[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19728-19740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 685 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3326) 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

                              {time}  1704


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with Ms. 
Baldwin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, yesterday I was out at Bethesda, and I 
saw a young fellow that was wounded 2 years ago. And when he was 
wounded, his internal organs were outside the body for almost 10 days. 
And he's been putting up with that ever since, until he came back to 
Bethesda and had an operation just recently, where they were able to 
take the bag away that he had and restore his internal organs. That's 
what this bill's all about.
  This Defense bill is all about taking care of the troops, making sure 
they have what they need. Bill Young and I work together, going to the 
hospital, seeing the wounded. We listen to what they say and what they 
need. We listen to them at the bases. We had 37 hearings this year, 51 
trips that the staff made all over the country to visit the various 
installations to find out what the problems were.
  I was out at Fort Carson where the commanding officer--and this is 
not something that I'm divulging, this is something that's already 
known--his one boy was killed in Iraq, and his other son committed 
suicide before he was sworn in. So he's been emphasizing how do you 
reduce suicides in the military. The units that came back, we've just 
found, have had some terrible problems with people, robberies and 
actually homicide, some of the actual units, at least allegedly. That's 
what we've seen in the newspaper.
  These troops are under a tremendous strain. They're deployed too 
often. When I talked to the 12 troops there at Fort Carson and Fort 
Benning, they all told me the biggest single problem is the long 
deployments and the lack of time at home. And Jerry Lewis, who was 
chairman of the subcommittee--and Bill will tell you the same thing--
when we talk to the troops, they talk about how they need more time at 
home. They need to spend some time at home. And even when they're home, 
they're training. They don't have an opportunity to visit with their 
families as long as they would like.
  We've had hundreds of meetings with Members of Congress, hundreds of 
input from Members of Congress on the floor and in the committee room, 
trying to make sure we put a bill together that was bipartisan. We've 
been partners in this thing the whole way through. And we've tried to 
make sure--and the thrust of this bill has been for the Department to 
start hiring more people and getting rid of the contractors, in other 
words, get rid of contractors and hire people because contractors cost 
$44,000 more.
  Well, we just find every time we turn around we find somebody at the 
lower level is making all kinds of changes in that policy, and we worry 
about it. In this bill, we have a number of things that we've done that 
help, not only military families, but do research for long term. We put 
the first money in, for instance, military pay. We raised them five 
tenths of a percent above the request.
  First-class medical care is one of the things that we stress. Peer-
reviewed research programs. $150 million for breast cancer research, 
$80 million for prostate cancer research, $30 million for orthopedic 
research. An amazing thing, the military didn't have any money in for 
these kinds of things until we stepped in in the subcommittee in the 
forefront of making sure that that gets done. $472.4 million for family 
advocacy programs. I could go on and on. I don't want to go too long on 
this debate.

[[Page 19729]]

TH29JY09.001



[[Page 19730]]

TH29JY09.002



[[Page 19731]]

TH29JY09.003



[[Page 19732]]

TH29JY09.004



[[Page 19733]]

TH29JY09.005



[[Page 19734]]

TH29JY09.006


  Let me reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume, and I would like to state my support for this bill. As 
Chairman Murtha, has said, the subcommittee worked together without any 
regard to politics or Republican or Democrat to build a legislative 
appropriation bill that we thought would take care of training 
requirements for our military, equipment requirements for our military, 
and force protection requirements for our military; and we did the best 
we could with the money that we had available, and we did it together. 
And we did it in a totally nonpolitical way.
  So I rise in strong support of this bill. There will likely be 
several amendments that we may not be able to agree with, and we'll 
talk about those a little bit later. But one thing I wanted to mention 
is, I said that we did the best we could with what we had to work with. 
We were under the President's budget request. Our 302(b) allocation was 
reduced. We're over last year by about 4 percent, so that's a plus.
  It disturbs me a little bit, though, when I see that the foreign aid 
bill was 33 percent above last year's bill, and our national defense 
appropriations bill is only 4 percent above last year's bill. But still 
we did the best that we could with what we had to work with.
  Now, we will have amendments that will be offered. I suspect they're 
not going to be offered tonight, though. I suspect sometime tomorrow 
they'll be offered. And there will be some disagreement on some of 
those amendments. We'll discuss those later. But one thing I wanted to 
mention is air superiority. We're not going to have enough time on the 
amendment that's offered to deal with the future of air superiority for 
the American military. Mr. Murtha and I and many of our Members have 
traveled to far-flung parts of the world where our troops were 
deployed. We have talked personally to thousands of our men and women 
in uniform, not only here at home but in places like Korea, like 
Bosnia, like Kosovo, like Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait and all of 
these places.
  And our soldiers tell us, we'll go anywhere. We'll fight whatever 
battle we're told to fight. But please make sure that if there's an 
airplane above the battlefield, that it belongs to the United States, 
that it does not belong to a threatening enemy. And that's one of the 
things that we will be talking about with the issue of the F-22. The 
air superiority, the F-22 is supposedly our air superiority aircraft. 
It will replace the F-15, which is today's tremendous airplane, but 
it's our air superiority aircraft. We cannot afford to take a chance 
and risk the lives of troops on the ground if we don't secure the air 
overhead.
  The Defense Department has suggested that, with the limit of 187 new 
F-22s, or a total of 187 F-22s, that this is a medium to high risk for 
air superiority on the part of the United States. I think we ought to 
take that, despite the fact that there's a veto threat on going above 
the 187. If the Defense Department believes that this is a medium to 
high risk, I think we ought to pay close attention to that. But we'll 
talk more in detail about that when we deal with the amendment that we 
expect to deal with.
  We're told that the Joint Strike Fighter is coming on board and will 
fill up the gap if we don't have enough F-22s. But to begin with, the 
Joint Strike Fighter is a different mission aircraft than the F-22, 
just like the F-16 was a different mission aircraft than the F-15, but 
they work together in partnership.

