[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24364-24374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2647, NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 808

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2647) 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, to provide special pays and 
     allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand 
     concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability 
     benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to 
     its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that 
the previous question shall be considered as ordered without any 
intervening motion except 1 hour of debate and, if applicable, one 
motion to recommit.
  The bill was introduced on June 2, 2009, by Chairman Ike Skelton and 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The committee marked up 
the bill on June 16, 2009, and ordered it favorably reported, as 
amended, by voice vote June 16, 2009.
  The Committee on Rules reported a structured rule making in order 69 
amendments, which then passed the floor 222-202. And today we have the 
conference report that we have now concurred with the Senate.
  Despite any differences about our ongoing missions in Afghanistan or 
Iraq, we all agree that funds that have already been approved as part 
of the annual spending plans should not be held up for any reason, not 
with our troops in harm's way.
  The bill authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the 
Department of Defense and the national security programs of the 
Department of Energy and also authorizes $130 billion for overseas 
contingency operations for fiscal year 2010.
  For our service men and women, it authorizes a pay raise of 3.4 
percent for the military, expands TRICARE health coverage for Reserve 
members, bars fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care for 1 year, and 
provides $2.2 billion for housing programs to improve the quality of 
life for our servicepersons' families.
  On Afghanistan, the bill responds to concerns raised by Members of 
both parties and requires an assessment of progress in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan toward security and stability. It also bans permanent bases in 
Afghanistan and provides funds to train and equip the Afghan National 
Security Forces, the ANSF.
  There is also language in the bill that requires a reporting system 
to register and track all the U.S. defense items that are provided to 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, to help combat waste and fraud. This is 
especially important in light of recent news stories showing that 
millions of dollars destined for

[[Page 24365]]

Pakistan to battle militants in al Qaeda have been diverted to either 
the domestic economy or ``for other purposes.'' In fact, between 2002 
and 2008, while al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 
billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, 
according to two Army generals quoted in an Associated Press story from 
earlier this week. I will insert that story into the Record.

            Billions in U.S. Aid Never Reached Pakistan Army

                           (By Kathy Gannon)

