000 Japanese soldiers.
       (3) The Tarawa landing was the first American amphibious 
     assault on a fortified beachhead in World War II.
       (4) Just 76 hours later, the American flag was raised at 
     Tarawa.
       (5) More than 1,100 Marines and other members of the Armed 
     Forces were killed during the battle.
       (6) Most of the Marines, soldiers, and sailors who were 
     killed during the battle were buried in hastily dug graves 
     and cemeteries on Tarawa.
       (7) Between 1943 and 1946, the remains of some of the 
     Marines and other members of the Armed Forces were 
     disinterred and reinterred in temporary graves by the Navy.
       (8) After World War II, the remains of some of these 
     Marines and other members of the Armed Forces were recovered 
     and returned to the United States for burial.
       (9) Due to mistakes in reinterment, poor records, as well 
     as other causes, the remains of 564 Marines and other members 
     of the Armed Forces killed in the battle of Tarawa are in 
     unmarked, unknown graves.
       (10) Since 1980, the Department of Defense has recovered 
     remains from some unmarked graves that have been found 
     through construction or other activity on Tarawa.
       (11) The remains of members of the Armed Forces on Tarawa 
     continue to be threatened by construction or other land 
     disturbing activity.
       (12) Recent research has shed new light on the locations of 
     unmarked and lost graves of members of the Armed Forces on 
     Tarawa.
       (13) It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
     return to the United States for proper burial and respect all 
     members of the Armed Forces killed at Tarawa who lie in 
     unmarked and lost graves.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In light of these findings, 
     Congress--
       (1) reaffirms its support for the recovery and return to 
     the United States of the remains of members of the Armed 
     Forces killed in battle, and for the efforts by the Joint 
     POW-MIA Accounting Command to recover the remains of members 
     of the Armed Forces from all wars;
       (2) recognizes the courage and sacrifice of the members of 
     the Armed Forces who fought on Tarawa;
       (3) acknowledges the dedicated research and efforts by 
     persons to identify, locate, and advocate for the recovery of 
     remains from Tarawa; and
       (4) encourages the Department of Defense to review this 
     research and, as appropriate, pursue new efforts to conduct 
     field studies, new research, and undertake all feasible 
     efforts to recover, identify, and return remains of members 
     of the Armed Forces from Tarawa.

                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle I of title V (page 180, after line 
     11), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 594. REPORT ON PROGRESS IN COMPLETING DEFENSE INCIDENT-
                   BASED REPORTING SYSTEM.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report detailing the 
     progress of the Secretary with respect to the Defense 
     Incident-Based Reporting System.

                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Minnick

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title VII (page 252, line 18), 
     add the following new section:

     SEC. 716. REPORT ON RURAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the health care of rural 
     members of the Armed Forces and individuals who receive 
     health care under chapter 55 of title 10, United States. The 
     report shall include recommendations of resources or 
     legislation the Secretary determines necessary to improve 
     access to health care for such individuals.

                Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 830. PROCUREMENT PROFESSIONALISM ADVISORY PANEL.

       (a) GAO-Convened Panel.--The Comptroller General shall 
     convene a panel of experts, to be known as the Procurement 
     Professionalism Advisory Panel, to study the ethics, 
     competence, and effectiveness of acquisition personnel and 
     the governmentwide procurement process, including the 
     following:
       (1) The role played by the Federal acquisition workforce at 
     each stage of the procurement process, with a focus on the 
     following:
       (A) Personnel shortages.
       (B) Expertise shortages.
       (C) The relationship between career acquisition personnel 
     and political appointees.
       (D) The relationship between acquisition personnel and 
     contractors.
       (2) The legislation, regulation, official policy, and 
     informal customs that govern procurement personnel.
       (3) Training and retention tools used to hire, retain, and 
     professionally develop acquisition personnel, including the 
     following:
       (A) The Defense Acquisition University.
       (B) The Federal Acquisition Institute.
       (C) Continuing education and professional development 
     opportunities available to acquisition professionals.
       (D) Opportunities to pursue higher education available to 
     acquisition personnel, including scholarships and student 
     loan forgiveness.
       (b) Administration of Panel.--The Comptroller General shall 
     be the chairman of the panel.
       (c) Composition of Panel.--
       (1) Membership.--The Comptroller General shall appoint 
     highly qualified and knowledgeable persons to serve on the 
     panel and shall ensure that the following groups receive fair 
     representation on the panel:
       (A) Officers and employees of the United States.
       (B) Persons in private industry.
       (C) Federal labor organizations.
       (2) Fair representation.--For the purposes of the 
     requirement for fair representation under paragraph (1), 
     persons serving on the panel under subparagraph (C) of that 
     paragraph shall not be counted as persons serving on the 
     panel under subparagraph (A) or (B) of that paragraph.
       (d) Participation by Other Interested Parties.--The 
     Comptroller General shall ensure that the opportunity to 
     submit information and views on the ethics, competence, and 
     effectiveness of acquisition personnel to the panel for the 
     purposes of the study is accorded to all interested parties, 
     including officers and employees of the United States not 
     serving on the panel and entities in private industry and 
     representatives of Federal labor organizations not 
     represented on the panel.
       (e) Information From Agencies.--The panel may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     any information that the panel considers necessary to carry 
     out a meaningful study of administration of the rules 
     described in subsection (a). Upon the request of the Chairman 
     of the panel, the head of such department or agency shall 
     furnish the requested information to the panel.
       (f) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit a report on the results of the study to--
       (A) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) the Committee on Homeland Security and Government 
     Affairs of the Senate; and
       (D) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
       (2) Availability.--The Comptroller General shall publish 
     the report in the Federal Register and on a publically 
     accessible website (acquisition.gov).
       (g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Federal labor 
     organization'' has the meaning given the term ``labor 
     organization'' in section 7103(a)(4) of title 5, United 
     States Code.

               Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII (page 291, after line 2), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 830. ACCESS BY CONGRESS TO DATABASE OF INFORMATION 
                   REGARDING THE INTEGRITY AND PERFORMANCE OF 
                   CERTAIN PERSONS AWARDED FEDERAL CONTRACTS AND 
                   GRANTS.

       Section 872(e)(1) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 455) is amended by striking ``the Chairman and 
     Ranking Member of the committees of Congress having 
     jurisdiction'' and inserting ``any Member of Congress''.

                 Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Souder

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 10, strike ``or otherwise made available''.


[[Page 16401]]

                 Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Space

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

        At the end of subtitle C of title V (page 134, after line 
     24), add the following new section:

     SEC. 524. SECURE ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF CERTIFICATE OF 
                   RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY (DD FORM 
                   214).

       Section 596 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 1168 note), 
     as amended by section 523, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Secure Method of Electronic Delivery.--
       ``(1) Development and implementation.--The Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall develop and implement a secure electronic 
     method of forwarding the DD Form 214 to the appropriate 
     office specified in subsection (a)(2). The Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall ensure that the method permits such 
     offices to access the forms electronically using current 
     computer operating systems.
       ``(2) Authority to cease delivery.--In developing the 
     secure electronic method of forwarding DD Forms 214, the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure that the 
     information provided is not disclosed or used for 
     unauthorized purposes and may cease forwarding the forms 
     electronically to an office specified in subsection (a)(2) if 
     demonstrated problems arise.''.

         Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Thompson of California

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII (page 611, after 
     line 21), add the following new section:

     SEC. 2858. LAND CONVEYANCE, FERNDALE HOUSING AT CENTERVILLE 
                   BEACH NAVAL FACILITY TO CITY OF FERNDALE, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--At such time as the Navy 
     vacates the Ferndale Housing, which previously supported the 
     now closed Centerville Beach Naval Facility in the City of 
     Ferndale, California, the Secretary of the Navy may convey, 
     at fair market value, to the City of Ferndale (in this 
     section referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the parcels of real 
     property, including improvements thereon, for the purpose of 
     permitting the City to utilize the property for low- and 
     moderate-income housing for seniors, families, or both.
       (b) Reversionary Interest.--If the Secretary determines at 
     any time that the real property conveyed under subsection (a) 
     is not being used in accordance with the purpose of the 
     conveyance, all right, title, and interest in and to such 
     real property, including any improvements and appurtenant 
     easements thereto, shall, at the option of the Secretary, 
     revert to and become the property of the United States, and 
     the United States shall have the right of immediate entry 
     onto such real property. A determination by the Secretary 
     under this subsection shall be made on the record after an 
     opportunity for a hearing.
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary.
       (d) Payment of Costs of Conveyances.--
       (1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the City 
     to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary, or to 
     reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the Secretary, 
     to carry out the conveyance under subsection (a), including 
     survey costs, costs related to environmental documentation, 
     and other administrative costs related to the conveyance. If 
     amounts are collected from the city in advance of the 
     Secretary incurring the actual costs, and the amount 
     collected exceeds the costs actually incurred by the 
     Secretary to carry out the conveyance, the Secretary shall 
     refund the excess amount to the City.
       (2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as 
     reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the 
     fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by 
     the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so 
     credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account 
     and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to 
     the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund 
     or account.
       (e) Additional Term and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

                 Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Taylor

  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title I (page 37, after line 
     17), add the following new section:

     SEC. 126. CONVERSION OF CERTAIN VESSELS; LEASING RATES.

       (a) Use of Funds for Conversion.--Of the funds authorized 
     to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal 
     year 2010 for weapons procurement, Navy, for Mk-46 torpedo 
     modifications, the Secretary of the Navy may obligate not 
     more than $35,000,000 for lease and conversion of any covered 
     vessel that, as a result of default on a loan guaranteed for 
     the vessels under chapter 537 of title 46, United States 
     Code, has become the property of the United States, such that 
     the Maritime Administrator has rights to dispose of the 
     financial interest of the United States in the covered 
     vessels.
       (b) Determination of Leasing Rates.--The Maritime 
     Administrator shall coordinate with the Secretary of the Navy 
     to determine leasing rates that meet the obligation of the 
     United States with respect to any loan guarantee for the 
     vessels.
       (c) Modification to a Covered Vessel.--The Secretary of the 
     Navy may make necessary modifications to a covered vessel for 
     military utility as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Covered Vessel Defined.--In this section the term 
     ``covered vessel'' means each of--
       (1) the vessel Huakai (United States official number 
     1215902); and
       (2) the vessel Alakai (United States official number 
     1182234).

               Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XXVII (page 544, after line 10), add 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2723. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TRAFFIC MITIGATION IN 
                   VICINITY OF NATIONAL NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, 
                   BETHESDA, MARYLAND, IN RESPONSE TO INSTALLATION 
                   EXPANSION.

       Given the anticipated significant increases in local 
     traffic in the vicinity of the National Naval Medical Center, 
     Bethesda, Maryland, and the unusual impact that such traffic 
     increases will have on the surrounding community due to the 
     planned expansion of the installation, it is the sense of 
     Congress that--
       (1) multiple methods are available to the Department of 
     Defense to implement the defense access roads program 
     (section 210 of title 23, United States Code) to help 
     alleviate traffic congestion, including expansion of adjacent 
     highways, improvements to nearby intersections, on-base 
     queuing options, and multi-modal expansion, including 
     expanded support of buses and subways and other measures; and
       (2) all of the efforts to alleviate the significant traffic 
     impact need to be pursued to ensure readily available access 
     to health care at the installation.

               Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Whitfield

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 245, after line 23, add the following new subparagraph 
     (C) (and redesignate existing subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively):

       (C) the effectiveness of alternative therapies in the 
     treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, including the 
     therapeutic use of animals

        Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 9__. RECOGNITION OF AND SUPPORT FOR STATE DEFENSE 
                   FORCES.

       (a) Recognition and Support.--Section 109 of title 32, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (k) and (l), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(d) Recognition.--Congress hereby recognizes forces 
     established under subsection (c) as an integral military 
     component of the homeland security effort of the United 
     States, while reaffirming that those forces remain entirely 
     State regulated, organized, and equipped and recognizing that 
     those forces will be used for homeland security purposes 
     exclusively at the local level and in accordance with State 
     law.
       ``(e) Assistance by Department of Defense.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense may coordinate homeland security efforts 
     with, and provide assistance to, a defense force established 
     under subsection (c) to the extent such assistance is 
     requested by a State or by a force established under 
     subsection (c) and subject to the provisions of this section.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not provide assistance under 
     paragraph (1) if, in the judgment of the Secretary, such 
     assistance would--
       ``(A) impede the ability of the Department of Defense to 
     execute missions of the Department;
       ``(B) take resources away from warfighting units;
       ``(C) incur nonreimbursed identifiable costs; or
       ``(D) consume resources in a manner inconsistent with the 
     mission of the Department of Defense.
       ``(f) Use of Department of Defense Property and 
     Equipment.--The Secretary of Defense may authorize qualified 
     personnel of a force established under subsection (c) to use 
     and operate property, arms, equipment, and facilities of the 
     Department of Defense as

[[Page 16402]]

     needed in the course of training activities and State active 
     duty.
       ``(g) Transfer of Excess Equipment.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer to a State or a force established under 
     subsection (c) any personal property of the Department of 
     Defense that the Secretary determines is--
       ``(A) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense; and
       ``(B) suitable for use by a force established under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense may transfer personal 
     property under this section only if--
       ``(A) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the 
     Department of Defense;
       ``(B) the recipient force established under subsection (c) 
     accepts the property on an as-is, where-is basis;
       ``(C) the transfer is made without the expenditure of any 
     funds available to the Department of Defense for the 
     procurement of defense equipment; and
       ``(D) all costs incurred subsequent to the transfer of the 
     property are borne or reimbursed by the recipient.
       ``(3) Subject to paragraph (2)(D), the Secretary may 
     transfer personal property under this section without charge 
     to the recipient force established under subsection (c).
       ``(h) Federal/State Training Coordination.--(1) 
     Participation by a force established under subsection (c) in 
     a training program of the Department of Defense is at the 
     discretion of the State.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section may be construed as requiring 
     the Department of Defense to provide any training program to 
     any such force.
       ``(3) Any such training program shall be conducted in 
     accordance with an agreement between the Secretary of Defense 
     and the State or the force established under subsection (c) 
     if so authorized by State law.
       ``(4) Any direct costs to the Department of Defense of 
     providing training assistance to a force established under 
     subsection (c) shall be reimbursed by the State. Any 
     agreement under paragraph (3) between the Department of 
     Defense and a State or a force established under subsection 
     (c) for such training assistance shall provide for payment of 
     such costs.
       ``(i) Federal Funding of State Defense Forces.--Funds 
     available to the Department of Defense may not be made 
     available to a State defense force.
       ``(j) Liability.--Any liability for injuries or damages 
     incurred by a member of a force established under subsection 
     (c) while engaged in training activities or State active duty 
     shall be the sole responsibility of the State, regardless of 
     whether the injury or damage was incurred on United States 
     property or involved United States equipment or whether the 
     member was under direct supervision of United States 
     personnel at the time of the incident.''.
       (b) Definition of State.--
       (1) Definition.--Such section is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State' 
     includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further amended 
     in subsections (a), (b), and (c) by striking ``a State, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     or the Virgin Islands'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``a State''.
       (c) Stylistic Amendments.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``Prohibition on 
     Maintenance of Other Troops.--'' after ``(a)'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Use Within State 
     Borders.--'' after ``(b)'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``State Defense Forces 
     Authorized.--'' after ``(c)'';
       (4) in subsection (k), as redesignated by subsection 
     (a)(1), by inserting ``Effect of Membership in Defense 
     Forces.--'' after ``(k)''; and
       (5) in subsection (l), as redesignated by subsection 
     (a)(1), by inserting ``Prohibition on Reserve Component 
     Members Joining Defense Forces.--'' after ``(l)''.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Section heading.--The heading of such section is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 109. Maintenance of other troops: State defense 
       forces''.

       (2) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to such section 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``109. Maintenance of other troops: State defense forces.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, 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 minority.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend, who is on the Armed Services 
Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc 
amendment to H.R. 2647. Two specific amendments that I offered are 
included in this package. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support these efforts.
  The first modifies the congressionally mandated Report on Progress 
Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan. The amendment requires a 
comprehensive assessment that improves our understanding of the role 
being played by our coalition partners in Afghanistan.
  My amendment requires that the report include any specifics on 
existing agreements with NATO countries as well as non-NATO troop 
contributing nations regarding the following: mutually agreed upon 
goals, strategies to achieve those goals, resource and force 
requirements, and commitments of support regarding troop and resource 
levels.
  It also requires a listing of the unfulfilled commitments of 
coalition partners, as well as the location and staffing requirements 
of each provincial reconstruction team led by a nation other than the 
United States.
  The second amendment I offered allows defense facilities to receive 
financial incentives for implementing energy management policies. 
Current law permits installations to receive financial incentives for 
implementing energy management measures only from an electric utility, 
not from a third-party energy management provider.
  Andrews Air Force Base, as an example, was poised to accept $300,000 
in financial incentives for reducing their usage, but was advised that 
they had no authority to accept the incentive from an entity other than 
a utility.
  My amendment would give defense facilities the authority to accept 
these financial incentives from third-party energy management 
providers.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
While I will not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi contained in this bloc, I claim the time in opposition to 
express a concern I have about the amendment as drafted.
  Mr. Taylor's amendment would authorize the Navy to use $35 million 
from procurement of lightweight torpedoes, known as Mark-46, to convert 
two commercial ferries for military uses as intratheater lift 
platforms. These two commercial vessels were built through a Maritime 
Administration title 11 loan guarantee, which may soon be in default.
  A separate amendment in the base bill directs the Maritime 
Administration to consult with the Navy before disposing of these 
vessels should the Maritime Administration receive title to them 
through default on the loan.
  The Navy has stated that they may have an interest in the vessels, 
but would likely have to make significant improvements to them to 
render the vessels appropriate for military use. This will require some 
study and planning on the part of the Navy.
  Should the Navy determine that these vessels have military utility, I 
would not object to the Navy leasing and converting these commercial 
ferries. But I do ask the chairman and the gentleman from Mississippi 
to work with me in conference with the other body to find an alternate 
offset for this effort.
  Although the GAO has indicated that there may be nearly $50 million 
in excess funds for the lightweight torpedo program, the Navy is 
currently in negotiations with the supplier to procure at least 38 more 
torpedo upgrade kits with $23 million of this money.
  In addition, the Navy is moving to a full and open competition for 
these upgrade kits starting in fiscal year 2010. A $35 million 
reduction is more than a third of the fiscal year 2010 request and 
would substantially limit the Navy's ability to complete this program 
and continue to buy more upgrade kits.
  The Navy is using the pressure of this future competition to get the 
best price possible on these additional upgrade kits this year. These 
upgrade kits are necessary to improve the capability of these torpedoes 
against quiet, diesel electric submarines.