                              {time}  1715

  If the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, is going to pick up the gap, 
we'd better do some serious thinking, because the F-35 is not ready to 
fight. It is not ready to do its mission, let alone the mission of air 
superiority. We have spent some $37 billion in the development of the 
Joint Strike Fighter, and we have been in development and have been 
ready to go to production just now, this year, with funding for the 
production. We started in 1997 to create this aircraft, and here it is 
2009, and the aircraft is still not ready to be deployed.
  So how is that aircraft going to fill the gap if we need fighters to 
maintain air superiority?
  There is a lot more on this issue that we'll talk about later. The 
bill today provides for additional F-22s, and that's the way we like 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the former chairman of the 
subcommittee and the now ranking member on the full Appropriations 
Committee.

[[Page 19735]]


  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chair, I rise simply to express the 
House's deep appreciation for the work that Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young do 
together on behalf of our troops. It's a fabulous display of the way 
the place should work, and I want you to know that I extend my 
congratulations.
  I have similar reservations, Chairman Murtha, that have been 
expressed by my colleague Mr. Young about the F-22. You know of the 
history when I chaired the committee and when we examined that program 
very, very carefully. My difficulty is I just can't project out there 
what the challenges are going to be. If China, for example, should join 
with Russia and come on line with tactical aircraft, we've got to think 
ahead, and I'm worried that we may not be doing that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield at 
this time 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, a 
very important member of the subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I want to echo the comments of our ranking member, 
Mr. Young, and I want to thank Mr. Murtha for a good bill. I do rise to 
support it.
  Clearly, if I'd written the bill, I would have written it differently 
in certain areas. Overall, I wish our subcommittee could have done 
more, but I recognize we did the best with the allocation we have. The 
bill is $3.5 billion short of the President's request despite the fact 
that we're engaged in two hard-fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that 
are hardly over. In fact, the President has obligated us to a rather 
open-ended commitment in Afghanistan where casualties have been rising 
and where more money may be needed.
  Madam Chairman, the first time America tangled with extremists 
overseas, President John Adams was confronted by partisans who chanted, 
``Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute.'' That was then and 
this is now.
  At a time when Congress has found the ``will and the wallet'' to 
throw billions of borrowed dollars at every domestic program under the 
sun, some are finding ways to cut defense spending--sometimes subtly, 
sometimes not so subtly. I tell my colleagues who have pledged to 
support a strong national defense that this bill is the high watermark. 
In fact, it's all downhill from here.
  I do support the reform of our military acquisition processes, which 
have come under examination. I do support Secretary Gates' program to 
reexamine our national security priorities in light of new, irregular 
challenges and threats that are proliferating well beyond Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Take a look at a more belligerent Russia. Take a look at the Chinese 
capabilities in terms of their Navy, their air and their cyberattacks. 
Take a look at the things that are happening on the Korean peninsula, 
at the things that are happening in Africa and at the things that are 
happening in our own hemisphere.
  I do worry about this administration's apparent obsession with this 
war-ism. I urge my colleagues to make sure we make enough investments 
today to ensure that we will be prepared to defend our interests 
against all threats in the years to come.
  I do support the legislation, and as Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young have 
said, there is a pay increase in here for all of our troops, all 
volunteering. There is first-class medical care, a lot more money, more 
money for shipbuilding, more money for the procurement of fighters, 
more money for MRAPs in Afghanistan, and importantly, there is $500 
million for the National Guard equipment for both overseas and home-
state missions.
  Madam Chairman, I wish we could restore the cuts to our missile 
defense. I wish we could ensure that our F-22 assembly line could keep 
going. I wish we had an immediate substitute for our future combat 
system. These are important elements that need to be addressed. All in 
all, this is a good bill.
  I congratulate the chairman for his leadership, and I congratulate 
the ranking member. I am pleased to support it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Murtha and the 
ranking member for the work that they've done for our country, and my 
remarks are in no way in disrespect of that.
  We are talking about $636 billion, which will help, among other 
things, to empower the continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
We will have a brief debate here about $636 billion. The Congress has 
been gripped by the debate over health care for months now. We really 
need to have a serious discussion and debate about both the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan--the wars which are causing casualties to the 
troops that Mr. Murtha is so dedicated to. We really need to look at 
that and figure out when we are going to get out of there.
  We need to set a time to get out of Iraq for real, not just the so-
called combat troops and leave detachments there, but to get out of 
Iraq for real and to get out of Afghanistan, where the casualties are 
increasing. We need to start coming back home and taking care of things 
here. We need to plus-up our military so we can be strong in defense 
but not cause our strength to be wasted in wars that are unnecessary.
  I really appreciate the work you do, Mr. Murtha, but I also will tell 
you that we really need to have a much bigger debate about whether we 
should continue to be in that war. I'm going to vote against this bill 
just on principle. We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and I 
have the same love for those troops that you have.