[[Page 16403]]

  Therefore, I will support the amendment, but hope we can work 
together to find a more suitable offset in the conference.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to our 
friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I'm grateful to Chairman Skelton for including one of 
my amendments in en bloc amendment 2 and another in en bloc amendment 
3. Both address oversight and transparency of defense contracting. The 
first will allow Members of Congress to access the contractor 
performance database created under the FY 2009 National Defense 
Authorization Act. The database collects information about civil, 
criminal, and administrative proceedings that result in a conviction or 
a finding of fault against companies holding U.S. government contracts.
  Currently, access to the database is limited to the chairman and 
ranking members of certain committees, and limits the ability of 
Congress to determine the performance of contractors.
  The second requires annual reporting on individuals responsible for 
overseeing contracts, including reports of how many dollars each 
contracting officer is responsible for and a report on how many 
contracting officers are themselves contract employees.
  In 2008, the GAO found that 42 percent of Army contract specialists 
are themselves contractors. The amendment would ensure that we have 
access to information illustrating changes in the contract oversight 
workforce that will help us in improving defense contributing.
  Mr. AKIN. I rise now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise to support the en bloc amendments. All of us 
know all too well that many young men and women returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan have suffered serious physical and emotional injuries, 
including post-traumatic stress syndrome.
  Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and Walter 
Reed have rehabilitative programs that include the therapeutic use of 
animals to treat these wounded warriors, and preliminary results show 
that these programs are particularly effective.
  In the en bloc amendment I have an amendment that simply directs the 
Department of Defense, working with HHS and the Veterans' 
Administration, to conduct a study to determine whether the therapeutic 
use of animals to treat these wounded warriors should be expanded to 
other facilities and military installations around the country.
  I urge support of the en bloc amendment and this amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in 
strong support of a great bill, the fiscal year 2010 National Defense 
Authorization Act. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud that the 
language I offered to ensure that the National Guard and Reserve 
components are represented in the overall composition and scope of the 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission has been included in the en 
bloc.
  By including the National Guard and Reserves, we ensure that the DOD 
does not present Congress with incomplete recommendations regarding the 
representation of gender- and ethnic-specific groups within the armed 
services.
  My passion is to ensure that our armed services are representative of 
America and that the leadership pipeline reflects our Nation's 
diversity. And this amendment simply ensures that when the study and 
composition of this Commission is formulated, that the National Guard 
and Reserve components are included.
  No component should be left behind in the DOD's shift to increase 
diversity in the Armed Forces. We can and we must do better for the 
sake of future gender- and ethnic-specific groups that will join the 
ranks to ensure minority representation, leadership and promote 
equality.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would yield 1 minute to our 
friend and colleague, the outstanding new Member from Florida (Mr. 
Grayson).
  Mr. GRAYSON. I want to thank the chairman of the committee for 
allowing these amendments to go forward. This is a great bill; and in 
particular, I am happy to say that we have a good amendment in here 
that will finally get ahold of the subject of cost overruns.
  I worked in defense procurement for 20 years. I worked fighting war 
profiteers in Iraq for 5 years before I came here; and one of the dirty 
dark secrets of defense contracting is the fact that contractors buy 
in. That's a term that is used by contractors to explain the situation 
where they compete for a time and materials contract or they compete 
for a cost reimbursement contract. They propose a certain cost or 
price, knowing full well they cannot meet that price. They get the 
contract, and they overcharge the government. It's a cost overrun. It 
happens every day of the week, and we need to get a fix on it so we can 
end it.
  The first amendment that I have offered on this bill, which is the 
subject of my current statement, is to have the GAO identify cost 
overruns on a systematic basis and report to Congress in 90 days. I'm 
hopeful that that will give us a good fix on the scope of this problem 
and explain to us what we can possibly do to end this terrible tragedy 
which ends up cheating the taxpayer and cheating the troops.
  Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and 
colleague from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for accepting my 
amendment.
  My amendment encourages DOD to act to recover the remains of 564 
brave men who died in the Battle of Tarawa but are still unaccounted 
for. In 1943, 1,100 servicemen were lost in 76 hours as this island was 
taken from the Japanese. The violence and speed of the battle resulted 
in makeshift graves that are now missing. Acting now to find and 
relocate the bodies is particularly important because development on 
the small island threatens the search. Most importantly, retired Marine 
William Niven has recently documented the likely locations of many of 
the unaccounted-for remains. History Flight has also used ground-
penetrating radar to find remains. But unfortunately DOD has no plans 
to conduct new research. I would like to commend Chicago Alderman James 
Balcer, a decorated Vietnam Marine, for his leadership on this issue.
  I would like to insert into the Record a resolution passed in the 
Chicago City Council, urging action on the recovery of our brave 
servicemen on Tarawa.
       Whereas, On November 20, 1943, the 2nd Division of the 
     United States Marine Corps and a part of the Army's 27th 
     Infantry Division fought in one of the bloodiest battles of 
     World War II on the Pacific atoll of Tarawa; and
       Whereas, The American invasion force, consisting of 17 
     aircraft carriers, 12 battleships, 8 heavy and 4 light 
     cruisers, 66 destroyers, and 36 transports, the largest 
     American force that had ever been assembled for a single 
     operation in the war, stormed the Japanese-held island 
     fortress of Betio on the atoll; and
       Whereas, During the 76 hours of fierce combat, 1,106 United 
     States Marines were killed in action and over 2,200 were 
     wounded in an operation that decimated over 4,500 Japanese 
     defenders; and
       Whereas, The 2nd Marine Division buried their dead in 43 
     temporary graveyards, recorded their location and departed 
     Tarawa the following month; and
       Whereas, Military records indicate that the surface of the 
     island of Betio was subsequently graded by the United States 
     Navy during the war, and temporary grave markers were 
     replaced with proper ones; and
       Whereas, However, when the United States Army went to 
     Tarawa after the end of the war to reclaim the bodies, it 
     recovered only 402 bodies, apparently because many of the 
     replacement markers were incorrectly located; and

[[Page 16404]]

       Whereas, In addition to the 402 reclaimed bodies, 118 of 
     those Marines killed in action at Tarawa were buried at sea 
     and 88 were listed as missing in action during the war, 
     leaving the bodies of nearly 500 Marines killed in action 
     unaccounted for; and
       Whereas, Recently a not-for-profit organization called 
     History Flight began an endeavor to determine the location of 
     the missing remains of the Marines, spending thousands of 
     hours researching military archives, and visiting Betio to 
     conduct interviews and to employ a firm to conduct tests with 
     ground-penetrating radar; and
       Whereas, The research produced results that found the 
     remains of some missing Marines on Betio and found strong 
     evidence that, although some of the bodies have been 
     accidently disinterred since World war II, more bodies of the 
     Marines who died on Betio can be recovered if the United 
     States Government dedicates resources to this recovery 
     effort; now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That we, the Mayor and Members of the City 
     Council of the City of Chicago, assembled this twenty-second 
     day of April, 2009, do hereby urge the United States Congress 
     to pass legislation appropriating necessary funds to the 
     United States Department of Defense so that it may recover 
     the missing bodies of the Marines who were killed in the 
     battle of Tarawa and who remain buried on the island of 
     Betio, and to relocate the bodies in accordance with the 
     wishes of the Marines' families; and we do hereby urge the 
     President of the United States to approve such legislation 
     when it is passed by the Congress; and be it
       Further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be 
     delivered to the President of the United States, the United 
     States Secretary of Defense, the President pro tempore of the 
     United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House 
     of Representatives, and each member of the Illinois 
     congressional delegation.
                                                  James A. Balcer,
                                              Alderman, 11th Ward.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. I have no further speakers, so I will continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 1 
minute to the gentlelady who is the Chair of the Water Resources 
Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank the leadership of 
the committee for this fine bill.
  My amendment requires the Department of Defense to report on the need 
for and availability of mental health care services for servicemembers 
and their families that are stationed overseas. Many face depression 
and post-traumatic stress syndrome and are suicidal risks while trying 
to recover and readjust their lives. We've had more of this because 
we've had so many military members have to go back to the same war more 
than one time, and only a small percentage of them have been able to 
get any support.
  I thank our chairman for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment to H.R. 2647, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.'' Thanks to 
the chairman of the committee Ike Skelton and ranking member McKeon.
  My amendment requires the Department of Defense to report on the need 
for and availability of mental health care services for service members 
and their families stationed outside of the United States.
  Upon leaving the battlefield, soldiers' physical wounds are only half 
of their problems.
  Mr. Chair, before being elected to public service, I was employed as 
the Chief Psychiatric Nurse at the VA Hospital in Dallas, Texas.
  I have 15 years of hands-on experience with patient care, specialized 
in mental health.
  My experience has taught me that mental health patients need to be 
treated with mercy, communication, information, and understanding.
  My amendment today simply requests that the Defense Department report 
back to Congress on whether our health care workers abroad are 
adequately trained in detecting and treating mental illness and if we 
have the adequate resources and centers to treat these patients.
  While fighting two wars, we have more veterans than ever before 
returning home.
  Many face depression, PTSD, and suicidal risk while trying to recover 
and readjust to their lives at home.
  So far, only a small percentage of servicemembers who may have been 
inflicted with PTSD or depression have been given the proper and 
necessary care.
  Patients do not receive immediate evaluations or treatment.
  They have to wait far too long to be given a sufficient amount of 
care.
  It is, therefore, vital for the Department of Defense to assess the 
availability and quality of care of mental health centers abroad.
  By gaining a proper understanding of the situation, we will be able 
to make the changes needed to aid our servicemembers through their 
recovery process.
  This is why we must work towards fully understanding mental illnesses 
and continue to improve upon the care and treatment of mental health 
patients.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. At this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for yielding. I want 
to salute him for his work on this bill and for including an amendment 
that we crafted that would promote efficiency and effectiveness within 
the Federal acquisition process. This amendment would create a 
procurement professionalism advisory panel.
  My interest in this comes from two perspectives. One was serving on 
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee last session and seeing 
many instances of fraud and abuse that we can do something about, and 
also working with contractors in my district who want to make sure that 
their partner on the other side of the table, the Federal Government, 
is strong and has good procurement.
  This advisory panel will focus on whether the government's 
procurement personnel have adequate resources, are adhering to high 
ethical standards, are receiving high-quality professional development 
and otherwise are being the best they can be, which will ensure 
efficiency and effectiveness in the procurement process.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. First of all, let me express my great gratitude to the 
chairman and ranking member for including language that I had suggested 
and also into improving general transparency in the bill.
  The language that I inserted, that hopefully will be a part of the 
manager's amendment when passed, will ask the GAO the fundamental 
question, not only how much do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost to 
our Federal taxpayers, but how much do they cost localities like mine 
where literally hundreds of thousands of hours have been lost by 
patriotic New Yorkers, particularly in homeland security jobs like 
police, fire and EMS, going off to fight on the frontlines, and yet the 
city taxpayers still wind up paying for it. Hundreds of thousands of 
hours have been lost.
  Now obviously the primary cost of the war is the lost lives and the 
injured men and women who serve for us, and we should always keep them 
in our thoughts and our prayers. But there also is a growing cost to 
localities, particularly ones with profound numbers of employees, like 
New York City has. How much is this costing? The GAO is going to have 
to come back to tell all of us in our localities how many of the 
Reservists have gone off but yet the local taxpayers still are winding 
up picking up those costs. These are important things to know. I want 
to thank the chairman for including it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
manager's amendment so it can be included in the law.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent series of amendments 
that we have placed en bloc, and I want to express my appreciation not 
only to the staff but to the minority, to the ranking member on the 
work that they have done, agreeing to these amendments and making this 
effort today move forward very, very smoothly.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chair, there is a real and current 
threat to the United States and our allies around the world from 
countries, such as Iran and North Korea, who

[[Page 16405]]

are developing with the intention to employ missiles which have 
devastating potential. With the provocative rhetoric and increasing 
missile tests by North Korea on an almost daily basis, this is not the 
time to cut funding for missile defense. I would like to commend 
Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio and Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona 
for their tireless work on the Armed Services Committee in advocating 
for the defense of our nation through a strong missile defense.
  However, Mr. Chair, I have to stand in opposition to the Franks 
Amendment that would increase funding for the Missile Defense Agency by 
$1.2 billion with offsets found in the Environmental Management fund. I 
cannot stress enough that I encourage Congress and the Administration 
to increase funding for missile defense; however, the mechanism 
proposed by this amendment is ill-advised.
  The Environmental Management program within the Department of Energy 
is responsible for cleaning up the waste of our nation's nuclear 
weapons production sites. Specifically, in the State of South Carolina, 
the Savannah River Site is a key Department of Energy industrial 
complex dedicated to the National Nuclear Security Administration 
program that supports the Department of Energy national security and 
non-proliferation programs. The Environmental Management program 
addresses the reduction of risks at the Savannah River Site through 
safe stabilization, treatment, and disposition of legacy nuclear 
materials, spent nuclear fuel, and waste. The Savannah River Site 
remains an important asset to this country as it was during the Cold 
War.
  Every member of this body is aware that the Franks amendment has 
nothing to do with reducing nuclear waste cleanup funding and that it 
has everything to do with setting spending priorities within the 
federal government. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Democrat 
majority and the Administration, a policy of fiscal restraint has been 
imposed on the Department of Defense, while the rest of the federal 
government enjoys a policy of fiscal largesse.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise to note my concerns about the Grayson 
amendment to H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010. As Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform with jurisdiction over procurement issues, I share Mr. Grayson's 
desire to ensure that our procurement process uses taxpayer dollars 
most efficiently and obtains the lowest possible prices. However, I am 
concerned that the Grayson amendment could conflict with the 
Administration's acquisition reform policies, would remove the ability 
of acquisition professionals to determine the ``Best Value'' for the 
taxpayers' dollars, and would significantly overburden the heads of 
agencies.
  President Obama made it clear in his Memorandum of March 4, 2009, 
Government Contracting, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 
Departments and Agencies, that acquisition professionals should be 
entrusted to determine the ``best value'' for taxpayer dollars in each 
procurement: ``The Federal Government has an overriding obligation to 
American taxpayers. It should perform its functions efficiently and 
effectively while ensuring that its actions result in the best value 
for the taxpayers.'' The Administration has made it clear that 
acquisition professionals ``must have the flexibility to tailor 
contracts to carry out their missions and achieve the policy goals of 
the Government.'' The Grayson amendment would unnecessarily restrict 
``Best Value'' analysis.
  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (``FAR'') defines ``Best Value'' 
as ``the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's 
estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the 
requirement.'' Instead of pre-determining the most important factors 
for consideration in an acquisition, our current system places that 
judgment in the hands of the acquisition professionals. These 
professionals tailor the evaluation factors for each individual 
acquisition to the particular needs of that acquisition. This process 
results in the ``Best Value'' for each taxpayer dollar. The FAR 
requires that price must always be considered in every source 
selection. But importantly, its importance must be considered in 
comparison to other criteria, including past performance, compliance 
with solicitation requirements, technical excellence, management 
capability, personnel qualifications, and prior experience. 
Additionally, all the factors and significant subfactors that will 
affect contract award and their relative importance must be stated 
clearly in the solicitation.
  I believe that the goal of Mr. Grayson's amendment is to prevent 
situations where price receives minimal consideration in the 
acquisition process. I share this concern, and the Committee has 
received information that price has been routinely ignored as a major 
evaluation factor. Reforms are needed to ensure that price is treated 
as a critical criterion that is not given short shrift in the best 
value analysis.
  However, the Grayson amendment would set a rigid numerical formula 
for consideration of price, which may not be appropriate in all 
circumstances. By requiring price to be ``at least equal to all other 
factors combined,'' this amendment would return our procurement process 
to the lowest price technically acceptable or sealed bid methods of the 
past, which failed to achieve the maximum yield for each tax dollar 
spent. Furthermore, this amendment would require the head of every 
agency who finds other factors more important than price (such as time 
of delivery, etc.) to issue a waiver. This process would be an 
overwhelming and unnecessary distraction for agency heads.
  Mr. Chair, my concern about this amendment is about getting the best 
value for each tax dollar spent. I would like to continue to work 
together with Mr. Grayson to address his very legitimate concerns about 
the importance of price as an evaluation factor in the procurement 
process. However for the reasons discussed above, I cannot support this 
amendment in its present form.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the en bloc 
amendment #2 which includes an amendment I offered with my colleagues 
Congressmen Braley, Tonko and Scott Murphy. 
  Mr. Chair, my district is home to the Rock Island Arsenal, the 
largest government-owned weapons manufacturing arsenal in the western 
world.
  The Arsenal Support Program Initiative, commonly known as ASPI, has 
made a critical impact on the economic development of the Rock Island 
Arsenal and surrounding communities by bringing in new business and 
creating over 500 jobs.
  Mr. Chair, ASPI was designed to help maintain the viability of our 
nation's arsenals by encouraging businesses to utilize and invest in 
the industrial base. It is also important to note that the Army 
supports ASPI because the program yields substantial cost savings for 
the government and contributes to the increased use of the industrial 
base by promoting public-private partnerships.
  Mr. Chair, the underlying bill authorizes funding to continue the 
success of ASPI, but does not reauthorize the program, which is set to 
expire this year. My amendment simply seeks to extend the program 
authority through FY2011.
  I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for 
agreeing to include my amendment in the en bloc package and urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Skelton. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 
572, I request that following consideration of amendments en bloc No. 4 
that amendment No. 20 be considered.
  The Acting CHAIR. Notice has been given.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SKELTON. What was the ruling on the previous recommendation?
  The Acting CHAIR. Notice was given to take amendment No. 20 at a 
different place in the order.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the Chair.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 111-182.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I have an amendment at the desk that was made in order 
by the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Cummings:
       After section 3505 insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate accordingly):

     SEC. 3506. DEFENSE OF VESSELS AND CARGOS AGAINST PIRACY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Protecting cargoes owned by the United States 
     Government and transported on United States-flag vessels 
     through an area designated by the Coast Guard or the 
     International Maritime Bureau of the International Chamber of 
     Commerce as an area of high risk of piracy is in our national 
     interest.
       (2) Protecting United States-citizen mariners employed on 
     United States-flag vessels transiting an area designated by 
     the Coast Guard or the International Maritime Bureau of the 
     international Chamber of Commerce