                       Announcement By the Chair

  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), 
who also is the ranking member of the Select Intelligence Oversight 
Panel.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I am certainly proud to support H.R. 3326, 
the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill.
  I represent four military installations, thousands of military 
personnel and their families, and I am pleased that this bill includes 
the $8.2 billion increase for military personnel accounts from last 
year. It also includes a 3.4 percent pay raise, which I wholeheartedly 
support and certainly believe that our troops deserve.
  The bill also includes funding for three C-17s, which are vital to 
our airlift capability. While I am pleased with the additional 
procurement, I believe that Congress must continue to fund this 
additional aircraft that is necessary for additional airlift 
capability.
  The C-17 aircraft plays a central role both in the ongoing global war 
on terror and in the humanitarian relief missions around the world. The 
three C-17s will be a welcomed addition to the fleet, which includes 8 
C-17s attached to March Air Reserve Base's 452nd Air Mobility Wing, 
which is in my district in California. These will accelerate efforts to 
ensure that America's airlift needs are met in upcoming years.
  I also support the removal of $100 million, requested by the 
administration, which would have been used to move detainees out of the 
Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I commend the language in the bill, 
which was truly the result of a bipartisan effort. It prevents a single 
detainee from being released or transferred until the administration 
produces an acceptable plan--one that includes an assessment of the 
risks to the American people and that requires that our citizens be 
informed of any transfers so they will be ensured of their safety. It 
also requires a certification that any release or transfer of prisoners 
will not place our troops in harm's way or will hinder their efforts 
abroad. The language is similar to my bill, H.R. 1069, which I 
introduced in February of this year. I am hopeful we can work this out 
in a planned process.
  Again, I commend the subcommittee and the full committee chairmen and 
ranking members for a bipartisan bill that meets the needs of our 
troops and that provides funding for vital missions around the world.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes now to the

[[Page 19736]]

gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise today to discuss an issue 
vital to American air superiority.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for 
their tireless efforts in support of those who bravely defend us at 
home and abroad.
  While there is much to applaud in this bill, I am very concerned 
about any steps to remove advanced procurement funds for the F-22A 
Raptor. Currently, H.R. 3326 contains $370 million for long lead 
supplies needed to procure 12 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. 
Preserving this funding, Madam Chair, is absolutely critical.
  Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary Gates have expended 
great capital in recent weeks to ensure that the F-22 program ends at 
187 aircraft once and for all. However, their position is not driven by 
military requirements but, rather, by budget constraints.
  The facts are that the F-22 has a flyaway cost of $142 million--this 
is a 35 percent decrease since its inception--and the next F-22 will 
actually be cheaper than the next Joint Strike Fighter.
  Madam Chair, is this how we should determine how best to defend our 
Nation and to ensure American air superiority, or should we rely on the 
results of over 30 air campaign studies that have been conducted over 
the last 15 years, which validate a requirement for far more than 187 
F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-15 A-D Eagles?
  We should also listen to those who fly these fighters, Madam Chair. A 
June 9, 2009, letter from General John Corley, the commander of Air 
Combat Command, states, ``At Air Combat Command, we have held the need 
for 381 F-22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our 
Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric 
deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 
F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high 
risk in the near to mid-term.''
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, General Corley goes on to state, 
``There are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to 
support our national military strategy.''
  I would like to submit this letter for the Record, Madam Chair.

                                      Department of the Air Force,


                               Headquarters Air Combat Command

                         Langley Air Force Base, VA, June 9, 2009.
     Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
     Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Chambliss: Thank you for your letter and the 
     opportunity to comment on the critical issue of F-22 fleet 
     size. At Air Combat Command we have held the need for 381 F-
     22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our 
     Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, 
     asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my 
     opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current 
     national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-
     term.
       To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 
     F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy. 
     Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with 
     Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be 
     obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft.
       While OSD did not solicit direct input from Air Combat 
     Command, we worked closely with our Headquarters in ensuring 
     our views were available. We realize the tough choices our 
     national leadership must make in balancing current 
     warfighting needs against the fiscal realities our Nation 
     faces.
       The F-22, a critical enabler of air dominance, plays a 
     vital role and indispensable role in ensuring joint freedom 
     of action for all forces and underpins our ability to 
     dissuade and deter. Thank you for your continued support of 
     the US Air Force and Air Combat Command.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D.W. Corley
                                          General, USAF Commander.

  I also would like to submit for the Record a letter that I sent to 
President Obama and to Secretary Gates. It's signed by 199 of my House 
colleagues. It concludes that continued F- 22 production is in the 
national economic interest of the United States.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, January 21, 2009.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense 
     Authorization act requires your certification on continued F-
     22A Raptor production by March 1, 2009. We strongly urge your 
     certification of continued production of this vital program.
       Continued F-22 production is critical to the security of 
     our nation. The F-22 is the nation's most capable fighter and 
     the world's only operation 5th generation fighter aircraft in 
     full-rate production. It is the weapon system we need to 
     respond to potential adversaries who are increasing their air 
     combat capabilities both in terms of technology and numbers 
     of aircraft. Several nations have announced that they are 
     developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, 5th 
     generation fighters that will reach production within the 
     next five to ten years. Additionally, sophisticated and 
     highly lethal air defense systems such as the SA-20 and S-
     300/400 are proliferating worldwide.
       Our nation has committed to procuring a total of just 183 
     F-22 aircraft. We are convinced that this number is 
     insufficient to meet potential threats. After accounting for 
     test, training, and maintenance aircraft, only about 100 F-
     22s will be immediately available for combat at any given 
     time. Given that over 30 air campaign studies completed over 
     the last 15 years have validated a requirement for far more 
     than 183 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-
     15 A-D Eagles, it is clear that such a lean F-22 fleet is not 
     consistent with America's national security interest.
       The F-22 is a model production line. Since full-rate 
     production began, the unit flyaway cost has decreased by 35 
     percent. If this certification is delayed, layoffs will begin 
     as this critical supplier base shuts down. Once we begin to 
     lose the F-22 industrial base that was created with billions 
     of dollars of investment over many years, it will quickly 
     become virtually impossible to reconstitute a production 
     capability.
       The F-22 program annually provides over $12 billion of 
     economic activity to the national economy. As our nation 
     faces one of the most trying economic times in recent 
     history, it is imperative to preserve existing high paying, 
     specialized jobs that are critical to our national defense. 
     Over 25,000 Americans working for more than 1,000 suppliers 
     in 44 states manufacture this aircraft. Moreover, it is 
     estimated that another 70,000 Americans indirectly owe their 
     jobs to this program.
         The Honorable Phil Gingrey, MD (GA-11); The Honorable Kay 
           Granger (TX-12); The Honorable Neil Abercrombie (HI-
           01); The Honorable John Dingell (MI-15); The Honorable 
           Danny Davis (IL-07); The Honorable Chet Edwards (TX-
           17); The Honorable Todd Tiahrt (KS-04); The Honorable 
           Thomas Price (GA-06); The Honorable Norman Dicks (WA-
           6); The Honorable David Scott (GA-13); The Honorable 
           Bill Young (FL-10); The Honorable Jack Kingston (GA-
           01); The Honorable Mac Thornberry (TX-13); Honorable 
           Hank Johnson (GA-04); The Honorable Ellen Tauscher (CA-
           10); The Honorable Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
         The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan (NM-03); The Honorable Brian 
           Higgins (NY-27); The Honorable Gresham Barrett (SC-03); 
           The Honorable Christopher Carney (PA-10); The Honorable 
           Timothy Bishop (NY-01); The Honorable Bill Shuster (PA-
           09); The Honorable Dean Heller (NV-02); The Honorable 
           Jim McGovern (MA-03); The Honorable Shelley Berkley 
           (NV-01); The Honorable John Barrow (GA-12); The 
           Honorable John Larson (CT-01); The Honorable Phil Hare 
           (IL-17); The Honorable John Sullivan (OK-01); The 
           Honorable Ander Crenshaw (FL-04); The Honorable Adam 
           Putnam (FL-12); The Honorable Mike Rogers (AL-03); The 
           Honorable Michelle Bachmann (MN-06); The Honorable Doug 
           Lamborn (CO-05); The Honorable Mary Bono Mack (CA-45); 
           The Honorable Mike Rogers (MI-08); The Honorable Larry 
           Kissell (NC-08); The Honorable Anna Eshoo (CA-14)
         The Honorable Mike Simpson (ID-02); The Honorable Steve 
           LaTourette (OH-14); The Honorable Alcee Hastings (FL-
           23); The Honorable Greg Walden (OR-02); The Honorable 
           Corrine Brown (FL-03); The Honorable Collin Peterson 
           (MN-07); The Honorable Robert Andrews (NJ-01); The 
           Honorable Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21); The Honorable 
           Mark Souder (IN-03); The Honorable Rick Boucher (VA-
           09); The Honorable Joe Barton (TX-06); The Honorable 
           Chris Smith; (NJ-04) The Honorable Brian Bilbray (CA-
           50); The Honorable Gary Miller (CA-42); The Honorable 
           Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23); The Honorable Tom Latham (IA-
           04); The Honorable Jerry Moran (KS-01); The Honorable 
           Peter Viscolosky (IN-01); The Honorable Jo Bonner (AL-
           01); The Honorable Donald Manzullo (IL-16); The 
           Honorable Don Young (AK-At Large); The Honorable Peter 
           Roskam (IL-06)

[[Page 19737]]