[[Page 16406]]

     as an area of high risk of piracy is in our national 
     interest.
       (3) Weapons and supplies that may be used to support 
     military operations should not fall into the hands of 
     pirates.
       (b) Embarkation of Military Personnel.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall embark military personnel on board a United 
     States-flag vessel carrying Government-impelled cargoes if 
     the vessel is--
       (1) operating in an area designated by the Coast Guard or 
     the International Maritime Bureau of the International 
     Chamber of Commerce as an area of high risk of piracy; and
       (2) determined by the Coast Guard to be at risk of being 
     boarded by pirates.
       (c) Limitation on Application.--This section shall not 
     apply with respect to an area referred to in subsection 
     (b)(1) on the earlier of--
       (1) September 30, 2011; or
       (2) the date on which the Secretary of Defense notifies the 
     Congress that the Secretary believes that there is not a 
     credible threat to United States-flag vessels carrying 
     Government-impelled cargoes operating in such area.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also extend my deep thanks 
to Chairman Skelton for working so closely with me on this amendment, 
and I applaud his leadership of the House Armed Services Committee.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, I have convened two hearings to examine maritime 
piracy, including one in May after two U.S.-flagged vessels, the Maersk 
Alabama and the Liberty Sun, both of which were carrying U.S. food aid, 
were attacked by Somali pirates. The attack against the Maersk Alabama 
left American Captain Richard Phillips hostage to the pirates. He was 
freed only through the decisive intervention of U.S. military forces.
  Incidents of piracy in the Horn of Africa region are increasing. 
According to the International Maritime Bureau, in 2008 there were 111 
actual and attempted Somali pirate attacks, resulting in the hijackings 
of 42 vessels. By mid May of this year, there had already been 114 
actual and attempted Somali pirate attacks, resulting in 29 successful 
hijackings. Nonetheless, despite the obvious threat to United States 
mariners, the Department of Defense has been inexplicably reluctant to 
directly secure U.S.-flagged vessels transiting the Horn of Africa 
region, even when they are carrying government-owned cargoes.
  While I have no doubt that our military would respond immediately if 
another U.S.-flagged vessel was attacked, the timeliness of their 
response could be hindered if Navy assets are far from the scene. 
Further, it is truly preferable to prevent an incident from occurring 
rather than to respond to a hostage situation. However, the DOD has 
repeatedly argued, including in the testimony before my subcommittee, 
that the area in which Somali pirates operate is so vast the Navy 
simply cannot prevent every attack by conducting patrols and, 
therefore, essentially merchant vessels should protect themselves. This 
perspective assumes that the only way the military can protect merchant 
shipping from pirates is to stage vessels across the entire million-
square-mile theater of operations. Frankly, there are other ways to 
protect our merchant fleet.
  The United States Maritime Administration estimates that 
approximately 54 U.S.-flagged vessels transit the Horn of Africa region 
during the course of a year. Of these, about 40 will carry U.S. 
Government food aid cargoes, and 44 have the ability to carry U.S. 
military cargoes. Only a handful of these vessels, fewer than 10 in a 
3-month period, are estimated to be at serious risk of attack by 
pirates due to their operating characteristics.
  Given these figures, my amendment would require the Department of 
Defense to embark military security personnel on U.S.-flagged vessels 
carrying United States Government cargoes when they transit pirate-
infested waters if they are deemed to be at risk of being boarded by 
pirates.
  Mr. Chairman, U.S. maritime labor unions collectively testified 
before my subcommittee in support of the immediate provision to U.S.-
flagged vessels by the government of ``the force protection necessary 
to prevent any further acts of piracy against them.'' In keeping with 
that position, the Transportation Trades Department of The AFL-CIO; the 
Masters, Mates and Pilots Union; the Marine Engineers' Beneficial 
Association and others support this legislation. The maritime unions 
also wrote in their testimony, ``When a vessel flies the United States 
flag, it becomes an extension of the United States itself, regardless 
of where in the world the vessel is operating.''
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, while I will not oppose the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland, I claim the time in opposition 
to express some reservations I have about the amendment.
  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.
  The gentleman from Maryland's amendment would require the Secretary 
of Defense to place military personnel on U.S.-flagged vessels 
operating in high-risk piracy areas of the world's oceans. The 
gentleman's intention is good. All Americans are outraged about the 
recent outbreak of piracy and desire a comprehensive solution. But we 
also must recognize that commercial shipping lines bear responsibility 
to secure their cargoes and should not be given free protection by U.S. 
military personnel everywhere in the world. The solution to piracy 
cannot simply be a military one. Additionally, the sad fact is that the 
bulk of U.S. cargo and U.S. citizens travel on ships that are not U.S.-
flagged vessels and would not be protected by this amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Further, the Navy and Marine Corps do not have a sufficient number of 
Embarked Security Teams, known as ESTs, which receive specialized 
training, to protect even the relatively small number of U.S. flagged 
vessels. Based on operational tempo and dwell times, set by the Chief 
of Naval Operations, it's clear that expanding the deployment of ESTs 
would negatively impact other existing operational commitments. For 
this reason and others, the Navy does not support placing ESTs on U.S. 
flagged vessels for protection from pirates nor does the commander of 
Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral Gortney.
  The Navy has also pointed out that embarking U.S. servicemembers on 
nonsovereign immune vessels presents legal issues, including possible 
criminal and civil liability for the servicemembers.
  Therefore, while I will not oppose this amendment because the 
underlying purpose is good, I would ask the chairman and the gentleman 
from Maryland to work with me in conference with the other body to 
develop a lasting solution that protects United States' interests and 
does not place an undue burden on the Navy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, just before I yield to our chairman, I 
want to just say to the gentleman we are talking about only providing 
security to U.S. flagged vessels carrying United States Government 
cargoes operated by United States citizens. Surely we can provide that.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. There 
may be a requirement to redraft part of it at a future date, but I 
think the purpose and the intent are correct.
  Piracy is here. It's an age-old problem. From the Marines' hymn the 
phrase ``to the shores of Tripoli,'' that was a successful antipiracy 
effort on behalf of the United States Marines.
  We have to do our very best to protect America, American vessels, 
Americans that are sailing the ships, and particularly the government 
cargo

[[Page 16407]]

that's on them. So I applaud Mr. Cummings for making this substantial 
step in the right direction in combating piracy.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the body to pass this 
amendment. I think it's a very important amendment. We have heard the 
testimony in our subcommittee and this is an appropriate way to address 
it. It's a reasonable way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in House Report 111-182.
  Mr. HOLT. 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. 34 offered by Mr. Holt:
       At the end of subtitle E of title X (page 374, after line 
     6), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1055. REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEOTAPING OR OTHERWISE 
                   ELECTRONICALLY RECORDING STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE 
                   INTERROGATIONS OF PERSONS IN THE CUSTODY OF OR 
                   UNDER THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In January 2009, the Secretary of Defense tasked a 
     special Department of Defense team to review the conditions 
     of confinement at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 
     ensure all detainees there are being held ``in conformity 
     with all applicable laws governing the conditions of 
     confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva 
     Conventions'', pursuant to the President's Executive Order on 
     Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the 
     Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention 
     Facilities, dated January 22, 2009.
       (2) That review, led by Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, included 
     as one of its five key recommendations the following 
     statement: ``Fourth, we endorse the use of video recording in 
     all camps and for all interrogations. The use of video 
     recordings to confirm humane treatment could be an important 
     enabler for detainee operations. Just as internal controls 
     provide standardization, the use of video recordings provides 
     the capability to monitor performance and maintain 
     accountability.''.
       (3) Congress concurs and finds that the implementation of 
     such a detainee videorecording requirement within the 
     Department of Defense is in the national security interest of 
     the United States.
       (b) In General.--In accordance with the Army Field Manual 
     on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM 2-22.3, 
     September 2006), or any successor thereto, and the guidelines 
     developed pursuant to subsection (f), the Secretary of 
     Defense shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure 
     the videotaping or otherwise electronically recording of each 
     strategic intelligence interrogation of any person who is in 
     the custody or under the effective control of the Department 
     of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense 
     facility.
       (c) Classification of Information.--To protect United 
     States national security, the safety of the individuals 
     conducting or assisting in the conduct of a strategic 
     intelligence interrogation, and the privacy of persons 
     described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide for the appropriate classification of video tapes or 
     other electronic recordings made pursuant to subsection (b). 
     The use of such classified video tapes or other electronic 
     recordings in proceedings conducted under the Detainee 
     Treatment Act of 2005 (title 14 of Public Law 109-163 and 
     title 10 of Public Law 109-148), the Military Commissions Act 
     of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948 et seq.; Public Law 109-366), or any 
     other provision of law shall be governed by applicable rules, 
     regulations, and law.
       (d) Strategic Intelligence Interrogation Defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term ``strategic intelligence 
     interrogation'' means an interrogation of a person described 
     in subsection (b) conducted at a theater-level detention 
     facility.
       (e) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     as requiring--
       (1) any member of the Armed Forces engaged in direct combat 
     operations to videotape or otherwise electronically record a 
     person described in subsection (b); or
       (2) the videotaping or other electronic recording of 
     tactical questioning, as such term is defined in the Army 
     Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM 
     2-22.3, September 2006), or any successor thereto.
       (f) Guidelines for Videotape and Other Electronic 
     Recordings.--
       (1) Development of guidelines.--The Secretary of Defense, 
     acting through the Judge Advocates General (as defined in 
     section 801(1) of title 10, United States Code, (Article 1 of 
     the Uniform Code of Military Justice)), shall develop and 
     adopt uniform guidelines designed to ensure that the 
     videotaping or other electronic recording required under 
     subsection (b), at a minimum--
       (A) promotes full compliance with the laws of the United 
     States;
       (B) is maintained for a length of time that serves the 
     interests of justice in cases for which trials are being or 
     may be conducted pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act of 
     2005 (title 14 of Public Law 109-163 and title 10 of Public 
     Law 109-148), the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 
     948 et seq.; Public Law 109-366), or any other provision of 
     law;
       (C) promotes the exploitation of intelligence; and
       (D) ensures the safety of all participants in the 
     interrogations.
       (2) Submittal to congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing 
     the guidelines developed under paragraph (1). Such report 
     shall be in an unclassified form but may include a classified 
     annex.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. I particularly want to thank the distinguished chairman of 
the committee, our friend, Mr. Skelton, for his support of this 
amendment. It is identical to the amendment passed by the House during 
consideration of the 2009 Defense Authorization last year with the 
exception of some changes in the findings which I think strengthen the 
case for this amendment. A similar intelligence-focused, CIA-focused 
detainee video recording provision was included in the fiscal year 2010 
Intelligence Authorization Act that was voted out of the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last week.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment's purpose is simple. It is to improve the 
intelligence operations of our Armed Forces by ensuring the video 
recording of each strategic interrogation of any person who is in the 
control or detention of the Department of Defense.
  Let me be clear: this amendment does not impede combat operations. 
The bill explicitly states that troops in the field in contact with the 
enemy shall not be required to videotape or otherwise record tactical 
questioning.
  It does require the Secretary of Defense to promulgate and provide to 
the Congress guidelines under which video recording of detainees shall 
be done. It does require that the recordings be properly classified and 
maintained securely just as any foreign intelligence information should 
be. It does require that the recordings be maintained for an 
appropriate length of time. What is the reason for this amendment? 
Because multiple studies have documented the benefits of video 
recording or electronically recording interrogations. Law enforcement 
organizations across the United States routinely use the practice both 
to protect the person being interrogated and the officer conducting the 
interrogations. It is the standard of best practice.
  Some U.S. attorneys are on record as favoring this requirement for 
the FBI. And the Customs and Border Patrol does routinely videotape or 
electronically record key interactions and interrogations with those in 
their custody. Video recording is the standard within the United States 
for interrogations of all types in all agencies and for prosecutors.
  Well, what about the Department of Defense? Is it appropriate there? 
Earlier this year a task force convened by Secretary of Defense Gates 
to review our detainee policies issued its report. This is known as the 
``Walsh Report.'' The report was unequivocal. It said: ``We endorse the 
use of video recording in all camps and for all interrogations. The use 
of video recording to confirm humane treatment could be an important 
enabler for detainee operations. Just as internal controls provide 
standardization, the use of video recordings

[[Page 16408]]

provides the capability to monitor performance and to maintain 
accountability.''
  But more than this, more than maintaining the standards for behavior 
in the interrogation room, it strengthens our ability to collect 
intelligence and understand what's going on. The amendment would 
strengthen previous laws passed by Congress regarding the treatment of 
detainees, and it would maximize our intelligence collections from such 
interrogations.
  In fact, the origin of this amendment came from my questioning of 
interrogators. When I asked how they get maximum information of nuances 
of language, languages that the interrogators might not have real 
fluency with. Who reviews the tapes? I said. And they said, There are 
no tapes. By having tapes, we can get the maximum benefit of the 
interrogation.
  This amendment is endorsed by major human rights organizations. It's 
been certified by CBO not to result in additional spending. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield, if he wishes, such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Chairman.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecuting attorney, I speak 
in favor of this amendment.
  It serves two purposes. First, it protects our men and women in 
uniform who are conducting interrogations of detainees from frivolous 
claims of alleged abuse or coercion. Second, the videotapes will act as 
a deterrent for private contractors or other agencies who are 
conducting interrogations of the Department of Defense detainees from 
straying from those requirements of the Army field manual in the 
treatment of detainees. It is a way to ensure that it is done right. 
And when you have a correctly conducted interrogation, in all 
probability the results will be positive. I certainly think this is a 
major step in the right direction. Videotaping is good.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has 
expired.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have been down this road before. Last year Mr. Holt proposed a 
similar amendment to our bill. In response we received statements from 
the Army and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence stating 
their opposition to mandatory videotaping and interrogations. Today the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense has informed us that the Department 
strongly opposes this amendment.
  According to DOD, the provision would cause three main problems: it 
would severely restrict the collection of intelligence through 
interrogations. It would undercut the Department's ability to recruit 
sources. And it would impose an unreasonable administrative and 
logistical burden on the warfighter. A provision like this would create 
a public record that would go straight into terrorists' counter-
resistance training programs.
  I strongly, as I said, oppose this amendment.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in great deference and respect 
for my chairman and Mr. Holt in this difference of opinion.
  I think there's a great significant difference between collection of 
data in interrogations conducted in a law enforcement arena in which 
the evidence is gathered to go into a court of law to be presented with 
a proper chain of evidence and that the sources and methods are not 
necessarily needed to be protected versus the interrogations that go on 
every day in the battle against Islamic jihadists. I don't believe that 
those interrogations routinely should be videotaped.
  We are in an argument right now with respect to data, photographs and 
videos, taken between September 11, 2001, and January 2, 2009, as to 
whether or not that data should be made public. I, for one, believe it 
should not be made public. There are differences of opinion on that. I 
personally think we need to legislate a fix to prevent those 
photographs from being put in the public domain and further inflaming 
the Islamic jihadists whom we oppose.
  So I would oppose this videotaping because I think, as my ranking 
member has said, it works against our efforts to try to get 
intelligence on the fly and it will work against us. So with that I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, just to again reiterate what the Department 
of Defense has told us, this is a statement that we received yesterday 
afternoon from the Department of Defense. I would like to read just a 
couple of things from it:
  ``The Department of Defense strongly opposes the provision because it 
would severely restrict the collection of intelligence through 
interrogations, undercut the Department's ability to recruit sources, 
and impose an unreasonable administrative and logistical burden on the 
warfighter.
  ``A statutory video recording requirement will be a matter of public 
record. Detainees will, therefore, know through counter-resistance 
training that anything they say will be recorded and may be used 
against them publicly, in a courtroom, or to gain leverage with other 
detainees. This will inhibit detainees from cooperating with 
interrogators and undercut the interrogators' most effective technique, 
establishing rapport with the detainees. Moreover, if a video recording 
is, in fact, released to the public and it becomes known that a 
detainee has collaborated with U.S. intelligence, the safety of the 
detainee and his family would be jeopardized.
  ``Even if a detainee agrees to be recorded, there is a tendency for 
both the detainee and the interrogator to `play to the camera,' 
creating an artificiality to the questioning, thereby degrading the 
quality of the intelligence information.''

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  The communication which you speak of came from a mid-level official 
at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense has not spoken on this. This 
is not a statement of administration policy against this. The only 
formal statement comes from the Walsh report, which I quoted from 
earlier, which said, We endorse the use of video recordings in all 
camps for all interrogations.
  Perhaps this mid-level official at the Pentagon has not received the 
word that currently there are being developed improved procedures for 
detention and interrogation in this new administration.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, the mid-level official is a lieutenant 
colonel. I think that is fairly high-ranking, field officer, and I 
think the record, as he stated, stands for itself. He is a legislative 
officer with the department.
  The lieutenant colonel will not state on the record something that 
opposes his higher rank. I think we all know that.
  With that, I urge all us to defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, 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 New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The ACTING CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in House Report 111-182.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a amendment at the desk, No. 39.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 16409]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 39 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       At the end of subtitle H of title V (page 175, after line 
     11), add the following new section:

     SEC. 586. OVERSEAS VOTING ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment; Duties.--There is hereby established the 
     Overseas Voting Advisory Board (hereafter in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Board'').
       (b) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall conduct studies and issue 
     reports with respect to the following issues:
       (A) The ability of citizens of the United States who reside 
     outside of the United States to register to vote and vote in 
     elections for public office.
       (B) Methods to promote voter registration and voting among 
     such citizens.
       (C) The effectiveness of the Director of the Federal Voting 
     Assistance Program under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
     Absentee Voting Act in assisting such citizens in registering 
     to vote and casting votes in elections.
       (D) The effectiveness of the administration and enforcement 
     of the requirements of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
     Absentee Voting Act.
       (E) The need for the enactment of legislation or the 
     adoption of administrative actions to ensure that all 
     Americans who are away from the jurisdiction in which they 
     are eligible to vote because they live overseas or serve in 
     the military (or are a spouse or dependent of someone who 
     serves in the military) are able to register to vote and vote 
     in elections for public office.
       (2) Reports.--In addition to issuing such reports as it 
     considers appropriate, the Board shall transmit to Congress a 
     report not later than March 31 of each year describing its 
     activities during the previous year, and shall include in 
     that report such recommendations as the Board considers 
     appropriate for legislative or administrative action, 
     including the provision of funding, to address the issues 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Committee hearings on annual report.--During each year, 
     the Committees on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate, the Committee on House 
     Administration of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may each 
     hold a hearing on the annual report submitted by the Board 
     under paragraph (2).
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 5 members 
     appointed by the President not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, of whom--
       (A) 1 shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
       (B) 1 shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) 1 shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the Majority Leader of the Senate; and
       (D) 1 shall be appointed from among a list of nominees 
     submitted by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (2) Qualifications.--An individual may serve as a member of 
     the Board only if the individual has experience in election 
     administration and resides or has resided for an extended 
     period of time overseas (as a member of the uniformed 
     services or as a civilian), except that the President shall 
     ensure that at least one member of the Board is a citizen who 
     resides overseas while serving on the Board.
       (3) Terms of service.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     each member shall be appointed for a term of 4 years. A 
     member may be reappointed for additional terms.
       (B) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Board shall be filled in 
     the manner in which the original appointment was made. Any 
     member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the 
     expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was 
     appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of that 
     term. A member may serve after the expiration of that 
     member's term until a successor has taken office.
       (4) Pay.--
       (A) No pay for service.--A member shall serve without pay, 
     except that a member shall receive travel expenses, including 
     per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with 
     applicable provisions under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (B) Reimbursement of travel expenses by director.--Upon 
     request of the Chairperson of the Board, the Director of the 
     Federal Voting Assistance Program under the Uniformed and 
     Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act shall, from amounts 
     made available for the salaries and expenses of the Director, 
     reimburse the Board for any travel expenses paid on behalf of 
     a member under subparagraph (A).
       (5) Quorum.--3 members of the Board shall constitute a 
     quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (6) Chairperson.--The members of the Board shall designate 
     one member to serve as Chairperson.
       (d) Staff.--
       (1) Authority to appoint.--Subject to rules prescribed the 
     Board, the chairperson may appoint and fix the pay of such 
     staff as the chairperson considers necessary.
       (2) Application of civil service laws.--The staff of the 
     Board shall be appointed subject to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and shall be paid in accordance with the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     that title relating to classification and General Schedule 
     pay rates.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--Subject to rules prescribed 
     by the Board, the Chairperson may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (4) Staff of federal agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Chairperson, the head of any Federal department or agency may 
     detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that 
     department or agency to the Board to assist it in carrying 
     out its duties under this Act.
       (e) Powers.--
       (1) Hearings and sessions.--The Board may, for the purpose 
     of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act at times 
     and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as the Board 
     considers appropriate. The Board may administer oaths or 
     affirmations to witnesses appearing before it.
       (2) Obtaining official data.--The Board may secure directly 
     from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this Act. 
     Upon request of the Chairperson, the head of that department 
     or agency shall furnish that information to the Board.
       (3) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (4) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Board, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Board, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Board to 
     carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Board such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this section for fiscal year 2010 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment would establish an overseas voting advisory board to 
provide guidance and oversight to the Federal Voting Assistance 
Program's efforts to increase ballot access for military and overseas 
voters.
  I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman Skelton for his 
support of this amendment.
  The Voting Assistance Program, which is part of the Department of 
Defense, is the government's primary entity for assisting overseas 
voters' access to the ballot, including men and women serving in the 
military and Americans living abroad, who are our unofficial 
ambassadors. With the global economy, more and more Americans will be 
living abroad, and we need to make sure that their voices and votes are 
counted.
  While the State Department cannot give an exact number, there are 
estimated to be between 4 and 6 million Americans living abroad. There 
are also hundreds of thousands of brave men and women abroad from 
Afghanistan to Germany, serving our country in the Armed Forces.
  In recent election cycles, the Voting Assistance Program has failed 
to bring about increased overseas voting participation, even with 
extreme and increased cost to the taxpayer.
  For example, in 2004, the Integrated Voting Assistance System, 
created by the Voting Assistance Program, cost over $500,000 with only 
17 overseas voters participating. In 2006, the Voting Assistance 
Program did even worse by spending over $1.1 million on the same voting 
system, but it accounted for an increase of only eight votes placed in 
the system.
  In 2008, the Voting Assistance Program Web site to help active 
members in the military to vote wasn't even put up and operative until 
July, just 4 months prior to the November election. From July 23 
through November 4, 2008, of the roughly 1.6 million servicemembers 
across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, only 780 
servicemembers requested ballots through the program. This really is 
disgraceful and