         The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25); The Honorable 
           Dave Camp (MI-04); The Honorable Kevin Brady (TX-08); 
           The Honorable Paul Broun (GA-10); The Honorable Chris 
           Murphy (CT-05); The Honorable Parker Griffith (AL-05); 
           The Honorable Paul Sarbanes (MD-03); The Honorable 
           Steve Scalise (LA-01); The Honorable John Carter (TX-
           31); The Honorable Pete Olson (TX-22); The Honorable 
           Connie Mack (FL-14); The Honorable Eric Cantor (VA-07); 
           The Honorable Peter King (NY-03); The Honorable Zack 
           Space (OH-18); The Honorable Patrick Kennedy (RI-01); 
           The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05); The Honorable 
           Tom Price (GA-06); The Honorable Madeleine Bordallo 
           (GU); The Honorable Ted Poe (TX-02); The Honorable Bill 
           Posey (FL-15); The Honorable Jim Marshall (GA-08); The 
           Honorable Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
         The Honorable Henry Brown (SC-01); The Honorable Jim 
           Langevin (RI-02); The Honorable Debbie Wasserman-Shultz 
           (FL-20); The Honorable Kristen Gillibrand (NY-20); The 
           Honorable Rob Bishop (UT-01); The Honorable Dean Heller 
           (NV-02); The Honorable Michael Arcuri (NY-24); The 
           Honorable Robert Brady (PA-01); The Honorable John 
           Barrow (GA-12); The Honorable Michael Burgess (TX-26); 
           The Honorable Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); The Honorable 
           Mike McCaul (TX-10); The Honorable Artur Davis (AL-07); 
           The Honorable Joe Wilson (SC-02); The Honorable Jim 
           Himes (CT-04); The Honorable Joe Courtney (CT-02); The 
           Honorable Dan Boren (OK-02); The Honorable Patrick 
           McHenry (NC-10); The Honorable Charlie Wilson (OH-06); 
           The Honorable Kenny Marchant (TX-24); The Honorable Sue 
           Myrick (NC-09); The Honorable Wally Herger (CA-02)
         The Honorable Harry Teague (NM-02); The Honorable Chellie 
           Pingree (ME-01); The Honorable Steve King (IA-05); The 
           Honorable Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03); The Honorable Paul 
           Hodes (NH-02); The Honorable Sam Graves (MO-06); The 
           Honorable Leonard Boswell (IA-03); The Honorable Duncan 
           Hunter (CA-52); The Honorable John Adler (NJ-03); The 
           Honorable Gus Bilirakis (FL-09); The Honorable Michael 
           McMahon (NY-13); The Honorable John Linder (GA-07); The 
           Honorable Kendrick Meek (FL-17); The Honorable John 
           Kline (MN-02); The Honorable Allen Boyd (FL-02); The 
           Honorable Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01); The Honorable Mary 
           Fallin (OK-05); The Honorable Robert Aderholt (AL-04); 
           The Honorable Zach Wamp (TN-03); The Honorable Bobby 
           Scott (VA-03); The Honorable Loretta Sanchez (CA-47); 
           The Honorable Rodney Alexander (LA-05)
         The Honorable Dave Reichert (WA-08); The Honorable Dennis 
           Moore (KS-03); The Honorable Mike Turner (OH-03); The 
           Honorable Daniel Maffei (NY-25); The Honorable John 
           Culberson (TX-07); The Honorable Mike Conaway (TX-11); 
           The Honorable Bob Latta (OH-05); The Honorable Richard 
           Neal (MA-02); The Honorable Pete Hoekstra (MI-02); The 
           Honorable Pete Sessions (TX-32); The Honorable Tom 
           Rooney (FL-16); The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-
           08); The Honorable Dan Lipinski (IL-03); The Honorable 
           Steve Austria (OH-07); The Honorable Patrick Murphy 
           (PA-08); The Honorable John Boozman (AR-03); The 
           Honorable Kevin McCarthy (CA-22); The Honorable Joe 
           Donnelly (IN-02); The Honorable Elijah Cummings (MD-
           07); The Honorable Buck McKeon (CA-25); The Honorable 
           Nathan Deal (GA-09); The Honorable E. B. Johnson (TX-
           30)
         The Honorable Joe Baca (CA-43); The Honorable Dan Burton 
           (IN-05); The Honorable Elton Gallegly (CA-24); The 
           Honorable Frank Lucas (0K-3); The Honorable Joe Crowley 
           (NY-07); The Honorable Harold Rogers (KY-05); The 
           Honorable Rosa DeLauro (CT-03); The Honorable Frank 
           LoBiondo (NJ-02); The Honorable Bennie Thompson (MS-
           02); The Honorable Steve Rothman (NJ-09); The Honorable 
           Jim Costa (CA-20); The Honorable Dan Lungren (CA-03); 
           The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46); The Honorable 
           Nick Rahall (WV-03); The Honorable John McHugh (NY-23); 
           The Honorable Ralph Hall (TX-04); The Honorable Lamar 
           Smith (TX-21); The Honorable Tim Holden (PA-17); The 
           Honorable Bob Filner (CA-51); The Honorable Maurice 
           Hinchey (NY-22); The Honorable Trent Franks (AZ-02); 
           The Honorable Mark Schauer (MI-07)
         The Honorable Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09); The Honorable 
           Tim Ryan (OH-17); The Honorable Grace Napolitano (CA-
           38); The Honorable Maxine Waters (CA-35); The Honorable 
           Darrell Issa (CA-49); The Honorable Jeff Miller (FL-
           01); The Honorable Mike McIntyre (NC-07); The Honorable 
           Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02); The Honorable lleana Ros-
           Lehtinen (FL-18); The Honorable George Radanovich (CA-
           19); The Honorable Gregg Harper (MS-03); The Honorable 
           Doc Hastings (WA-04); The Honorable Christopher Lee 
           (NY-26); The Honorable Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04); The 
           Honorable Dennis Rehberg (MN-At Large); The Honorable 
           Randy Forbes (VA-04); The Honorable John Shimkus (IL-
           19); The Honorable Steve Israel (NY-02); The Honorable 
           Mike Ross (AR-04); The Honorable Steve Buyer (IN-04); 
           The Honorable Paul Tonko (NY-21)
         The Honorable Tom Cole (OK-04); The Honorable Donna 
           Christensen (VI); The Honorable Sam Johnson (TX-03); 
           The Honorable Brian Bilbray (CA-50); The Honorable John 
           Fleming (LA-04); The Honorable Mike Coffman (CO-06); 
           The Honorable Henry Cuellar (TX-28).
  Madam Chair, I ask all of my colleagues to reject the Obama 
administration's posture on the F-22 and to support continued F-22 
production as we consider this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chair, I yield now 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, yet again, the Democratic leadership has decided to 
close down this process. I have submitted an amendment to the Rules 
Committee to prohibit funding in this bill from being used to 
standardize ground combat uniforms across the military services. The 
House version of the defense authorization has language that was 
slipped in to require one standardized future ground combat uniform for 
the military to eliminate the uniqueness of the branches.
  The Marine Corps has stated, ``A standardized ground uniform will 
negatively impact USMC recruiting, retention, and tactical/operational 
employment for deploying forces.'' Given the unique and differing 
missions of each of the branches, I believe that the leadership of each 
Service should maintain the flexibility to determine what uniform is 
best-suited for the specific role for its members.
  I am very disappointed that we have been denied the opportunity to 
debate my amendment here today. I want to say I'm a strong supporter of 
H.R. 3326. I am a marine. Once a marine, always a marine. I am also one 
who believes in a very strong national defense. I believe the Founding 
Fathers meant for a strong national defense to be the major function of 
the Federal Government.