[[Page 16410]]

disrespectful to the sacrifices made by our fighting men and women.
  Mr. Honda and I have offered this amendment to address the issues to 
overseas military and civilian voting now long before the next 
election. This panel will provide oversight for the Federal program 
that has struggled in a mission to ensure greater ballot access for 
Americans overseas and our military. The program's longtime director 
resigned her post in 2008, and at that time it appeared that the next 
director would be chosen in a closed process.
  Along with many Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, we 
sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging him to conduct a 
fair and open hiring process for the program.
  I am pleased that Secretary Gates did a national search and selected 
Mr. Robert Carey to be the next program director. I know and I respect 
his experience, and I believe he will bring fresh ideas and workable 
solutions to improve ballot access for all Americans living abroad.
  And while he is very capable and will certainly bring long-awaited 
and much-needed overhaul of the program, the advisory panel will add 
additional strength, expertise, and depth and support for his efforts.
  By passing this amendment, which will establish an oversight board, 
we can guarantee that the best policies are being pursued to provide 
better access to the ballot by bringing greater attention and support 
for the Voting Assistance Program for Americans living abroad for our 
military.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, and I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
although I won't oppose the amendment.
  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.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish an overseas advisory 
board.
  Now, that will not be to tell people how to vote?
  Mrs. MALONEY. Absolutely not. The purpose of the board is to increase 
voter participation. And in a global economy, believe me, there will be 
more and more Americans living abroad. We now have hundreds of 
thousands of military living abroad.
  Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time.
  This will work to improve the process by which our men and women in 
uniform who are serving outside the United States register and vote in 
State and local and Federal elections.
  I understand that Congress is already working to improve this 
process. I also understand that the Federal Voting Assistance Program, 
which is responsible for assisting our troops with the voting process, 
has a newly appointed director who will begin his duties next month.
  With that, I support efforts to increase the opportunities for our 
servicemembers to vote. I congratulate the gentlelady from New York for 
bringing forth this amendment, and especially while they are serving in 
combat.
  I know we have had questions during elections whether their votes 
were counted, whether they got back in time. So I really appreciate the 
effort she makes on their behalf and, therefore, I support and urge all 
of our Members to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
support.
  It certainly is a bipartisan effort to increase voter participation 
in our country, particularly for our brave men and women living abroad 
and serving in the military. In this new global economy, more and more 
Americans will be working abroad. This is a common goal for our 
Congress and for our democracy.
  I thank the gentleman for his support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer 
amendments en bloc entitled No. 3.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc printed in House Report 111-182 consisting of 
amendments numbered 43, 44, 7, 25, 27, 33, 46, 51, 52, and 54 offered 
by Mr. Skelton.


               Amendment No. 43 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII (page 291, after line 2), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 830. ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR INVENTORY 
                   RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES.

       (a) Additional Reporting Requirements.--Section 2330a(c)(1) 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) With respect to such contracts for services--
       ``(i) the ratio between the number of individuals 
     responsible for awarding and overseeing such contracts to the 
     amount obligated or expended on such contracts; and
       ``(ii) the number of individuals responsible for awarding 
     and overseeing such contracts who are themselves 
     contractors.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2011 and fiscal years 
     thereafter.


                Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Schrader

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 244, after line 
     8), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 708. NOTIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF 
                   EXPOSURE TO POTENTIALLY HARMFUL MATERIALS AND 
                   CONTAMINANTS.

       (a) Notification Required.--In the case of a member of the 
     Armed Forces who is exposed to a potentially harmful material 
     or contaminant, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     the Secretary shall, as soon as possible, notify the member, 
     and in the case of a member of a reserve component, the State 
     military department of the member, of the member's exposure 
     to such material or contaminant and any health risks 
     associated with exposure to such material or contaminant.
       (b) In-Theater Notification.--If the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that a member of the Armed Forces has been exposed 
     to a potentially harmful material or contaminant while that 
     member is deployed, the Secretary shall notify the member of 
     such exposure under subsection (a) while that member is so 
     deployed.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V (page 180, line 11), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 594. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR ADDITIONAL RESERVE COMPONENT 
                   MEMBERS.

        Section 1044(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``the Secretary of Defense), for a period 
     of time, prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary), for a period of time (prescribed 
     by the Secretary)''.


           Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Davis of Kentucky

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 352, after line 12, add the following:

     SEC. 1039. STUDY ON NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONAL CAREER 
                   DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.

       (a) Study Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate 
     an Executive agency to commission a study by an appropriate 
     independent, non-profit organization. The organization 
     selected shall study the design and implementation of an 
     interagency system for the career development and support of 
     national security professionals. The organization selected 
     shall be qualified on the basis of having performed related 
     work in the fields of national security and human capital 
     development, and on the basis of such other criteria as the 
     head of the Executive agency may determine.
       (b) Matters Considered.--The study required by subsection 
     (a) shall, at a minimum, include the following:
       (1) The qualifications required to certify an employee as a 
     national security professional.
       (2) Methods for identifying and designating positions 
     within the Federal Government which require the knowledge, 
     skills and aptitudes of a national security professional.
       (3) The essential elements required for an accredited 
     interagency national security professional education system.
       (4) A system for training national security professionals 
     to ensure they develop and

[[Page 16411]]

     maintain the qualifications identified under paragraph (1).
       (5) An institutional structure for managing a national 
     security professional career development system.
       (6) Potential mechanisms for funding a national security 
     professional career development program.
       (c) Report.--A report containing the findings and 
     recommendations resulting from the study required by 
     subsection (a), together with any views or recommendations of 
     the President, shall be submitted to Congress by December 1, 
     2010.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``employee'' has the meaning given such term 
     by section 2105 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (3) the term ``national security professional'' means, with 
     respect to an employee of an Executive agency, an employee of 
     such agency in a position relating to the planning of, 
     coordination of, or participation in, interagency national 
     security operations.

                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 244, after line 
     8), add the following new section:

     SEC. 708. POST-DEPLOYMENT MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Demonstration Project Required.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall conduct a demonstration project to assess the 
     feasibility and efficacy of providing a member of the Armed 
     Forces with a post-deployment mental health screening that is 
     conducted in person by a mental health provider.
       (b) Elements.--The demonstration project shall include, at 
     a minimum, the following elements:
       (1) A combat stress evaluation conducted in person by a 
     qualified mental health professional not later than 120 to 
     180 days after the date on which the member returns from 
     combat theater.
       (2) Follow-ups by a case manager (who may or may not be 
     stationed at the same military installation as the member) 
     conducted by telephone at the following intervals after the 
     initial post-deployment screening:
       (A) Six months.
       (B) 12 months.
       (C) 18 months.
       (D) 24 months.
       (c) Requirements of Combat Stress Evaluation.--The combat 
     stress evaluation required by subsection (b)(1) shall be 
     designed to--
       (1) provide members of the Armed Forces with an objective 
     mental health and traumatic brain injury standard to screen 
     for suicide risk factors;
       (2) ease post-deployment transition by allowing members to 
     be honest in their assessments;
       (3) battle the stigma of depression and mental health 
     problems among members and veterans; and
       (4) ultimately reduce the prevalence of suicide among 
     veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
     Freedom.
       (d) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
     the demonstration project in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services. The Secretary of Defense may also coordinate the 
     program with any accredited college, university, hospital-
     based or community-based mental health center the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       (e) Selection of Military Installation.--The demonstration 
     project shall be conducted at two military installations, one 
     active duty and one reserve component demobilization station, 
     selected by the Secretary of Defense. The installations 
     selected shall have members of the Armed Forces on active 
     duty and members of the reserve components that use the 
     installation as a training and operating base, with members 
     routinely deploying in support of operations in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, and other assignments related to the global war 
     on terrorism.
       (f) Personnel Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     ensure an adequate number of the following personnel in the 
     program:
       (1) Qualified mental health professionals that are licensed 
     psychologists, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, licensed 
     professional counselors, or clinical social workers.
       (2) Suicide prevention counselors.
       (g) Timeline.--
       (1) The demonstration project required by this section 
     shall be implemented not later than September 30, 2010.
       (2) Authority for this demonstration project shall expire 
     on September 30, 2012.
       (h) Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees--
       (1) a plan to implement the demonstration project, 
     including site selection and criteria for choosing the site, 
     not later than June 1, 2010;
       (2) an interim report every 180 days thereafter; and
       (3) a final report detailing the results not later than 
     January 1, 2013.

                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Holden

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

        At the end of subtitle G of title V (page 158, after line 
     9), add the following new section:

     SEC. 575. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMBAT MEDEVAC BADGE.

       (a) Army.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 357 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 3757. Combat Medevac Badge

       ``(a) Issuance.--The Secretary of the Army shall issue a 
     badge of appropriate design, to be known as the Combat 
     Medevac Badge, to each person who while a member of the Army 
     served in combat on or after June 25, 1950, as a pilot or 
     crew member of a helicopter medical evacuation ambulance and 
     who meets the requirements for the award of that badge.
       ``(b) Eligibility Requirements.--The Secretary of the Army 
     shall prescribe requirements for eligibility for the Combat 
     Medevac Badge.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``3757. Combat Medevac Badge''.

       (b) Navy and Marine Corps.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 567 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 6259. Combat Medevac Badge

       ``(a) Issuance.--The Secretary of the Navy shall issue a 
     badge of appropriate design, to be known as the Combat 
     Medevac Badge, to each person who while a member of the Navy 
     or Marine Corps served in combat on or after June 25, 1950, 
     as a pilot or crew member of a helicopter medical evacuation 
     ambulance and who meets the requirements for the award of 
     that badge.
       ``(b) Eligibility Requirements.--The Secretary of the Navy 
     shall prescribe requirements for eligibility for the Combat 
     Medevac Badge.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``6259. Combat Medevac Badge''.

       (c) Air Force.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 857 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 8757. Combat Medevac Badge

       ``(a) Issuance.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall issue 
     a badge of appropriate design, to be known as the Combat 
     Medevac Badge, to each person who while a member of the Air 
     Force served in combat on or after June 25, 1950, as a pilot 
     or crew member of a helicopter medical evacuation ambulance 
     and who meets the requirements for the award of that badge.
       ``(b) Eligibility Requirements.--The Secretary of the Air 
     Force shall prescribe requirements for eligibility for the 
     Combat Medevac Badge.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``8757. Combat Medevac Badge''.

       (d) Award for Service Before Date of Enactment.--In the 
     case of persons who, while a member of the Armed Forces, 
     served in combat as a pilot or crew member of a helicopter 
     medical evacuation ambulance during the period beginning on 
     June 25, 1950, and ending on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall 
     issue the Combat Medevac Badge--
       (1) to each such person who is known to the Secretary 
     before the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) to each such person with respect to whom an application 
     for the issuance of the badge is made to the Secretary after 
     such date in such manner, and within such time period, as the 
     Secretary may require.

          Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle H of title V (page 175, after line 
     11), add the following new section:

     SEC. 586. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT ON INTRA-FAMILIAL 
                   ABDUCTION OF CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the intra-familial abduction to foreign countries of children 
     of members of the Armed Forces constitutes a grave violation 
     of the rights of military parents whose children are abducted 
     and poses a significant threat to the psychological well-
     being and development of the abducted children.
       (b) Report on Intra-Familial Child Abduction Effecting 
     Active Duty Military Personnel.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and not later than December 31 
     of calendar year 2010 and each December 31 thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the

[[Page 16412]]

     Senate and House of Representatives a report on the programs, 
     projects, and activities carried out by the Department of 
     Defense to assist members of the Armed Forces whose children 
     are abducted.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include information concerning the following:
       (A) The total number of children abducted from military 
     parents, with a breakdown of the number of children abducted 
     to each country that is a party to the Hague Convention on 
     the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 
     ``Hague Convention'') and each country that is not a party to 
     the Hague Convention.
       (B) The total number of children abducted from military 
     parents who were returned to their military parent, with a 
     breakdown of the number of children returned from each 
     country that is a party to the Hague Convention and each 
     country that is not a party to the Hague Convention, 
     including the average length of time per country that the 
     children spent separated from their military parent, whether 
     the Department of Defense helped facilitate any of the 
     returns, specific actions taken to facilitate the return, and 
     other Departments involved.
       (C) Whether these numbers are shared with the Department of 
     State for inclusion in the Report on Compliance with the 
     Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 
     Abduction.
       (D) An assessment as to how international child abductions 
     impact the force readiness of affected military personnel.
       (E) An assessment of the effectiveness of the centralized 
     office within the Department of Defense responsible for 
     implementing measures to prevent international child 
     abductions and to provide assistance to military personnel, 
     including--
       (i) the coordination of international child abduction-
     related issues between the relevant agencies and departments 
     with the Department of Defense;
       (ii) the education of appropriate personnel;
       (iii) the coordination with family support offices and 
     other applicable agencies, both within the United States and 
     in host countries, to implement mechanisms for assistance to 
     left behind parents;
       (iv) the coordination with the Department of State and 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to provide 
     assistance to left behind parents in obtaining the return of 
     their children; and
       (v) the collection of the data required by subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       (F) An assessment of the current availability of, and 
     additional need for assistance, including general 
     information, psychological counseling, financial assistance, 
     leave for travel, legal services, and the contact information 
     for the office identified in subparagraph (E), provided by 
     the Department of Defense to left behind military parents for 
     the purpose of obtaining the return of their abducted 
     children and ensuring the force readiness of military 
     personnel.
       (G) The means through which available services, 
     information, and activities relating to international child 
     abductions are communicated to left behind military parents.
       (H) The proportion of identified left behind military 
     parents who utilize the services and activities referred to 
     in subparagraph (F).
       (I) Measures taken by the Department of Defense, including 
     any written policy guidelines, to prevent the abduction of 
     children.
       (J) The means by which military personnel are educated on 
     the risks of international child abduction, particularly when 
     they first arrive on a base abroad or when the military 
     receives notice that the personnel is considering marriage or 
     divorce abroad.
       (K) The training provided to those who supply legal 
     assistance to military personnel, in particular the Armed 
     Forces Legal Assistance Offices, on the legal aspects of 
     international child abduction and legal options available to 
     left behind military parents, including the risks of 
     conferring jurisdiction on the host country court system by 
     applying for child custody in the host country court system.
       (L) Which of the Status of Forces Agreements negotiated 
     with host countries, if any, are written to protect the 
     ability of a member of the Armed Forces to have international 
     child abduction cases adjudicated in the member's State of 
     legal residence.
       (M) The feasibility of including in present and future 
     Status of Forces Agreements a framework for the expeditious 
     and just resolution of intra-familial child abduction.
       (N) Identification of potential strategies for engagement 
     with host countries with high incidences of military 
     international child abductions.
       (O) Whether the Department of Defense has engaged in joint 
     efforts with the State Department to provide a forum, such as 
     a conference, for left behind military parents to share their 
     experiences, network, and develop best practices for securing 
     the return of abducted children, and the assistance provided 
     for left behind parents to attend such an event.
       (P) Whether the Department of Defense currently partners 
     with, or intends to partner with, civilian experts on 
     International Child Abduction, to understand the 
     psychological and social implications of this issue upon 
     Department of Defense personnel, and to help develop an 
     effective awareness campaign and training.


                Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 57, line 13, insert ``and the proposed radars'' after 
     ``proposed interceptor''.


                Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 67, after line 
     5), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 227. STUDY ON DISCRIMINATION CAPABILITIES OF MISSILE 
                   DEFENSE SYSTEM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the JASON Defense Advisory Panel under which 
     JASON shall carry out a study on the technical and scientific 
     feasibility of the discrimination capabilities of the missile 
     defense system of the United States, as such system is 
     designed and conceived as of the date of the study.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the study.
       (c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means the following:
       (1) The Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, and 
     Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) The Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, and 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

                  Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Walz

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 244, after line 
     8), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 708. REPORT ON JOINT VIRTUAL LIFETIME ELECTRONIC RECORD.

       Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary of Defense, 
     in coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the progress that has been 
     made on the establishment, announced by the President on 
     April 9, 2009, of a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record 
     for members of the Armed Forces to improve the quality of 
     medical care and create a seamless integration between the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
     The report shall--
       (1) explain what steps compose the Secretaries' plan to 
     fully achieve the establishment of the seamless record system 
     between the two departments;
       (2) identify any unforeseen obstacles that have arisen that 
     may require legislative action; and
       (3) explain how the plan relates to the mandate in section 
     1635 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note) that the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs jointly develop and implement, by September 
     30, 2009, electronic health record systems or capabilities 
     that allow for full interoperability of personal health care 
     information between the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) each will control for 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 the majority and 
the minority.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis) wishes to propose a colloquy, and I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to gain a better understanding of the 
status of the policy and law on the service of gay men and lesbians in 
the military, commonly referred to as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The law 
and policy, established in 1993, disrupts unit cohesion as gay and 
lesbian servicemen and women worry constantly--``who knows what''--
about their private lives.
  Given the objective of the President to repeal the law and the 
evidence that the law and policy harmed military readiness and morale, 
what will be the strategy of the Committee on Armed Services for 
assessing this law?
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. It's fair 
to say that much has happened since the law was adopted back in 1993, 
and I propose that the committee will continue to engage in a 
deliberative process to hear perspectives from all sides

[[Page 16413]]

of the debate, but particularly to understand the perspectives of the 
civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense and the 
perspectives of ordinary servicemembers.
  If we conclude that repeal is the appropriate course, the success of 
the change will hinge on our full understanding of the implications of 
the change and the development of a law and policy that will preserve 
the readiness and morale of our military forces. Certainly hearings 
will be at the heart of the committee's effort to determine those 
necessary facts.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, can we expect hearings to be conducted this 
summer?
  Mr. SKELTON. Our Military Personnel Subcommittee has already held one 
hearing with outside experts. We will clearly need to hear the 
perspectives of the Department of Defense as well. Since the civilian 
leadership responsible for personnel matters within the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense has not yet been announced, I don't believe it 
would be appropriate to begin a formal reassessment process until the 
new Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness has been allowed to 
settle into the position. But the committee will continue to hold 
hearings.
  Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  At this point, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to the growing chorus 
calling for the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law.
  As you have suggested, many years have passed since the law has been 
adopted, and I believe that many of the reasons that the Members of 
Congress found compelling in 1993 will be considered outdated by 
current servicemembers and the American public today.
  Mr. Chairman, I know our schedule in Armed Services is challenging, 
but I would encourage you to consider conducting hearings at the 
earliest possible date in the hope of correcting this policy that I 
believe undermines national security and military readiness.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman for his comments and I thank the 
chairman for the opportunity to discuss the issue.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding and for his help and the chairman's help in making this 
amendment, my amendment, part of the en bloc amendment.
  This amendment requires the Department of Defense, Mr. Chairman, to 
report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with 
their children, suffer from intrafamilial international child 
abduction. The international movement of our servicemembers make them 
especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction.
  Attorneys familiar with this phenomenon estimate that there are 
approximately 25 to 30 new cases of international child abductions 
affecting our servicemembers every year. One man, Commander Paul 
Toland, recently came into my office largely because of the publicity 
about David Goldman and his son, Sean Goldman, the Brazilian case that 
I have been working on. He heard about it, and he came in and said, You 
have got to hear my story. And it is a heartbreaking story.
  Commander Toland was deployed to Yokohama, Japan. He and his wife, 
regrettably, had a split.

                              {time}  1330

  She is now tragically deceased. And yet for approximately 6 long 
years, he has been trying to get his daughter back and has been unable 
to. The custody of his child is with the maternal grandparents. Again, 
he has not been able to get his own child back. Commander Toland 
received poor advice from the Naval Legal Services Officer on how to 
adjudicate the case. Have others?
  Be advised, The amendment will not entangle the Department of Defense 
in custody disputes. Rather it will instruct the Department of Defense 
to study and produce a comprehensive report to Congress about what they 
are doing to ensure that our servicemembers are receiving preventive 
education, legal protections and other assistance needed to avoid and, 
when necessary, resolve the international abduction of their children. 
This is the least we can do for those who serve our nation.
  Our servicemen and women risk much in the service of our Nation. We 
must do all that we can to mitigate the risks to their families. I 
thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, especially the 
ranking member and the distinguished Chair.
  I rise in support of the amendment to require the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the plight of our service 
members who, along with their children, suffer from intra-familial and 
international child abduction. The international movements of our 
service men and women make them especially vulnerable to the risks of 
international child abduction. This amendment will require a study to 
pinpoint the extent of the problem within our armed services and what 
the DOD is doing to prevent and remedy international child abduction 
within the armed services.
  The particular issue of international child abduction came to my 
attention with the Sean Goldman case. As many of you know, Sean Goldman 
was abducted to Brazil by his mother for a family vacation when Sean 
was four years old. His mother divorced his father and refused to 
return the child to the United States, which was Sean's country of 
habitual residence and consequently should have been the legal 
jurisdiction in which custody was decided. Sean's father has been 
fighting for the return of his son for five years. Sean's mother is now 
deceased, and Sean's father still cannot get him back.
  Since my involvement with this case, I have been receiving calls from 
parents left behind in an international child abduction--the particular 
plight of military parents caught my attention. Military parents are at 
heightened risk because they often marry when they are serving this 
country abroad, and may live in numerous countries, including the 
United States, while they build a family with their spouse. Upon 
divorce, one parent sometimes whisks the child away to a legal 
jurisdiction unfavorable to the left behind parent.
  Such was the case of Commander Paul Toland, whose infant daughter was 
abducted by his estranged wife while he was stationed on our naval base 
in Yokohama, Japan. When he sought help from the Naval Legal Services 
Office on base, he was told to hire a local lawyer and deal with the 
issue himself in Japanese courts.
  Whether through lack of training by the DOD or lack of attention by 
the personnel, this very wrong advice from the Naval Legal Services 
Office directed Commander Toland to give up the legal jurisdiction of 
his home state and engage with a foreign legal jurisdiction that has 
NEVER returned a child to the United States. Commander Toland's former 
wife is now deceased, his daughter lives with her ailing grandmother in 
Japan, and he still cannot get her back. The fight has been six long 
years, and it continues with little hope.
  Attorneys familiar with this phenomena estimate that there are 
approximately 25-30 new cases of international child abductions 
affecting our service men and women every year. Our service men and 
women risk much in their service to our nation. The DOD must do what it 
can to minimize their risks.
  This amendment would not entangle the Department of Defense in 
custody disputes. Rather, this amendment will instruct the DOD to share 
with Congress what they are doing to ensure that our service men and 
women are receiving the preventative education, legal protection, and 
other assistance needed to avoid and resolve the international 
abduction of their children. This amendment asks the Department of 
Defense to report to Congress on the following items:
  The total number of children abducted from military parents;
  The total number of children who were later returned to left behind 
military parents;
  What the DOD did to facilitate any of the returns, and what sorts of 
assistance the DOD offers to military parents--such as psychological 
counseling, financial assistance, legal services, and leave for travel;
  The means through which available services, information, and 
activities relating to international child abductions are communicated 
to left behind military parents;
  The training provided to those who supply legal assistance to the 
left behind military parents;

[[Page 16414]]

  Measures taken by the DOD to prevent abductions;
  Which of the Status of Forces Agreements negotiated with host 
countries are written to protect the military parent's ability to 
adjudicate abduction cases in the parent's state of legal residence;
  The feasibility of including in present and future Status of Forces 
Agreements a framework for the resolution of child abduction;
  Identification of potential strategies for engagement with host 
countries with high incidence of international child abductions;
  Whether the DOD coordinates on abductions with other departments, 
such as the U.S. Department of State;
  Whether the DOD currently partners with, or intends to partner with, 
civilian experts on international child abduction;
  Whether the DOD has engaged in joint efforts with the U.S. Department 
of State to provide a forum, such as a conference, for left behind 
military parents to share experiences, network and develop best 
practices for securing the return of abducted children;
   An assessment as to how international child abductions impact the 
force readiness of our service members.
  We all want to do right by our service men and women. The study 
called for by this amendment will give us a window into what we are 
already doing, and what we can do better to protect our service men and 
women from the frustration and anguish of international child 
abduction.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me flash back to a previous amendment, 
the Akin-Forbes amendment. I just received a letter from the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, dated today, regarding that amendment, which 
reads in part, While the Department supports transparency in 
government, we find the amendment as written directing the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report on every employee covered under a 
nondisclosure agreement as overly burdensome and counterproductive in 
meeting the security challenges of today.
  I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, also a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Skelton's 
outstanding work on the underlying bill and also to support that 
portion of the en bloc amendment which sets up a mental health 
screening demonstration project cosponsored by Congresswoman DeLauro, 
Congressman McMahon of New York and myself.
  This is an issue which addresses probably the most concerning issue 
that Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, spoke to the Armed 
Services Committee about, which is the stress levels of our troops who 
have been repeatedly deployed in military conflict. General Odierno had 
a number of us over in December. Again, his number one concern was the 
uncomfortable and outrageous amount of suicides which is occurring in 
theater. I was with General Bagby in Europe a couple of weeks ago, who 
again stated that that is the biggest challenge facing our Armed Forces 
in Europe, who, again, are made up of many troops who have served in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. And the present system of screening for returning 
troops is simply to fill out a questionnaire. That is not enough.
  This amendment will set up a demonstration project with a face-to-
face evaluation with a mental health professional. This is the type of 
process that we need to deal with this unprecedented challenge.
  Again, I urge strong support for the en bloc amendment which includes 
this important component.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield, at this time, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) 4 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment that 
will enable our Nation to more effectively plan and execute national 
security and interagency operations.
  To enhance our national security, we must be able to effectively 
integrate the military and nonmilitary elements of our national power. 
This requires the effective integration of all agencies of the Federal 
Government, not only those with traditional national security roles. 
However, achieving highly integrated national security interagency 
planning and execution requires personnel who have the knowledge, 
skills and attributes to plan and participate in these interagency 
operations. At present, there is no permanent, institutionalized system 
for developing the skills and experience required.
  Examples abound of the need for this change, and I will cite two 
briefly. My first relates to our ongoing interagency operations in 
Afghanistan, and I commend President Obama for his determination to 
pursue an integrated interagency approach to resolving that conflict.
  As our national security community knows, helping the Afghan 
Government create a secure and stable society requires, among other 
things, that we assist farmers in growing crops other than poppies, 
which are used to produce opium. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has never been used before now to provide personnel in 
support of operations like those in Afghanistan. Instead, the military 
has been required to fill the gap with people without agricultural 
experience.
  While our soldiers are very adaptable, we would be better off if USDA 
were routinely engaged in overseas national security operations with 
other agencies, military and civilian, of the Federal Government.
  Next I cite our experience in Iraq. In the early days of the Iraq 
occupation, there was no modern banking system in Iraq, and Iraqi 
security forces could only be paid in cash, which required them to 
leave their units and to spend days away from their units taking money 
home to their families. During this period, the deputy Treasury 
Secretary told me that if he was given the go-ahead, he was prepared to 
help Iraq establish a modern, electronic banking system which would 
have, among other things, enabled Iraqi soldiers to get their pay at 
home without leaving their units and ongoing combat operations.
  If Treasury, and in particular a Treasury cadre of national security 
professionals, had been properly involved early on, the problem and 
rise of criminal gangs and militias could have been mitigated sooner, 
thereby contributing to increased Iraqi combat power, lightening the 
load on our troops during a very difficult period.
  My amendment, simply put, would require the President to commission a 
study by an executive agency to develop national security professionals 
across departments of the Federal Government to provide skilled 
personnel for planning and conducting national security interagency 
operations.
  It is critical that we achieve a transformation in national security 
education, training and interagency experience to produce national 
security professionals who are able to work seamlessly together. By 
requiring the President to commission such a study on an interagency 
national security professionals program, my amendment lays the 
foundation for that transformation.
  I commend Chairman Skelton. He has spent a lifetime supporting 
defense reforms going back to Goldwater-Nichols and championing these 
reforms to further integrate our national security tools moving into 
the 21st century.
  I thank Ranking Member McKeon for his work on this issue during my 4 
years on the Armed Services Committee and continuing now as our ranking 
member on the committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).
  Mr. WALZ. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
crafting a bill to keep this Nation safe and provide care for our 
warriors and their families.
  I would also like to thank you for accepting this amendment as part 
of the en bloc amendment. It is a very simple amendment I'm offering 
that is asking that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, submit a report to Congress by the end 
of the year telling us what progress they have made on the 
establishment of a joint virtual lifetime electronic medical record. 
This is to bring about seamless transition from when our warriors leave 
the service until they enter into the VA system, making sure they don't 
encounter

[[Page 16415]]

all of the bureaucratic troubles, the holdups and the delays in 
processing of their claims.
  As a 24-year veteran of our Armed Forces, I can tell you this is a 
critically important issue. It was backed and announced on April 9 by 
the President. This amendment will allow Congress to do its most 
critical function of oversight of the executive branch to make sure we 
are making progress to ensure the quality care of our veterans.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including it in a 
very fine bipartisan bill.
  My amendment is very simple and, I believe, very significant: it 
would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to submit to Congress a report on the 
progress that has been made on the establishment of a Joint Virtual 
Lifetime Electronic Record for members of the Armed Forces to improve 
the quality of medical care and create a seamless integration between 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The 
President announced on April 9 of this year that his Secretary of 
Defense and Secretary of VA would be working toward establishing that 
Joint Virtual Lifetime Record. My amendment simply aims to make sure 
the administration is doing what it says it would do, and to make sure 
that any required legislative assistance is identified. My amendment 
performs the crucial congressional oversight function of holding the 
administration accountable on its commitments. And this is a truly 
significant commitment, because it is widely understood that such a 
shared record system between DoD and VA is one of the keys to 
successfully providing our returning servicemen and women what we call 
a seamless transition as they return to civilian life. As a 24-year 
veteran of the National Guard and a member of the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I know both from experience and from careful study 
that this challenge of ensuring that DoD and VA, two enormous and 
complex organizations with different missions, are cooperating to make 
sure that our troops, when they return home and become veterans, do not 
fall through the cracks at that moment is both one of the most 
difficult things to achieve and one of the best for guaranteeing that 
our veterans receive the best care possible ever after. I appreciate 
all the efforts the House Armed Services Committee has made to this 
effort, and I respectfully request that my amendment be included among 
them.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I would be 
happy to yield 2 minutes to the chairman.
  Mr. SKELTON. I certainly thank the gentleman for that. I yield 1 
minute to my friend, a very special lady, the Chair of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA, 
the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. According to the Army, 143 soldiers committed suicide in 
2008, the highest rate since the Army began keeping records nearly 
three decades ago.
  Mr. Chairman, after asking our men and women in uniform to sacrifice 
so much, the very least that we must do is to ensure that they get the 
care they deserve.
  This amendment, based on the Sergeant Jonathan Schulze Military 
Mental Health Services Improvement Act, is about making sure our troops 
receive adequate pre- and postdeployment mental health evaluations. It 
directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a demonstration project at 
two military installations, one Active Duty and one Reserve, to assess 
the feasibility and efficacy of providing face-to-face post-deployment 
mental health screenings between a member of the Armed Forces and a 
mental health provider.
  The 2-year project will include a combat stress evaluation conducted 
by a qualified mental health professional within 120 to 180 days of the 
date the soldier returns, and a case manager will follow up.
  Let me say thank you to Chairman Skelton for his collaboration and 
his commitment to this issue. We have no excuse for failing the 
soldiers who have given this Nation everything. Let's give them a long 
life, good health and quality care.
  Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, the time remaining, please.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The gentleman from California has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment which I offer along 
with my esteemed colleague from Connecticut, the great Congresswoman 
Rosa DeLauro, together with my great colleague from Connecticut, Joe 
Courtney, and my great colleague from the great State of New Mexico, 
Harry Teague.
  Like my colleagues, I too am alarmed at the statistics coming out of 
the armed services. Nearly 150 soldiers took their lives last year, the 
highest figures since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.
  In 2009, it is already reporting 64 potential active-duty Army 
suicides. One-to-one mental health screenings with a certified mental 
health professional is the least that we can offer to our servicemen 
and women that sacrifice so much for this country.
  This amendment creates a well thought-out pilot program that would 
assess the feasibility of such screenings and would hopefully lead to 
legislation in a broader sense.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues here today to support this 
amendment on behalf of the men and women who serve this country so 
proudly.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)
  Mr. TIERNEY. I want to thank the chairman for the time and for the 
bill that he has put on the floor today.
  I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, particularly because it 
includes two amendments that were made in order under the rule. The 
bill as reported by the committee specifies that no funds may be 
obligated for the deployment of a long-range missile defense system in 
Europe until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress 
certifying that the proposed interceptor that is going to be deployed 
has been realistically flight-tested and has demonstrated a high 
probability of working in an operational manner. That makes perfect 
sense.
  In recent months, those studies have been conducted by various 
independent scientists, and they have shown that the radar proposed for 
the Czech Republic does not have enough range to perform effectively. 
As my colleagues know, the interceptors' capabilities are dependent on 
the ability and the accuracy of the radar. That is why I believe that 
it is imperative that the Secretary's report also certify about the 
proposed radars, and that first amendment requires just that.
  The second amendment directs the JASON panel, which has been 
providing independent scientific advice and consultation to the 
government since 1960 on matters of defense, science and technology, to 
conduct a study on whether the discrimination capabilities being sought 
by the Missile Defense Agency are achievable.
  The system has to be evaluated by its ability to successfully 
distinguish between an enemy's missile and any accompanying decoys 
countermeasures. And right now, there is little evidence to suggest 
that the system can make those kinds of distinctions.
  Furthermore, this is a big challenge. As Dr. Phil Coyle, who was the 
former director of operational test and evaluation at the Pentagon 
noted during a hearing that we convened, ``shooting down an enemy 
missile going 17,000 miles per hour is like trying to hit a hole-in-one 
in golf when the hole is going 17,000 miles per hour. If an enemy uses 
decoys and countermeasures, missile defense is like trying to shoot a 
hole-in-one while the hole is going 17,000 miles per hour and the green 
is covered with black circles the same size as the hole. The defender 
doesn't know what target to aim for.''
  So this report should inform Congress on whether or not the ballistic 
missile defense system will actually be able to employ discrimination 
technology.
  So I hope to thank Chairman Skelton for approving these amendments in 
the en bloc package. I believe they will provide important oversight 
over the missile defense system.