                              {time}  1730

  I applaud this bill, and I applaud the leaders on both sides for 
bringing this strong bill. I want to say I agree with my colleague, Mr. 
Gingrey, that I believe very firmly that we need to continue funding 
the F-22 and the C-17.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time and also the entire committee. Putting this particular 
budget together is not an easy task, and I'm very proud of most of the 
things that are in this particular budget. I, too, though, have a 
couple of concerns, as was originally indicated by the ranking member 
as well as the ranking member of the full committee, that deal with air 
superiority.
  I'm just an old history teacher, but I realize in the 1930s this 
country decided to save money by cutting back on the P-35 construction. 
When World War II began, our bombers taking bomber runs were suffering 
casualty rates well over 20 percent. It was to the point we actually 
suspended some of those runs until we could go into an emergency 
production to build enough fighters to accommodate the bombers that we 
had. The bottom line is we were unprepared for a future we had not 
anticipated.
  We don't have the luxury anymore to be in that type of a situation, 
which is why the air superiority which we've had since the Korean War 
is such an essential element of our defense structure and our defense 
posture.
  And there are two elements that are essential for our air 
superiority. One is technical advancement. The other is production. The 
numbers that we have is as important as the technology. We cannot 
afford to find ourselves on the wrong side of history again. The world 
moves much too rapidly for that.
  I have a great deal of gratitude for the long hours that were put in 
for this

[[Page 19738]]