[[Page 16416]]

  And finally, as one who has long believed Congress must reexamine how 
it funds this program, I'm delighted that it takes a small but 
important step in reducing by $1.2 billion the funding for these 
programs. I hope it is the beginning of a trend on the way we go.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this third en 
bloc amendment. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
McKeon for including the LoBiondo, Delahunt, Coble, Taylor amendment in 
this bloc.
  A couple of weeks ago I met with Master Chief Petty Officer of the 
Coast Guard, Skip Bowen, to discuss benefits available to Coast Guard 
service members.
  He brought to my attention the fact that current law provides active 
duty members of the Armed Forces and Coast Guard and their dependents 
with access to legal assistance in connection with their personal civil 
affairs. The law also grants eligibility to certain DoD reservists who 
are called to active duty for more than 30 days. Unfortunately, the law 
does not provide the same eligibility to similarly situated Coast Guard 
reservists.
  I am offering this amendment with Representatives Delahunt and Coble, 
two Coast Guard veterans, to ensure current Coast Guard reservists have 
access to the same legal assistance as other DoD reservists upon 
release from active duty.
  This legal assistance is critical in helping reservists understand 
their rights under the Uniformed Services Reemployment Rights Act, the 
Service member's Civil Relief Act, as well as probate, housing, 
consumer and tax laws.
  There are currently over 8,100 reservists in the USCG, including over 
a hundred serving on active duty in Iraq providing port and waterways 
security.
  I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for working with me on this 
important issue and I encourage all members to support this en bloc 
amendment.
  Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chair, I'm very happy to rise in support of this 
amendment and thank my colleagues for their work on this very important 
issue, especially the distinguished Gentlelady from Connecticut, 
Congresswoman DeLauro. I also thank Chairman Skelton and Chairwoman 
Slaughter for the opportunity to consider this amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  As you all may know, I recently I introduced H.R. 2931, the Kyle 
Barthel Veterans and Service Members Mental Health Screening Act. The 
bill calls for mandatory confidential mental health screenings for 
members of the Armed Forces. By requiring the in person screenings, we 
can reduce the stigma associated with the unseen injuries sustained by 
our men and women in uniform and ensure that these brave soldiers and 
veterans receive the treatment they need and deserve. Ultimately, by 
mandating in person mental health screenings, we will reduce the 
incidence of suicides and substance abuse among active duty personnel 
and veterans.
  When I introduced this bill, I named it after a young man whose life 
was cut too short because we as a nation failed to give him the mental 
health treatment he needed and deserved. It is my belief that mandating 
screenings by a qualified mental health professional for every member 
of the military is the only way to begin indentifying and treating the 
invisible wounds of war.
  While I would have liked an across the board mental health screening 
mandate to be a part of this bill, I also realize that we need to walk 
before we run. I believe that this amendment is the first step on the 
road to effective mental health illness prevention and treatment for 
service members and veterans.
  Mr. Chair, I don't want to lose another Kyle. I don't want to lose 
another fine American service member or veteran to an invisible but 
very real illness. I don't want to ever have to go to another mother, 
father, wife, or husband or brother or sister and say ``I'm sorry we 
didn't do enough''.
  Let's stand together and protect the health of our service members 
and veterans. Support this amendment, and work with me to mandate 
mental health screenings for service members in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment and thank Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh for their tireless work on behalf of 
the men and women of our Armed Services. I would also like to 
congratulate Congressman McHugh and wish him luck as he transitions to 
his new post as Secretary of the Army.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Skelton en bloc amendment 
which includes legislation I introduced requiring the Department of 
Defense to notify any member of the Armed Forces who is exposed to a 
potentially harmful material or contaminant and inform them of the 
health risks associated with that exposure. In the case the exposed 
soldier is a member of a reserve component, the Secretary of Defense 
will be required to notify the State military department.
  Back in March I spoke with one of my constituents, Larry Roberta, a 
member of the Oregon National Guard who is suffering the health effects 
of being exposed to toxic chemicals on the battlefield. In 2003, while 
serving in Iraq, Oregon National Guard Members like Larry were 
unknowingly exposed to Hexavalent Chromium while assigned to protect 
contractors rebuilding a water treatment facility near Iraqi oil 
fields. The problem with chemicals like Hexavalent Chromium is they can 
cause severe illnesses that may not appear until months or years after 
the exposure.
  Their exposure to this cancerous agent was withheld from them while 
they were in the theater, and many of our soldiers are still unaware 
the symptoms they are experiencing may be related to a toxic exposure. 
Fast forward six years and the Oregon Guard is still having a difficult 
time tracking down all the soldiers they feel may have been exposed.
  The estimated number of exposed Oregon soldiers is in the hundreds--
many of these soldiers are still unaware they may have been exposed to 
toxic substances that are impacting their health. Had there been a 
notification requirement and protocol in place it is very likely these 
soldiers would be identified, aware of their situation, and able to 
seek the appropriate care they need.
  We're within days of sending 3,000 of Oregon's finest to the Middle 
East. This amendment provides them with added security and protection 
they need, and frankly deserve. I'd like to thank Chairman Skelton and 
Ranking Member McHugh for their support to address this critical issue 
that has impacted so many of Oregon's citizen soldiers, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the adoption of this important amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on this en bloc 
amendment. I yield back.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer 
amendments en bloc entitled No. 4.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc printed in House Report 111-182 consisting of 
amendments numbered 55, 57, 59, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 65, and 60 offered 
by Mr. Skelton:


                 Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI (page 134, after line 24), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 665. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON COST TO CITIES AND 
                   OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT COVER THE DIFFERENCE 
                   BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE'S MILITARY SALARY AND 
                   MUNICIPAL SALARY.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the costs incurred by cities and other 
     municipalities that elect to cover the difference between--
       (1) an employee's military salary when that employee is a 
     member of a reserve component and called or ordered to active 
     duty; and
       (2) the municipal salary of the employee.


                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mr. Griffith

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 67, after line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REAFFIRMING THE REQUIREMENT TO 
                   THOROUGHLY CONSIDER THE ROLE OF BALLISTIC 
                   MISSILE DEFENSES DURING THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE 
                   REVIEW AND THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress passed and the President signed the National 
     Missile Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law: 106-38), which 
     stated: ``It is the policy of the United States to deploy as 
     soon as is technologically possible an effective National 
     Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of 
     the United States against limited ballistic missile attack 
     (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate).''
       (2) Section 118 of title 10, United States Code requires 
     the Secretary of Defense ``every four years, during a year 
     following a year evenly divisible by four, to conduct a 
     comprehensive examination (to be known as a''Quadrennial 
     Defense Review``) of the national defense strategy, force 
     structure,

[[Page 16417]]

     force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and 
     other elements of the defense program and policies of the 
     United States with a view toward determining and expressing 
     the defense strategy of the United States and establishing a 
     defense program for the next 20 years.''
       (3) Among the requirements established by section 118 of 
     title 10, United States Code, for the elements that must be 
     included in the Quadrennial Defense Review are the following:
       (A) The threats to the assumed or defined national security 
     interests of the United States that were examined for the 
     purposes of the review and the scenarios developed in the 
     examination of those threats.
       (B) The specific capabilities, including the general number 
     and type of specific military platforms, needed to achieve 
     the strategic and warfighting objectives identified in the 
     review.
       (C) The effect on force structure of the use by the armed 
     forces of technologies anticipated to be available for the 
     ensuing 20 years.
       (4) Section 1070 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-116) requires the 
     Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the 
     nuclear posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10 
     years ``in order to clarify United States nuclear deterrence 
     policy and strategy for the near term.''
       (5) Among the requirements established by section 1070 of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
     for the elements that must be included in the nuclear posture 
     review is ``[t]he role that missile defense capabilities and 
     conventional strike forces play in determining the role and 
     size of nuclear forces.''
       (6) The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the 
     Strategic Posture of the United States, issued on May 7, 
     2009, concluded: ``Missile defenses can play a useful role in 
     supporting the basic objectives of deterrence, broadly 
     defined. Defenses that are effective against regional 
     aggressors are a valuable component of the U.S. strategic 
     posture. The United States should develop and, where 
     appropriate, deploy missile defenses against regional nuclear 
     aggressors, including against limited long-range threats. 
     These can also be beneficial for limiting damage if 
     deterrence fails. The United States should ensure that its 
     actions do not lead Russia or China to take actions that 
     increase the threat to the United States and its allies and 
     friends.''
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Defense should thoroughly consider the role 
     of ballistic missile defenses during the Quadrennial Defense 
     Review and the Nuclear Posture Review.


                  Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 244, after line 
     8), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 708. SUICIDE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL READY 
                   RESERVE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that veterans who are members 
     of the Individual Ready Reserve (in this section referred to 
     as the ``IRR'') and are not assigned to units that muster 
     regularly and have an established support structure are less 
     likely to be helped by existing suicide prevention programs 
     run by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       (b) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that 
     all covered members receive a counseling call from properly 
     trained personnel not less than once every 90 days so long as 
     the member remains a member of the IRR.
       (c) Personnel.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary 
     shall ensure the following:
       (1) Personnel conducting calls determine the emotional, 
     psychological, medical, and career needs and concerns of the 
     covered member.  
       (2) Any covered member identified as being at-risk of self-
     caused harm is referred to the nearest military medical 
     treatment facility or accredited TRICARE provider for 
     immediate evaluation and treatment by a qualified mental 
     health care provider.
       (3) If a covered member is identified under paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall confirm that the member has received the 
     evaluation and any necessary treatment.  
       (d) Report.--Not later than January 31 of each year, 
     beginning in 2010, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the number of IRR members not assigned to units who 
     have been referred for counseling or mental health treatment, 
     as well as the health and career status of such members.
       (e) Covered Member Defined.--In this section, a ``covered 
     member'' is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve who has 
     completed at least one tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

                 Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Sestak

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 244, after line 
     8), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 708. TREATMENT OF AUTISM UNDER TRICARE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1077 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(18) In accordance with subsection (g), treatment of 
     autism spectrum disorders.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g)(1) For purposes of subsection (a)(18), and to the 
     extent that appropriated funds are available for the purposes 
     of this subsection, treatment of autism spectrum disorders 
     shall be provided if a health care professional determines 
     that the treatment is medically necessary. Such treatment 
     shall include the following:
       ``(A) Habilitative or rehabilitative care.
       ``(B) Pharmaceutical agents.
       ``(C) Psychiatric care.
       ``(D) Psychological care.
       ``(E) Speech therapy.
       ``(F) Occupational therapy.
       ``(G) Physical therapy.
       ``(H) Group therapy, if a health care professional 
     determines it necessary to develop, maintain, or restore the 
     skills of the beneficiary.
       ``(I) Any other care or treatment that a health care 
     professional determines medically necessary.
       ``(2) Beneficiaries under the age of five who have 
     developmental delays and are considered at-risk for autism 
     may not be denied access to treatment described by paragraph 
     (1) if a health care professional determines that the 
     treatment is medically necessary.
       ``(3) The Secretary may not consider the use of applied 
     behavior analysis or other structured behavior programs under 
     this section to be special education for purposes of section 
     1079(a)(9) of this title.
       ``(4) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that--
       ``(A) a person who is authorized to provide applied 
     behavior analysis or other structured behavior programs is 
     licensed or certified by a state, the Behavior Analyst 
     Certification Board, or other accredited national 
     certification board; and
       ``(B) if applied behavior analysis or other structured 
     behavior program is provided by an employee or contractor of 
     a person authorized to provide such treatment, the employee 
     or contractor shall meet minimum qualifications, training, 
     and supervision requirements consistent with business best 
     practices in the field of behavior analysis and autism 
     services.
       ``(5)(A) This subsection shall not apply to a medicare-
     eligible beneficiary.
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (A), nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed as limiting or otherwise 
     affecting the benefits provided to a medicare-eligible 
     beneficiary under--
       ``(i) this chapter;
       ``(ii) part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395c et seq.); or
       ``(iii) any other law.
       ``(6) In this section:
       ``(A) The term `autism spectrum disorders' includes 
     autistic disorder, Asperger's syndrome, and any of the 
     pervasive developmental disorders as defined by the most 
     recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
     Mental Disorders.
       ``(B) The term `habilitative and rehabilitative care' 
     includes--
       ``(i) professional counseling;
       ``(ii) guidance service;
       ``(iii) treatment programs, including not more than 40 
     hours per week of applied behavior analysis; and
       ``(iv) other structured behavior programs that a health 
     care professional determines necessary to develop, improve, 
     maintain, or restore the functions of the beneficiary.
       ``(C) The term `health care professional' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1094(e)(2) of this title.
       ``(D) The term `medicare-eligible' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 1111(b) of this title.''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     section 1077(a)(18) of title 10, United States Code, as added 
     by subsection (a).
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Funding increase.--The amount otherwise provided by 
     section 1403 for TRICARE funding is hereby increased by 
     $50,000,000 to provide funds to carry out section 1077(a)(18) 
     of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).
       (2) Offsetting reduction.--
       Reduce the amount of Operation and Maintenance, Army, by 
     $25,000,000 to be derived from the Service-wide 
     Communications.
       Reduce the amount of Operations and Maintenance, Navy, by 
     $15,000,000, to be derived from Service-wide Communications.
       Reduce the amount of Research Development Test & 
     Evaluation, by $10,000,000, to be derived from Advanced 
     Aerospace Systems Integrated Sensor IS Structure, PE 68286E


               Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. McDermott

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

[[Page 16418]]



     SEC. 12XX. MAP OF MINERAL-RICH ZONES AND AREAS UNDER THE 
                   CONTROL OF ARMED GROUPS IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 
                   OF THE CONGO.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, shall, consistent 
     with the recommendation from the United Nations Group of 
     Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo in their 
     December 2008 report, work with other member states of the 
     United Nations and local and international nongovernmental 
     organizations--
       (1) to produce a map of mineral-rich zones and areas under 
     the control of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the 
     Congo; and
       (2) to make such map available to the public.

     The map required under this subsection shall be known as the 
     ``Congo Conflict Minerals Map''. Mines located in areas under 
     the control of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the 
     Congo, as depicted on the Congo Conflict Minerals Map, shall 
     be known as ``conflict zone mines''.
       (b) Updates.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall update the map required by 
     subsection (a) not less frequently than once every 180 days 
     until the Secretary of Defense certifies that no armed party 
     to any ongoing armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of 
     the Congo or any other country is involved in the mining, 
     sale, or export of columbite-tantalite, cassiterite, 
     wolframite, or gold, or the control thereof, or derives 
     benefits from such activities.


                 Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Schiff

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 86, after line 16, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 248. AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
                   ADMINISTRATION FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT CENTERS TO PARTICIPATE IN MERIT-
                   BASED TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 217(f)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat 2695) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) A federally funded research and development center of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that 
     functions primarily as a research laboratory may respond to 
     broad agency announcements under programs authorized by the 
     Federal Government for the purpose of promoting the research, 
     development, demonstration, or transfer of technology in a 
     manner consistent with the terms and conditions of such 
     program, for activities including, but not limited to, those 
     conducted by the center under contract with or on behalf of 
     the Department of Defense or through transfer of funds from 
     the Department of Defense to the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration.''.


                Amendment No. 68 Offered by Ms. Bordallo

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

          TITLE XVI--GUAM WORLD WAR II LOYALTY RECOGNITION ACT

     SEC. 1601. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 1602. 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. 1603. 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 
     1606(a), after receipt of certification pursuant to section 
     1604(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 
     1604(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 
     1604(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. 1604. 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 1603.
       (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 1603 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 1603 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.

[[Page 16419]]

     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 
     1603.
       (9) Treatment of affidavits.--For purposes of section 1603 
     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 1603(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 1603 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.
       (11) Penalty for false claims.--The provisions of section 
     1001 of title 18 of the United States Code (relating to 
     criminal penalties for false statements) apply to claims 
     submitted under this subsection.

     SEC. 1605. GRANTS PROGRAM TO MEMORIALIZE THE OCCUPATION OF 
                   GUAM DURING WORLD WAR II.

       (a) Establishment.--Subject to section 1606(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. 1606. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Guam World War II Claims Payments and Adjudication.--
     For purposes of carrying out sections 1603 and 1604, 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 1605, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2013.


                Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Grayson

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 830. REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF FACTORS OTHER 
                   THAN COST OR PRICE AS THE PREDOMINATE FACTORS 
                   IN EVALUATING COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS FOR DEFENSE 
                   PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS.

       (a) Requirement.--Subparagraph (A) of section 2305(a)(2) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i); and
       (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) in the case of a solicitation in which factors 
     other than cost or price when combined are more important 
     than cost or price, the reasons why assigning at least equal 
     importance to cost or price would not better serve the 
     Government's interest; and''.
       (b) Report.--Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress, and 
     post on a publicly available website of the Department of 
     Defense, a report describing the solicitations for which a 
     statement pursuant to paragraph (2)(A)(iii) was included.''.


           Amendment No. 65 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI (page 230, after line 22), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 665. POSTAL BENEFITS PROGRAM FOR SENDING FREE MAIL TO 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SERVING IN CERTAIN 
                   OVERSEAS OPERATIONS AND HOSPITALIZED MEMBERS.

       (a) Availability of Postal Benefits.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the United States Postal 
     Service, shall provide for a program under which postal 
     benefits are provided during fiscal year 2010 to qualified 
     individuals in accordance with this section.
       (b) Qualified Individual.--In this section, the term 
     ``qualified individual'' means a member of the Armed Forces 
     described in subsection (a)(1) of section 3401 of title 39, 
     United States Code, who is entitled to free mailing 
     privileges under such section.
       (c) Postal Benefits Described.--
       (1) Vouchers.--The postal benefits provided under the 
     program shall consist of such coupons or other similar 
     evidence of credit (in this section referred to as a 
     ``voucher'') to permit a person possessing the voucher to 
     make a qualified mailing to any qualified individual without 
     charge using the Postal Service. The vouchers may be in 
     printed, electronic, or such other format as the Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the Postal Service, shall 
     determine to be appropriate.
       (2) Qualified mailing.--In this section, the term 
     ``qualified mailing'' means the mailing of a single mail 
     piece which--
       (A) is first-class mail (including any sound- or video-
     recorded communication) not exceeding 13 ounces in weight and 
     having the character of personal correspondence or parcel 
     post not exceeding 15 pounds in weight;
       (B) is sent from within an area served by a United States 
     post office; and
       (C) is addressed to any qualified individual.
       (3) Coordination rule.--Postal benefits under the program 
     are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any reduced rates of 
     postage or other similar benefits which might otherwise be 
     available by or under law, including any rates of postage 
     resulting from the application of section 3401(b) of title 
     39, United States Code.
       (d) Number of Vouchers.--A member of the Armed Forces shall 
     be eligible for one voucher for every month (or part of a 
     month) during fiscal year 2010 in which the member is a 
     qualified individual. Subject to subsection (f)(2), a voucher 
     earned during fiscal year 2010 may be used after the end of 
     such fiscal year.
       (e) Transfer of Vouchers.--A qualified individual may 
     transfer a voucher to a member of the family of the qualified 
     individual, a nonprofit organization, or any other person 
     selected by the qualified individual for use to send 
     qualified mailings to the qualified individual or other 
     qualified individuals.
       (f) Limitations on Use; Duration.--A voucher may not be 
     used--
       (1) for more than one qualified mailing, whether that 
     mailing is a first-class letter or a parcel; or
       (2) after the expiration date of the voucher, as designated 
     by the Secretary of Defense.
       (g) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense (in 
     consultation with the Postal Service) shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the program, 
     including--
       (1) procedures by which vouchers will be provided or made 
     available in timely manner to qualified individuals; and
       (2) procedures to ensure that the number of vouchers 
     provided or made available with respect to any qualified 
     individual complies with subsection (d).
       (h) Transfers of Funds to Postal Service.--
       (1) Based on estimates.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     transfer to the Postal Service, out of amounts available to 
     carry out the program and in advance of each calendar quarter 
     during which postal benefits may be used under the program, 
     an amount equal to the amount of postal benefits that the 
     Secretary estimates will be used during such quarter, reduced 
     or increased (as the case may be) by any amounts by which the 
     Secretary finds that a determination under this subsection 
     for a prior quarter was greater than or less than the amount 
     finally determined for such quarter.

[[Page 16420]]

       (2) Based on final determination.--A final determination of 
     the amount necessary to correct any previous determination 
     under this section, and any transfer of amounts between the 
     Postal Service and the Department of Defense based on that 
     final determination, shall be made not later than six months 
     after the expiration date of the final vouchers issued under 
     the program.
       (3) Consultation required.--All estimates and 
     determinations under this subsection of the amount of postal 
     benefits under the program used in any period shall be made 
     by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Postal 
     Service.
       (i) Funding.--
       (1) Funding source and limitation.--In addition to the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated in section 301(1) for 
     operation and maintenance for Army for fiscal year 2010, 
     $50,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for postal 
     benefits provided in this section.
       (2) Offsetting reduction.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 301 in fiscal year 2010 for operation 
     and maintenance are reduced as follows:
       (A) For operation and maintenance for the Army, Army Claims 
     is reduced by $10,000,000.
       (B) For operation and maintenance for the Navy, System-Wide 
     Navy Communications is reduced by $10,000,000.
       (C) For operation and maintenance for the Air Force, 
     System-Wide Air Force Communications is reduced by 
     $30,000,000.


         Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 12XX. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the State of Israel is one of the strongest allies of 
     the United States;
       (2) Israel and the United States face many common enemies; 
     and
       (3) the United States should continue to work with Israeli 
     Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Israeli Government, and the 
     people of Israel to ensure that Israel continues to receive 
     critical military assistance, including missile defense 
     capabilities, needed to address existential threats.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572 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.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today in support of my amendment in the en bloc amendments to 
the National Defense Authorization Act.
  This amendment will require the Quadrennial Defense Review to be 
completed every 4 years to examine the national defense strategy, the 
force structure, the force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget 
plan and other elements of the defense program to determine our 
strategy for the next 20 years.
  Additionally, my amendment reinforces the importance of the Nuclear 
Posture Review, which addresses the role that missile defense 
capabilities and conventional strike forces play in determining the 
role and size of nuclear forces.
  These reviews are an essential element of our national security 
perspective as are the Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile program, 
the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and the 
Airborne Laser program.

                              {time}  1345

  The Department of Defense is aware that the Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense, the GMD, is the only fielded and operational capability that 
can defend the U.S. against long-range ballistic missiles. However, the 
current budget cuts of $524 million from the program, deploying only 30 
of the 44 GMD interceptors that were scheduled, we believe this logic 
should be questioned given the events occurring in North Korea and 
Iran.
  Furthermore, we should reconsider the stop work order for the kinetic 
energy interceptor. This project is an essential part of our boost-
phase ballistic missile approach, and I urge my colleagues to continue 
to support its development.
  Congress should also support the continued development of the 
multiple kill vehicle. As rogue nations continue to advance their 
missile defense capabilities, multiple kill vehicle technology will be 
required to destroy countermeasures, warheads and ultimately the 
missiles shot from our enemies.
  I support all of these projects because they are a deterrent to our 
enemies and they are the programs our warfighters in the field require. 
As we look at the missile tests and balance of power occurring in the 
Middle East and East Asia, this is not the time to reduce our missile 
defense budget and cut back on these programs. North Korea plans to 
launch a long-range Taepodong-2 missile in July, and is only a few 
years away from deploying a missile capable of hitting the United 
States.
  We must prepare for the development and the deployment of more 
advanced technologies by our adversaries. These missile systems should 
all be considered essential elements. I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield now 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
and the Chair for the inclusion of our amendment with regard to Israel 
in the underlying bill.
  I would like to speak for a minute with regard to one of our 
strongest allies in the Middle East, and that is the State of Israel. I 
am thankful for the strong relationship that we have, that our two 
countries share so much in common. We have both faced war and fought 
for peace and for freedom. We both continue to pursue liberty, despite 
ongoing opposition. We both face many common enemies.
  Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of 
Israel's right to exist. When you think about it, it is even disturbing 
that we have to come here and talk about it in such terms. But the 
truth of the matter is, there are few countries, few peoples on Earth 
who are more in the cross hairs than Israel. Not even the U.N. can be 
called upon to defend Israel. In fact, the U.N. often stands with those 
who condemn Israel.
  Israel has remained a shining beacon of democracy in a dark part of 
the world, standing with the United States against the threat of 
Islamic extremism, and we must be unwavering in our continuous support.
  In conclusion, the United States should continue to work with Israel 
Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli Government and with the people 
of Israel to ensure that Israel continues to receive critical military 
assistance, including the military defense needed to address this 
existential threat.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield one minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the distinguished Chair of the Armed 
Services Committee. I rise in support of this en bloc amendment which 
includes the Castor-Bilirakis amendment, an amendment I introduced 
jointly with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Bilirakis).
  Under the Castor-Bilirakis amendment, each member of the armed 
services serving in combat operations would be provided with a monthly 
postal benefit that they can transfer to their families or to a 
charitable organization so they can afford to send care packages and 
other communications while they are serving bravely overseas. Just 
think of the benefit to our brave men and women serving in combat 
operations, a benefit to their morale, a boost in the morale when they 
receive that letter from home, when they receive that all-important 
care package.
  This effort has been ongoing for many years. It has been included in 
past Defense authorization bills. It passed the House last year only to 
be taken out in conference. It is time to get this provision enacted as 
a stand-alone bill, H.R. 707, the Homefront to Heroes Act. We have more 
than half of the House of Representatives as cosponsors. It is time to 
get this done finally.

[[Page 16421]]


  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Bilirakis) 2 minutes.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. 
And thank you, Mr. Skelton, for including this in the en bloc 
amendment.
  I rise today in support of a provision included in this en bloc 
amendment which my colleague from Florida, Ms. Castor, and I have 
offered to provide postal benefits to our combat soldiers. This 
amendment recognizes the sacrifices made by servicemembers and their 
loved ones back home. Tough economic times have made it increasingly 
difficult for those who send care packages to troops to pay the 
resulting shipping costs. This amendment will help address that 
problem.
  The legislation on which our amendment is based has strong bipartisan 
support garnering 237 cosponsors. In addition, it has gained a great 
deal of support from our constituents and people all across the 
country. It is with great humility that I rise today to honor our 
servicemembers and those who tirelessly support them.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this very important amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  I have an amendment as part of this en bloc that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the Individual Ready 
Reserve who have served at least one tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan 
receive a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than 
once every 90 days to look at emotional, psychological, medical and 
career needs.
  Mr. Chairman, the military personnel from the Secretary on down, and 
certainly the chairman of our committee, have devoted a great deal of 
attention to suicide prevention recognition and treatment. This is 
necessary because the IRR is one place where it is just too easy to 
fall through the cracks.
  Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, enlisted in the Army in 
2001, attended Fort Benning, served with the 173rd Airborne. He served 
in Iraq. Afterwards, he sought treatment for post-traumatic stress 
disorder. Maybe the VA diagnosis should have been accepted by the Army. 
In any case, after he was discharged, like other Army members, he still 
had 4 years of Ready Reserve commitment. He was called back to Iraq, 
served, returned to New Jersey in May of 2008 and committed suicide in 
September of 2008. He fell through the cracks. He had no advocate, no 
Army machinery to help him find his way through the system. He was 
literally on his own.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to address what I think is a gap in 
our suicide treatment efforts to deal with the Individual Ready 
Reserve. I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. We have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of 
the Armed Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment helps to build support for the military bill buildup on 
Guam by addressing a longstanding issue. We will authorize a 
substantial amount of military construction in this bill, but to keep 
up the morale and the obligation to the people of Guam, it is only 
right to also resolve the issue of war claims as part of this bill.
  The war claims program for Guam administered by the U.S. Navy after 
World War II had shortcomings, and this amendment would address the 
resulting disparity of treatment for war claims for the Chamorros who 
endured the occupation of Guam.
  The House passed this amendment as H.R. 44 in February, but the other 
body has not considered it. Adopting this amendment will provide an 
opportunity to resolve this issue.
  And, again, many thanks to Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 
for accepting this amendment en bloc and to all of their staff for 
their outstanding support in advancing this bill. I urge adoption of 
this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize 
several of our staff who, after wonderful service, are going on to new 
challenges in their careers:
  Loren Dealy, who will handle communications for the Office of 
Legislative Affairs at the Department of Defense; Frank Rose who is off 
to work on strategic weapons and missile defense issues at the State 
Department; Bill Natter, who recently left to be the Deputy Under 
Secretary of the Navy; Sasha Rogers, who is off to get a master's of 
public policy; Christine Lamb, who is off to get an MBA; and Ben 
Glerum, who will be working on a law degree.
  In addition, I wish to recognize those unsung heroes who allow our 
staff to put together a bill of this enormous size and complexity. 
Those staff members who are called staff assistants: Andrew Tabler, 
Zach Steacy, Liz Drummond, Megan Putnam, Rose Ellen Kim, Caterina 
Dutto, Kathleen Kelly, Mary Kate Cunningham, Scott Bousom, Trey Howard, 
Cindi Howard, Derek Scott and Katy Bloomberg all deserve a special 
thanks.
  And I also want to thank Joe Hichen for a long effort with us, as 
well as Alicia Haley. Without their hard work, coordination, and 
patience, we would not be as successful as we are today.
  A final thanks to the team in the Office of Legislative Counsel led 
by Sherry Chriss, and the Parliamentarians who provide such excellent 
support. We thank them, and we are very grateful for their hard work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, this is probably the last time where I have 
enough time to thank the staff. I would like to thank all of the 
members of the staff.
  I said when I was on the Education Committee, we used to have 
everybody's names written out; and so I turned to Tom, and he said, We 
don't do that, sir. We give all of the credit to the Members. So rather 
than list all of their names on both sides, I would like to thank you 
en bloc, all of the staff, for doing such a tremendous job to get me 
ready in very short time to do this work. They have done a yeoman's 
job, and it has been a real pleasure working with the chairman and 
working with the staff on this bill. I look forward to many more years 
to do it. Hopefully, we will change off chairman, but I won't get into 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say a special word of thanks to our 
ranking member, Buck McKeon. As we welcome you and you are off and 
running, you are doing an excellent job, and we thank you for your 
first-class efforts in making this come to pass. You've done 
wonderfully, and we should all be very grateful to you.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, earlier today, the House 
unanimously passed my amendment to the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2647. This amendment expresses the sense 
of Congress that the United States and Israel have a shared national 
interest, that the latter is one of our strongest and most important 
allies, and that our government should pledge our continued support of 
Israel's defense and well-being.
  In light of this, I would like to take a moment to draw attention to 
the ongoing captivity of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit. Cpl. Shalit is 
an Israeli soldier and a member of the Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) 
Armor Corps. Three years ago today, Cpl. Shalit and his fellow soldiers 
were attacked by Hamas terrorists on the Israel side of the Gaza Strip. 
Two soldiers were killed, and Cpl. Shalit was kidnapped.
  Since that day in 2006, Hamas, with the continued protection and 
support of the Palestinian leadership, has held Cpl. Shalit in 
captivity, in clear defiance of the Geneva Convention and basic human 
decency. Hamas has not allowed the Red Cross or others to visit Cpl. 
Shalit. Instead, Hamas released videos highlighting the poor treatment 
of Cpl. Shalit and mocking Israel and the IDF. Military and diplomatic 
efforts to secure the release of Cpl. Shalit have been unsuccessful, 
and the Palestinian government continues to exploit his condition and 
his family's suffering.
  In 2007 and 2008, I called for the release of Cpl. Salit, as well as 
Sergeant Major Ehud

[[Page 16422]]

``Udi'' Goldwasser and Sergeant First Class Eldad Regev. On July 16, 
2008, Hezbollah returned the bodies of SGM Goldwasser and SFC Regev in 
exchange for over 200 convicted terrorists and other Palestinian 
prisoners. Hamas claims that Cpl. Shalit is still alive, and we know 
that his return is a matter of urgency. The captivity and poor 
treatment of Cpl. Shalit, in addition to the murder of the other 
soldiers, is unacceptable and only further demonstrates Hamas's 
unwillingness to be a responsible member of the global community.
  As a nation that has experienced terrorist attacks, we know that this 
issue is not solely a regional issue, nor is it the problem of Israel 
alone. I am proud that this Congress today chose to stand with our 
friends in Israel, and call for the support of our key ally. Moreover, 
I call on President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice to 
use all available measures to secure the safe and timely return of Cpl. 
Gilad Shalit.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my distinguished friend and colleague from New 
Jersey, Mr. Garrett.
  Since its creation in 1948, the State of Israel, surrounded by 
hostile neighbors, has been forced to develop technologically advanced 
defense capabilities to protect its existence as a democratic, Jewish 
state.
  While this amendment addresses the totality of the U.S.-Israel 
military and security relationship, I would like to focus on the 
provision of critical missile defense assistance to Israel.
  Israel is about to become the first country in the world to have a 
true national missile defense, and perhaps no other country has such a 
pressing need for one.
  Almost twenty years ago, Iraq launched 93 Scuds at other Middle 
Eastern nations, including 39 at Israel.
  Most recently, in 2006, Hezbollah launched scores of Katyusha rockets 
at civilian targets in northern Israel, imposing a state of siege on 
the population.
  And we cannot forget the ongoing, relentless, decade-long rocket and 
mortar attacks from Palestinian militant groups in Gaza against 
innocents in southern Israel.
  In addition to killing and injuring a number of Israelis, these 
militants have inflicted great psychological damage on the population, 
including Israeli children.
  But the missile danger to Israel and the United States is even 
greater than what has challenged us before.
  Today, Israel faces threats from both Iran and Syria--which have made 
clear their desires to develop nuclear weapons--and from the ballistic 
missile delivery systems that could reach Tel Aviv, other critical U.S. 
allies, and U.S. forces stationed throughout the region.
  Iran remains committed to developing rockets capable of delivering 
warheads to Tel Aviv.
  Syria, which has one of the largest missile stockpiles in the region, 
has, with Iran's help, reportedly developed a surface-to-surface 
missile that would enable Syria to launch attacks on key Israeli 
military and civil installations with precision.
  Providing missile defense for Israel is obvious: It is a vital U.S. 
ally, a small democracy surrounded by foes armed with short, medium, 
and long-range projectiles and missiles.
  I urge strong support for this amendment.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chair, today I rise and am proud to join my 
colleagues in supporting the Castor/Bilirakis amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY2010. This amendment would provide free 
mailing vouchers to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, that can then be transferred to loved ones who 
will be able to send letters and packages to soldiers at no cost. While 
our soldiers do not have to pay for the letters they send home, their 
families often spend hundreds of dollars to send care packages and 
letters of their own.
  I introduced similar legislation (H.R. 704) this Congress and a 
similar provision was also included in the FY2009 National Defense 
Authorization Act that passed the House, only to be stripped out during 
conference negotiations. As someone who has long been dedicated to 
providing for the needs of soldiers and their families, I welcome this 
long-awaited addition to the benefits of those who serve our country.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, the amendment offered by Representative 
Schiff of California would allow a federally funded research and 
development center (FFRDC) under the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration's (NASA) to apply for grants made available by the 
Department of Defense. Of NASA's ten field centers, there is only one 
FFRDC--the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)--in Pasadena, California. 
The amendment would allow this NASA center to do the ``research, 
development, demonstration, or transfer of technology . . . for 
activities including, but not limited to, those conducted by the center 
under contact with or on behalf of the Department of Defense.''
  NASA is a civilian agency, doing civilian work that affects every 
American in various ways. It must not become too closely associated 
with the Department of Defense. NASA's mission is to pioneer scientific 
discovery, aeronautics research and space exploration, not to conduct 
research for the benefit of the Department of Defense.
  At a time when these programs may be facing extensive funding cuts, 
allowing NASA's field centers to focus solely on carrying out NASA's 
mission could not be of more importance. Allowing JPL to apply for 
these grants would set a precedent that could pave the way for other 
NASA centers to follow suit. NASA is prohibited by law from accepting 
these grants from the Department of Defense for a reason. NASA should 
not be doing the work of the Department of Defense and should remain a 
distinct entity doing strictly civilian work for civilian benefits. It 
should be fully funded in order to allow it to do so.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of language in the 
manager's amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 2647) 
requiring the Government Accountability Office to study the costs to 
states and localities that choose to cover the difference between a 
first responder's military salary and their city salary.
  After the tragic events of September 11th, many New Yorkers heard the 
call to service and joined the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force in 
defense of their country. More than 11,000 New Yorkers went to Iraq and 
Afghanistan and 59 tragically lost their lives in defense of our 
country. Among these New Yorkers were the brave first responders who 
had already performed so admirably on that day, the police officers, 
fire fighters, and paramedics who put their lives at risk to help their 
fellow New Yorkers. In recognition of this further sacrifice, New York 
City revised its personnel code to maintain first responders' municipal 
salaries even during active duty military service.
  Five hundred ten New York City municipal employees, including 76 
firefighters and 293 police officers, are currently serving overseas, 
putting the total number of City first responders who have served in 
Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 at over 2,000, with New York Police 
Department Officers comprising close to half of these. The combined 
salaries of these employees is over $ 148 million dollars, and it is 
estimated that the city has recouped only $59 million, costing the City 
over $89 million. These financial costs are further compounded by lost 
man hours, over 800,000 in all. This lost manpower has 
disproportionately affected the New York City Police Department to the 
tune of over 472,000 days.
  To explain this program better, let's take the hypothetical case of 
NYPD and Army Reserve Sergeant Smith. Sergeant Smith makes $55,000 
annually as an NYPD officer and his active duty salary is $35,000. 
Being called to Iraq for a year-long tour of duty costs Sergeant Smith 
$20,000. New York City's program continues Sergeant Smith's $55,000 
annual salary and Sergeant Smith would pay his military salary back to 
the City. Through New York City's policy, Sergeant Smith is made whole 
while still patriotically serving his country.
  New York City is not alone in honoring its first responders who 
choose to serve overseas in this way. Boston, Chicago, Indianapolis, 
Phoenix, and San Jose have similar programs, and many states, including 
Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Washington have laws that 
provide full pay for all state and municipal employees serving on 
active duty. At this time, it is not known how many millions of dollars 
these programs are costing cities and states around the country. 
Through my amendment the GAO will study the costs incurred by local 
governments for picking up the costs for their employees serving on 
active duty. I would like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton and Ranking 
Member Buck McKeon for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1400