budget, and with a couple of exceptions in there where I have great 
concerns, I applaud the efforts and would like us to look seriously at 
that particular element of air superiority one more time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Since we have talked so much about the F-22, I thought I would 
compare just briefly some of the history of our fighter aircraft.
  For example, the F-4, which was one of the major aircraft fighters in 
the Vietnam War, we produced over 4,000 of those airplanes, yet we're 
only talking about 187 of the F-22s. Of the F-15s, we built 1,118 F-
15s. We only have about half of them left today, and they're being 
phased out. The F-16. We built 2,230 F-16s. Today we only have about 
half of those left, and one day we will phase those out when Joint 
Strike Fighter comes on line.
  But the history of buying and building the fighter aircraft and 
losing fighter aircraft when we are involved in hostilities is very, 
very telling. And it, again, we must say, it is important that our 
soldiers fighting on the ground have an American airplane overhead and 
not an enemy airplane with bombs and strafing guns, et cetera. So we'll 
discuss this more in detail when the amendment is offered.
  At this point, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Let me just conclude by thanking Bill Young on all of the 
work he did and all of the rest of the subcommittee on the work they 
did.
  And let me reiterate this is all about the troops being taken care 
of, making sure they have what they need. We put the full amount that 
the President requested for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we 
made sure that we gave them a pay raise. And when I see those troops--
whether it's in the field, at the bases, whether I see them overseas or 
I see the troops in the hospitals--I have such great admiration for 
what they do. And we're just trying to make sure they have everything 
that they need.
  The F-22, as the gentleman from Florida says, we're going to argue 
that later. We would have to have 292 votes in the House; we'd have to 
have 66 votes in the Senate, so you can see the position I'm in and the 
problems that we would have if we were to go forward. I just want to 
make sure that the planes we have are robustly funded.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2010.
  At a time when our nation is facing an unprecedented series of 
challenges, I believe we must do more to curb the runaway growth in 
defense spending.
  Instead of spending a staggering 52 percent of the federal 
discretionary budget for the pentagon, we should be using this money to 
fund universal health care for all Americans, or to reform our 
educational system and train and prepare the next generation to run the 
green economy of the future, or to reorder our foreign policy around a 
smart security strategy that emphasizes development and diplomacy.
  We cannot and should not continue to throw money at billion dollar 
cold-war era weapon systems while ignoring the needs and priorities of 
the American people.
  I must note that it is about time we have included the full costs of 
our overseas deployments and other activities in the regular budget 
process and Defense Appropriations bill after years of the Bush 
Administration insisting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
be kept from view.
  Although I am pleased to see that H.R. 3326 includes language 
prohibiting the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq or 
Afghanistan, it should come as no surprise that I believe the situation 
in Iraq and in Afghanistan does not lend itself to a military solution.
  Madam Chair, I cannot support the $128 billion included in this bill 
for overseas operations which may further entrench the United States in 
conflict and continue us down a path to war without end.
  As the daughter of a military veteran, let me close by saying I 
strongly support our troops as well as respect the necessity of 
adequately equipping them for the threats they face around the globe.
  In the case of this bill, I strongly, support the recommendation of 
our President and our military leadership to halt production of the F-
22 at 187 planes.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and to support the Murtha 
amendment to reallocate funds away from the F-22 advance procurement 
program.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3326, the Fiscal 
Year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. Although I am concerned that 
advanced capabilities are short-changed in the bill. Overall, the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has worked in a bi-partisan manner 
to craft a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to join with me in 
supporting this legislation.
  First, I want to highlight one important provision in this bill 
regarding the KC-X Tanker Acquisition. Over the past seven years, I 
have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address 
the real and growing need to recapitalize our aging KC-135 Tanker 
fleet. The committee has shown a real commitment to this vital program 
by providing $440 million in funding and instructive language.
  Specifically, the directive language:
  Recommends procuring 36 aircraft a year, over the current 12-15 a 
year. With over 500 KC-135 aircraft, it would take 40 years to replace 
these aircraft at 12 a year.
  Requires production aircraft to be built in the United States--to 
strengthen our industrial base;
  Ensures that any competition includes a 40-year life-cycle cost--to 
guarantee the American taxpayer get the best return on their 
investment.
  This is the right direction to move the program forward.
  Unfortunately the President, in his Statement on Administration 
Policy, has expressed strong opposition to the Buy-America language 
directing that production KC-X aircraft be built in the United States. 
This comes as both competitors--Boeing and Airbus--have already 
committed to building their tanker in America.
  This provision is essential because Airbus has a history of promising 
American jobs and then shipping the jobs back to Europe when it suits 
their interests--as they did with the Light Utility Helicopter. I hope 
the President drops his opposition to the American worker and stand 
with us in demanding that the promises defense contractors make to this 
Congress and the American people are kept.
  Second, as I previously stated, I am concerned with the lackluster 
investment in procurement and research and development accounts in this 
bill. In 1985, military modernization was around 45 percent of the 
defense budget. This year the modernization budget is set to represent 
only 31 percent of the budget request. It appears another defense 
procurement holiday is on the horizon.
  The Obama administration has already slashed procurement budgets 
along with research and development of almost a dozen advanced weaponry 
systems our nation will likely need in the future. Some of these cuts 
include the Airborne Laser, the Future Combat Systems, the C-17, the 
Navy's next-generation cruiser, the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and the 
Kinetic Energy Interceptor.
  In my opinion, this bill fails to make the adequate investments so 
our children and grandchildren will have the resources they need to 
protect this nation in the decades to come.
  Despite my concerns, I believe this bill is still worth supporting. I 
will continue to work for additional resources for our military when we 
move to conference. In the meantime I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair. I rise today in strong support 
of this bill. The Defense Appropriations bill funds a number of 
research and education programs, but most importantly it provides for 
the defense of our nation and for the men and women who serve in our 
Armed Forces.
  This bill includes a pay raise and other benefits for our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines, making sure we provide them what they 
need and deserve. It provides a 3.4 percent military pay increase and 
$122.4 billion to fully fund the requested end strength levels for 
personnel. The bill continues efforts to end the practice of ``stop 
loss'' and includes funding to pay troops $500 for every month their 
term of service is involuntarily extended in 2010.
  The bill also provides for those that have been injured defending our 
country by including $500 million for traumatic brain injury and 
psychological health. The bill also includes a total of $2.2 billion 
for the wounded, ill and injured programs. The bill includes $636 
million for peer-reviewed research programs: $150 million for breast 
cancer research; $80 million for prostate cancer research; $30 million 
for orthopedic research; $25 million for ovarian cancer research; $15 
million for spinal cord research; and $10 million for ALS research.
  I would also like to express support for the inclusion of The 
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM.) Initiative to

[[Page 19739]]