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 111-182.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 16423]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia:
       At the end of subtitle D 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.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would clarify that section 526 of the 
Energy Independence and Security Act does not preclude Federal agencies 
from purchasing fuel that is not predominantly derived from tar sands 
or other high-carbon sources. At the same time, this amendment 
maintains the intent of section 526 by ensuring taxpayer money is not 
being used to subsidize highly polluting technologies.
  Originally contained in the Carbon Neutral Government Act and 
incorporated in the Energy Independence and Security Act, section 526 
precludes Federal agencies from entering into a contract that would 
result in construction of a refinery of fuel that produces more 
greenhouse gas pollution than conventional petroleum fuel. This exact 
amendment, introduced by Mr. Boren of Oklahoma last year, passed the 
House on a voice vote; unfortunately, it was not adopted by the Senate. 
This language represents a compromise that preserves the intent of 
section 526 without tying the hands of Federal agencies that need to 
procure fuel.
  Without using carbon capture and sequestration, 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 to 42 percent more greenhouse gas pollution per 
unit compared to production of conventional petroleum fuels. Section 
526 has successfully protected taxpayers from costly and destructive 
subsidies of highly polluting fuel production.
  The reality is that fuel derived from tar sands already comprises a 
small proportion--roughly 6 percent--of much of the gasoline and diesel 
fuel consumers purchase.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply clarifies that the hands of the 
Federal Government are not tied and that Federal agencies can, in fact, 
procure commercially available fuel that is available to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim this time, but I am not in 
opposition to Mr. Connolly's amendment. Although I do support the 
gentleman's amendment to clarify the purported intent of section 526 of 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, I believe it does not 
do enough.
  The Department is aggressively seeking alternative fuel sources for 
their aircraft, vehicles, and naval vessels, and section 526 poses a 
serious barrier to these efforts. We need to encourage the Department 
to continue these efforts, not shackle them with greenhouse gas 
emission limits that are set from arbitrary and ambiguous standards.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend 
from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  Mr. GRAYSON. I am pleased to have proposed, and have the support of 
the chairman, an amendment for a specific purpose, to improve Defense 
procurement. That purpose is to identify for the contracting agencies 
the correct tradeoff between costs and price and technical factors. As 
it stands right now, our statutory scheme for Defense procurement does 
not identify what the tradeoff should be.
  For the sake of saving money and eliciting from contractors more 
cost-effective proposals, we are saying that the agencies must allow 
cost or price to be at least 50 percent of the evaluation scheme or 
explain why not. That is the purpose of this amendment. I anticipate it 
will save a great deal of money for the taxpayers and for the troops.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do rise in support of Representative Connolly's amendment, but this 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, doesn't go nearly far enough. Let me try to 
explain in the limited time that I have.
  The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 has in it a section 
526, which does not allow any agency of the Federal Government to use a 
fuel source that has one scintilla increased amount of carbon dioxide 
footprint other than just standard old bubble-up petroleum. The 
Department of Defense uses about 350,000 barrels of refined petroleum 
product every day, most of that by the Air Force in the use of jet 
fuel.
  In this country, we have so much domestic source of nonconventional 
bubble-up petroleum, and I'm talking about things like shale, in 
particular, and the liquefication of coal, converting coal into 
petroleum. In this country, Mr. Chairman, we probably have a 150-year 
reserve of coal, and yet we cannot touch that even though the 
Department of Defense has done research on the clean liquefication of 
coal, the clean mining of shale. Shale is a rock that's just soaked, 
it's like a sponge, it's just soaked with petroleum, and there are 
literally hundreds of millions of barrels of petroleum within that 
shale. And yet, because of this section 526 in the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007, we cannot use it. We cannot use that at all.
  So what we have found, of course, is that most of the petroleum that 
we import from foreign countries is not coming from OPEC; it's coming 
from Canada. And what's the problem? That oil that we get from Canada 
comes from tar sand. It's got a little sand in it, and it causes a 
little increase of production of carbon dioxide, a footprint that's 
more than conventional petroleum. So that's all the amendment does from 
the gentleman from Virginia.
  I support the amendment, but what we need to do is eliminate section 
526. And I have an amendment that I signed on with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the other gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway), and that's what we should have done. That amendment should 
have been made in order. We need to eliminate section 526 and take the 
handcuffs off the Department of Defense. We're talking about big bucks 
here, Mr. Chairman.
  I do support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman.
  I thank the support of my friend, but I want to clarify for the 
record that, as a matter of fact, we already have tar sand oil. About 6 
percent of the gasoline supply in the United States already has it. And 
we already have the liquefication of coal used in the United States, 
and the bill I hope we will pass tomorrow or Saturday, in fact, will 
allow a lot more of it.

[[Page 16424]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Chair of the 
committee, Mr. Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman. And I stand in support of the 
Connolly amendment to section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act, which provides an exception for certain generally 
available fuels while retaining the greenhouse gas emission standard 
that 526 sets for new alternative fuels.
  Let me, Mr. Chairman, say a word of thanks. We have thanked the 
staff, under the leadership of Erin Conaton. They have just done so 
very, very well. And we thank the members, Buck McKeon, who is doing so 
well, and the subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members all made 
their excellent statements. But there is one group we need to give a 
special thanks to, and that's the young men and young women in uniform 
as well as the civilian employees of the Department of Defense. They 
are very special, and we are appreciative and very grateful for their 
efforts.
  Mr. McKEON. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McKEON. I would just like to second what the chairman was saying 
and thank all of those men and women in uniform and the civilian 
employees. He was very sincerely wanting to thank all of them.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good 
friend from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I am very grateful to the gentleman and want to speak 
very briefly on an amendment I've introduced to authorize NASA's 
federally funded research and development centers to participate in DOD 
research and development programs.
  JPL's scientific leadership represents an invaluable source of key 
expertise to DOD. JPL has performed research for DOD for decades. This 
amendment simply clarifies JPL's authority to continue to work with the 
Defense Department and closely parallels an amendment to perform the 
same function for the Department of Energy. We have worked with NASA to 
ensure this does not interfere with JPL's primary mission to build 
spacecraft and perform scientific research for NASA. This way we can 
ensure that important collaborations between JPL and DOD will continue.
  Mr. Chair, today I am introducing an amendment that explicitly 
authorizes NASA's federally funded research and development centers to 
participate in Department of Defense research and development programs.
  Many of us are familiar with NASA's world-renowned research and 
development center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, 
California. JPL, which is managed for NASA by the California Institute 
of Technology, has designed, built and controlled many of America's 
most successful unmanned spacecraft. Unmanned space probes, from the 
Ranger and Surveyor missions that paved the way for Apollo, to the 
Voyager spacecraft that explored the outer planets and continue to send 
back data even as they leave the solar system, have increased our 
comprehension of our celestial neighborhood beyond anything 
contemplated half a century ago. Since we first sent robotic emissaries 
to our neighboring planets, every American space probe that has visited 
another planet was managed by JPL.
  The journal Science named JPL's discovery of evidence of past water 
on Mars as 2004's ``Breakthrough of the Year''. JPL's spectacular 
missions have brought us incalculable scientific data and have 
sustained Americans' passion for spaceflight at a time of greatly 
diminished human presence in space. These spacecraft have reinforced 
America's scientific and technological preeminence.
  JPL's scientific leadership represents an invaluable source of key 
expertise for the Department of Defense. The Jet Propulsion Lab has 
performed research for the Department of Defense for decades by 
responding to DoD Broad Agency Announcements. This amendment simply 
clarifies JPL's authority to continue to work with the defense 
department, and closely parallels an amendment which performed the same 
function for Department of Energy National Labs in 1998. I have worked 
with NASA to ensure that the amendment does not interfere with JPL's 
primary mission, to build spacecraft and perform scientific research 
for NASA. By including this amendment, we ensure that important 
collaborations between the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Department 
of Defense will continue into the future. I urge my colleagues to 
approve this amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is an important clarification of section 
526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. This amendment 
clarifies that Federal agencies are not precluded from purchasing fuel 
that is not predominantly derived from higher carbon sources. While at 
the same time, this amendment maintains the original provision's intent 
by ensuring that our tax dollars are not spent on inefficient and 
highly polluting energy sources.
  To my constituents in Colorado this particularly means that energy 
sources like oil shale won't be able to take our state's most precious 
resource . . . water.
  Energy sources like oil shale take excessive amounts of energy to 
produce, making the net amount of energy we receive unjustifiable. 
Furthermore our western states understand that the most valuable 
resource we have isn't fossil fuels but water.
  The process of developing oil shale is incredibly water intensive and 
our communities, rivers, and taxpayers simply can't afford it.
  I thank Mr. Connolly for his work on this amendment and to Mr. Waxman 
in creating the original provision.
  This amendment is a responsible step for taxpayers, for western 
communities, and our energy policy alike.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, 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 Virginia 
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 on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Franks of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Akin of Missouri.
  Amendment No. 34 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 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 138, 
noes 278, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               AYES--138

     Abercrombie
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Cohen
     Costello
     Courtney
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Hill

[[Page 16425]]


     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Loebsack
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Richardson
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--278

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Cleaver
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Berman
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner

                              {time}  1447

  Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, SPACE, BUTTERFIELD, Ms. GIFFORDS, 
Messrs. CLEAVER and POE of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. QUIGLEY, LARSON of Connecticut, COHEN, BOSWELL, ABERCROMBIE, 
OBEY, and ISRAEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 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 will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 190, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perriello
     Peters
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--190

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly

[[Page 16426]]


     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Becerra
     Berman
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Kingston
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1452

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


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Franks) 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 Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 244, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               AYES--171

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMahon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Becerra
     Berman
     Cao
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (TN)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner
     Welch


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1456

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


                  Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Akin

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Akin) 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 Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 16427]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 226, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Richardson
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Becerra
     Berman
     Boyd
     Cao
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Meek (FL)
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner
     Woolsey


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1459

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chair, on June 25, 2009, I was unavoidably detained 
and was not able to record by vote for rollcall No. 456. Had I been 
present I would have voted: ``No''--Akin of Missouri Amendment No. 15.


                  Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) 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 Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 193, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 457]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman

[[Page 16428]]


     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Becerra
     Berman
     Cao
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1505

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


          Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416, 
noes 0, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               AYES--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     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
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     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)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Berman
     Cao
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maffei
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner

                              {time}  1509

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

[[Page 16429]]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chair, during House consideration of H.R. 2647, the 
National Defense Authorization Act I, along with several other Members 
of Congress, was unavoidably detained in a meeting on immigration 
policy at the White House with President Obama. Had I been present, I 
would have voted against the McGovern/Jones/Pingree Amendment, for the 
McGovern/Sestak/Bishop (GA)/Lewis (GA) Amendment, against the Franks/
Cantor/Sessions/Broun/Roskam Amendment, against the Akin/Forbes 
Amendment, for the Holt Amendment, and for the Connolly Amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ross) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, 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. 
2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 572, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. FORBES. Yes, sir, I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Forbes of Virginia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2647 
     to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of title X, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1055. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AND 
                   CERTAIN VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Funding.--
       (1) Procurement of aircraft, army.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by section 101(1) for procurement of aircraft, Army, 
     is hereby increased by $92,000,000, of which--
       (A) $32,000,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters; and
       (B) $60,000,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     CH-47 helicopters.
       (2) Procurement of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, 
     army.--The amount otherwise provided by section 101(3) for 
     procurement of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, Army, is 
     hereby increased by $797,800,000, of which--
       (A) $138,400,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     Stryker vehicles;
       (B) $162,400,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles;
       (C) $197,000,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     the family of Medium Tactical Vehicles; and
       (D) $300,000,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, All-Terrain Vehicles.
       (3) Procurement of aircraft, air force.--The amount 
     otherwise provided by section 103(1) for procurement of 
     aircraft, Air Force, is hereby increased by $510,200,000, of 
     which--
       (A) $110,000,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles; and
       (B) $400,200,000 is to be available for the procurement of 
     C-130J aircraft.
       (4) Missile defense.--The amount otherwise provided by 
     section 201(4) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by 
     $1,200,000,000 to provide funds for the Missile Defense 
     Agency, of which--
       (A) $600,000,000 is to be available for the ground-based 
     midcourse defense system;
       (B) $237,000,000 is to be available for the Airborne Laser 
     program;
       (C) $177,100,000 is to be available for the Multiple Kill 
     Vehicle;
       (D) $165,900,000 is to be available for the Kinetic Energy 
     Interceptor; and
       (E) $20,000,000 is to be available for the Space Tracking 
     and Surveillance System.
       (b) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount otherwise provided by 
     section 3102 for defense environmental cleanup is hereby 
     reduced by $2,600,000,000, to be derived from sites that are 
     projected to meet regulatory milestones ahead of schedule or 
     are at greatest risk of being unable to execute Public Law 
     111-5 and fiscal year 2010 funding as planned for fiscal year 
     2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit improves this bill 
by fully providing for our troops on the battlefield, protecting the 
American people at home from ballistic missile threats, and doing so 
without borrowing from any significant program.
  First, this motion provides $1.4 billion in equipment requested by 
our men and women in combat and which this House agreed they needed 
because we included it in the 2009 supplemental the first time. This 
funding is for MRAP vehicles, Blackhawk helicopters and UAVs, which 
have persistently been some of our troops' highest priorities for Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, after the House included this funding in the 
supplemental, the Senate included a provision to provide a $100 billion 
global bailout to the IMF. In order to pay the bill, the equipment 
needed by our servicemen and women in action was stripped from the 
supplemental.
  I do not think any Member of this distinguished body believes we 
should have provided any loan to the IMF, or any other international 
body, without first taking care of our men and women on the 
battlefield.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will have some critical components of this 
motion and would restore 1,600 additional Humvees and combat vehicles, 
250 MRAP vehicles to protect our soldiers from roadside bombs, four 
additional helicopters and four additional aircraft so our soldiers 
don't have to drive those roads in the first place, and six unmanned 
aerial vehicles to address critical shortfalls in intelligence and 
reconnaissance.
  In addition to fulfilling the wartime needs of our troops, this 
motion would add $1.2 billion to restore missile defense funding to the 
fiscal year 2009 levels.
  Last year, this Congress provided $10.5 billion for missile defense. 
Since that time, North Korea and Iran's nuclear and missile 
capabilities have demonstrably grown as credible threats to the 
security of the United States.
  North Korea has threatened to ``wipe out'' the United States and 
reportedly is preparing an intercontinental ballistic missile launch 
that could reach Hawaii or the continental United States.
  In April, the President himself said ``Iran's nuclear and ballistic 
missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, 
but to Iran's neighbors and our allies.''
  Despite these increasing threats, the bill cuts missile defense by 
$1.2 billion from last year. And this includes a 35 percent reduction 
to a vital missile defense system in Alaska and California designed to 
protect the United States homeland.
  These cuts lack supporting analysis and challenge common sense. If 
North Korea does what it says, or if the President is right about Iran, 
this may be one of the most crucial votes we take.
  The $2.6 billion to pay for the equipment our troops need and to 
maintain last year's missile defense funding level will come from a 
Department of Energy account that has already received more than $5 
billion in stimulus funding on top of a baseline request of $5.5 
billion.
  We may hear concerns from the other side of the aisle that we are 
skimming off the top of important environmental cleanup projects. 
However, Energy Department officials have stated publicly that the 
stimulus funds go to the lowest priority projects. I also would like

[[Page 16430]]

to note that cleanup funds do not expire, and the billions of dollars 
of stimulus funds provided for this effort won't expire for 5 years. It 
is more than reasonable to expect that the Secretary of Energy can 
responsibly reallocate the resources he receives across the 
environmental management portfolio.
  Therefore, the real question before the House is whether we should 
allocate $2.6 billion to the Department of Energy for their admittedly 
lowest priority cleanup projects, or, to allocate this $2.6 billion for 
much-needed equipment for our troops in combat and to defend our Nation 
against the rising threats of missile attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. The decision should be even 
clearer. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote 
for this motion.
  I yield back.
  Mr. SKELTON. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most interesting motions 
to recommit I have ever seen. In truth, in fact, in looking it over, 
which is a multipage motion, it is an effort to rewrite the work of two 
subcommittees within the Armed Services Committee, the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee and the Air and Land Subcommittee. And we have already, a 
few moments ago, discussed at length on this floor a good part of this, 
which is the missile defense area, which we gave $9.3 billion toward. 
But what I really find interesting in this is that the budget will cut 
the cleanup for radioactive waste and special materials in half.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher), the subcommittee chairman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time, 
but the gentleman may yield.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  California, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Idaho, Georgia. Anybody live there? Those are the States 
that are expecting this cleanup money. Your Governors are expecting 
this cleanup money. Mayors of communities are expecting this cleanup 
money.
  This isn't just a little slush in tanks that we are trying to clean 
up, ladies and gentlemen. This is the 50-year residue of the Cold War; 
dangerous, dangerous proliferation risks, dangerous health and safety 
risks.
  These States have agreements, usually because they have sued the 
Federal Government, to have this money be spent for this cleanup. So if 
you think this is a triviality, if your phone is ringing right now, it 
is probably your Governor saying do not take this money away from us 
because our communities are at risk.
  That is why you need to oppose this motion to recommit.
  We have had hearing after hearing. We have had subcommittee markups 
and full committee markups. None of this was brought up. This is a 
convenient way to change the subject. The subject is support this mark. 
Defeat this motion to recommit.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii, the chairman of the Air and Land Subcommittee, Mr. Abercrombie.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time.
  The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker and Members, I'm the chairman of the Air 
and Land Subcommittee. And I really feel very, very deeply that this 
recommit motion made right now really is not in order in the way we 
work. The phrase was used ``on the other side of the aisle.'' There are 
no ``sides of the aisle'' in the Air and Land Subcommittee. Every 
single member of that committee is recognized by this chairman as not 
only equal in terms of their input, but equal in terms of their 
commitment to the defense of this country.
  You folks know me here. This kind of thing does not take place in our 
subcommittee. There is no ``side of the aisle'' when it comes to the 
defense of this Nation.
  Let me just give a couple of quick examples. On the Stryker vehicle, 
we have $338 million in there on top of the $200 million plus that we 
put in the supplemental. We were never given any other number despite 
any opportunity anybody could have had to bring that number forward.
  On the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected all-terrain vehicles, $5.45 
billion for 1,000 vehicles, upgrades, retrofits and operation and 
maintenance. If there is one thing that this chairman, Ike Skelton, has 
done in the committee, for both Republicans and Democrats who have the 
responsibility and obligation as members of the Armed Services 
Committee, is to see to it that readiness is first, foremost and 
fundamental in our deliberations.
  I ask you, I ask you as a fellow member of the Armed Services 
Committee, not as a Democrat or as a Republican, to reject this on the 
basis that our committee did its work the way it should do its work. We 
set a standard for bipartisanship, in fact nonpartisanship, when it 
comes to determining what is the interests of the fighting men and 
women of the United States of America.
  Mr. SKELTON. How much time is remaining, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Five seconds remain.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlelady. I thank the gentleman. This is a 
bad motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 244, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               AYES--170

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMahon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca

[[Page 16431]]


     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Becerra
     Cao
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Olver
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sullivan
     Velazquez
     Weiner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). One minute remains on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1543

  Mrs. BIGGERT changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 389, 
noes 22, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 460]

                               AYES--389

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

                                NOES--22

     Baldwin
     Duncan
     Ellison
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Griffith
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Olver
     Paul
     Polis (CO)
     Serrano
     Stark
     Tierney
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Brown, Corrine
       

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Aderholt
     Becerra
     Buyer
     Cao
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Flake
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Kennedy
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey (MA)
     Putnam
     Reyes
     Sarbanes
     Sullivan
     Velazquez

[[Page 16432]]



                              {time}  1550

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________