be administered by HoustonWorks USA. Federal support is necessary, 
because this program will support the national agenda to promote STEM 
programs and increase exposure to careers in engineering among at-risk 
or hard-to-serve youth, an untapped human resource in our country's 
quest to increase the numbers of American engineers. The outcome of 
STEM awareness programs like this one is part of the process to grow 
the engineering pipeline, a critical step to answer some of the world's 
most important questions in science today. This project will benefit 
numerous individuals in the 29th District, and I thank the Committee 
for including funding for the project.
  I am disappointed, however, funding was not included for restoration 
of the Battleship Texas. The historic Battleship Texas is the only 
surviving naval vessel that served in both World War I & II. In order 
to keep her from deteriorating further, the Battleship Texas Foundation 
in conjunction with the Parks and Wildlife Department, will permanently 
remove the USS Texas from the water and construct a dry berth at a cost 
of $29,000,000--we have secured funding in the past to assist with this 
project, but did not receive funding this year for our request. I ask 
that the Chair reconsider as future bills move forward, and I look 
forward to working with him on this project.
  Madam Chair, overall this is a good bill that provides for the 
defense of our nation, our troops and their families, and a number of 
other critical projects and research initiatives. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting H.R. 3326.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Defense 
Appropriations bill. As families and businesses struggle in this 
recession, this bill spends money on the wrong priorities for our 
Nation and the world.
  The legislation provides $128.3 billion to fund wars in Afghanistan 
and Iraq that never should have been waged, as well as $9.3 billion for 
missile defense funding that doesn't work. According to the Washington 
Post, over $6.9 billion in funding is for new ships, planes, 
helicopters and armored vehicles that the Pentagon doesn't want.
  We are wasting money on these projects as defense eats up a larger 
share of our budget--58 percent of all discretionary spending, up from 
51 percent four years ago.
  This giveaway to defense contractors comes at the same time that 
Members of Congress are balking at health care reform that will cost a 
fraction of our defense spending over the same time period. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting no.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3326 the 
Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act. This bill makes important 
investments to keep the American people safe, strengthen our military, 
and support our troops.
  This bill contains $636.3 billion for the Department of Defense next 
year to provide funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, enhance 
recruitment, address critical equipment needs at home, and, perhaps 
most importantly, support our troops and their families who give so 
much in defense of our nation. As a Member of the House Budget 
Committee, I am pleased that H.R. 3326 is fiscally responsible, for the 
first time including funding for ongoing needs for the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan in the regular budgeting process. The decision to hide 
funding for our engagement abroad in ``emergency'' spending led to 
financial mismanagement, and it ends this year. The bill also calls for 
additional contracting reform and other efficiencies, while ensuring 
sufficient support for our men and women in uniform.
  As a veteran of the U.S. Army, and the representative of Fort Bragg 
and Pope Air Force Base, I am proud of our troops who serve our country 
so bravely. Whether in the Army, Air Force or Navy, the Coast Guard, or 
the Marines; whether in the National Guard or in the Reserves; each 
soldier deserves our full support and respect. This bill provides our 
troops with a 3.4 percent pay raise and recognizes the hardship of 
stop-loss deployment by providing an additional $500 per month for 
involuntary extensions of active duty. It provides significant funding 
for readiness training and medical care, often overlooked aspects of 
our military support. Knowing that the mission at home for military 
families is often critical to the soldier's mission abroad, I am 
pleased that H.R. 3326 fully funds Family Support and Yellow Ribbon 
programs, as well as providing $472 million for family advocacy 
initiatives.
  Madam Chair, there is no more important function for Congress than to 
protect the American people. This bill ensures our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have the funding and equipment they need, provides support 
for our troops at home, and improves the health of our entire military. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3326.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the 2010 Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act. This bill provides $636.3 billion to 
fund the defense, military family support, humanitarian assistance and 
oversight priorities of the American people.
  This bill provides the resources to implement President Obama's 
national security strategy, including the new approach he is taking 
with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also provides funding to 
support the general quality-of-life needs of our troops and their 
families. Specifically, the measure provides a 3.4 percent pay increase 
for military personnel; $8.3 million in additional funds to compensate 
personnel subject to ``stop loss'' requirements; and $2.6 billion to 
support military families--including $472 million for family advocacy 
programs that help children and families manage the many challenges of 
military service.
  The bill also provides $29.9 billion for the defense health program, 
including $500 million for traumatic brain injury treatments and funds 
to treat Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome. And finally, the Defense 
Appropriations Act includes a number of provisions to improve oversight 
of defense contractors and $110 million for international humanitarian 
assistance including foreign disaster and emergency relief assistance.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it was my hope that this year would mark 
a turning point in the type and amount of we spend on the Department of 
Defense. Oregonians know I frequently vote against Defense 
Appropriations bills as spending too much money for the wrong 
priorities.
  I was pleased to see the traditional military pay raise included, as 
well as an extension of current stop loss compensation to troops 
extended tours in 2010. I also continue to strongly support provisions 
that prohibit permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and torture.
  Yet the bill also includes funding for programs that have been 
outdated since the end of the Cold War two decades ago, and which even 
the Secretary of Defense would like to terminate. The list of these 
programs funded here is long and runs into the billions: $80 million 
for the Missile Defense, Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program, $369 
million for parts for the F-22 and C-17, an extra $3 billion for Navy 
ships, and $674 million for still more unrequested C-17 planes.
  These programs come at the expense of other, more worthy projects and 
investments. I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee for this 
bill, both of which would have shifted funding to environmental 
programs. My first amendment would have shifted $100 million from the 
unnecessary Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Alternate Engine Program and 
toward the chronically-underfunded Defense Department's Environmental 
Restoration Program. These programs, responsible for the cleaning of 
toxic wastes and leftover bombs from all active bases and Formerly Used 
Defense Sites, will receive less funds than they did last year even 
though the number of sites needing clean up has increased.
  My second amendment would have created a small pilot program to fund 
a practical demonstration of ordnance discrimination technology. 
Currently over 75 percent of material uncovered during the clearing of 
leftover and still dangerous bombs and shells is non-dangerous scrap 
metal. This type of technology, once proven through a live 
demonstration, would cut cleanup costs by two to three times.
  These amendments were commonsense ways to reduce Pentagon liability, 
save money and resources in the long run, and make our lands safer for 
our communities and military personnel. I was extremely disappointed 
that these amendments were unable to receive an up-or-down vote. But I 
will continue to work to ensure the Federal government is a better 
partner to communities.
  The Administration is moving in the right direction by being willing 
to make tough decisions to cut or terminate certain favored, yet 
expensive and unnecessary, programs. It is my hope that Congress can 
craft a bill in conference that more closely adheres to this principled 
and practical stance and that meets the needs of our military and our 
communities.
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Titus) having assumed the chair, Ms. Baldwin, 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. 3326) making 
appropriations for

[[Page 19740]]

the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2010, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________