       Islamabad, Pakistan.--The United States has long suspected 
     that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to 
     battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy 
     and other causes, such as fighting India.
       Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming 
     clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaida regrouped, only 
     $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually 
     made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The 
     Associated Press.
       The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous 
     because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly, 
     was backed up by other retired and active generals, former 
     bureaucrats and government ministers.
       At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a 
     Washington ally, served as both chief of staff and president, 
     making it easier to divert money intended for the military to 
     bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies.
       ``The army itself got very little,'' said retired Gen. 
     Mahmud Durrani, who was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. 
     under Musharraf. ``It went to things like subsidies, which is 
     why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing 
     the war on terror out of its own budget.''
       Generals and ministers say the diversion of the money hurt 
     the military in very real ways:
       Helicopters critical to the battle in rugged border regions 
     were not available. At one point in 2007, more than 200 
     soldiers were trapped by insurgents in the tribal regions 
     without a helicopter lift to rescue them.
       The limited night vision equipment given to the army was 
     taken away every three months for inventory and returned 
     three weeks later.
       Equipment was broken, and training was lacking. It was not 
     until 2007 that money was given to the Frontier Corps, the 
     front-line force, for training.
       The details on misuse of American aid come as Washington 
     again promises Pakistan money. Legislation to triple general 
     aid to Pakistan cleared Congress last week. The legislation 
     also authorizes ``such sums as are necessary'' for military 
     assistance to Pakistan, upon several conditions. The 
     conditions include certification that Pakistan is cooperating 
     in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that 
     Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating 
     terrorist groups and that Pakistan security forces are not 
     subverting the country's political or judicial processes.
       The U.S. is also insisting on more accountability for 
     reimbursing money spent. For example, Pakistan is still 
     waiting for $1.7 billion for which it has billed the United 
     States under a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse allies for 
     money spent on the war on terror.
       But the U.S. still can't follow what happens to the money 
     it doles out.
       ``We don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we 
     have given it to them,'' Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark 
     Wright said in a telephone interview.
       Musharraf's spokesman, retired Gen. Rashid Quereshi, flatly 
     denied that his former boss had shortchanged the army. He did 
     not address the specific charges. ``He has answered these 
     questions. He has answered all the questions,'' the spokesman 
     said. Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and 
     resigned in August 2008.
       The misuse of funding helps to explain how al-Qaida, 
     dismantled in Afghanistan in 2001, was able to regroup, grow 
     and take on the weak Pakistani army. Even today, the army 
     complains of inadequate equipment to battle Taliban 
     entrenched in tribal regions.
       For its part, Washington did not ask many questions of a 
     leader, Musharraf, whom it considered an ally, according to a 
     U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last 
     year.
       Pakistan has received more money from the fund than any 
     other nation. It is also the least expensive war front. The 
     amount the U.S. spends per soldier per month is just $928, 
     compared with $76,870 in Afghanistan and $85,640 in Iraq.
       Yet by 2008, the United States had provided Pakistan with 
     $8.6 billion in military money, and more than $12 billion in 
     all.
       ``The army was sending in the bills,'' said one general who 
     asked not to be identified because it is against military 
     rules to speak publicly. ``The army was taking from its 
     coffers to pay for the war effort--the access roads 
     construction, the fuel, everything. . . . This is the 
     reality--the army got peanuts.''
       Some of the money from the U.S. even went to buying weapons 
     from the United States better suited to fighting India than 
     in the border regions of Afghanistan--armor-piercing tow 
     missiles, sophisticated surveillance equipment, air-to-air 
     missiles, maritime patrol aircraft, anti-ship missiles and F-
     16 fighter aircraft.
       ``Pakistan insisted and America agreed. Pakistan said we 
     also have a threat from other sources,'' Durrani said, 
     referring to India, ``and we have to strengthen our overall 
     capacity. ``The money was used to buy and support capability 
     against India.''
       The army also suffered from mismanagement, Durrani said. As 
     an example, he cited Pakistani attempts to buy badly needed 
     attack helicopters.
       Pakistan asked for Cobra helicopters because it knows how 
     to maintain them, he said. But the helicopters were old, and 
     to make them battle-ready, the Pentagon sent them to a 
     company that had no experience with Cobras and took two 
     years, he said.
       As a result, in 2007, Pakistan had only one working 
     helicopter--a debilitating handicap in the battle against 
     insurgents who hide, train and attack from the hulking 
     mountains that run like a seam along the Afghan-Pakistani 
     border.
       The army was also frustrated about not getting more money. 
     Military spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas said the U.S. gave 
     nothing to offset the cost of Pakistan's dead and wounded in 
     the war on terror. He estimated 1,800 Pakistani soldiers had 
     been killed since 2003 and 4,800 more wounded, most of them 
     seriously.
       The hospital and rehabilitation costs for the wounded have 
     come to more than $25 million, Abbas said. Pakistan's 
     military also gives land to the widows of the dead, educates 
     their children and provides health care.
       ``These costs do not appear anywhere,'' he said. ``There is 
     no U.S. compensation for the casualties, assistance with aid 
     to the grieving families.''
       Even while money was being siphoned off for other purposes 
     on Pakistan's end, the U.S. imposed little control over or 
     even had specific knowledge of what went where, according to 
     reports by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The 
     reports covered 2002 through 2008.
       The reports found that the Pentagon often ignored its own 
     oversight rules, didn't get adequate documents and doled out 
     money without asking for an explanation.
       For more than a year, the Pentagon paid Pakistan's navy 
     $19,000 a month per vehicle just for repair costs on a fleet 
     of fewer than 20 vehicles. Monthly food bills doubled for no 
     apparent reason, and for a year the Pentagon paid the bills 
     without checking, according to the report.
       Daniyal Aziz, a minister in Musharraf's government, said he 
     warned U.S. officials that the money they were giving his 
     government was being misused, but to no avail.
       ``They both deserved each other, Musharraf and the 
     Americans,'' he said.

  Within this bill is authorization for 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
aircraft and the continued development and procurement of the F136 
Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine but does not authorize the 
advance procurement of F-22 aircraft.
  It authorizes $6.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, 
vehicles and fully funds the new MRAP all-terrain variant requirement 
for Afghanistan. We've seen far too many reports of our troops dying 
because their vehicles are ripped apart by roadside bombs. We can and 
will do better to protect them from these risks.
  Under the provisions of this bill, the military will increase by 
30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, 14,650 Air Force personnel, and 
2,477 Navy sailors in 2010. It also authorizes an additional 30,000 
Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
  The bill provides support for the plan to increase the size of our 
civilian workforce so that we can reduce DOD's reliance on contractors 
for core acquisition functions. This is also a most important point to 
cut down on fraud and waste. The bill also provides DOD with the needed 
flexibility to reform the DOD hiring process to reduce the fraud and 
abuse through enhanced contractor oversight, which is long overdue.
  The bill speaks to vessels carrying DOD cargo in high piracy risk 
areas by requiring that they be equipped with appropriate nonlethal 
defense measures. And it strengthens the DOD's ability to face threats 
and vulnerabilities by improving research and promoting military and 
civilian cyber workforce development.
  It improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense 
contracts by providing the Defense Department the authority to require 
return of award and incentive fees. The bill prohibits a company from 
being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a servicemember's 
death or severe injury.

[[Page 24366]]

This, of course, is in response to the number of soldiers who were 
electrocuted by bad plumbing work.
  To address concerns about the treatment of detainees, the bill bans 
interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department 
of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt 
access to detainees held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in 
Afghanistan.
  In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify 
rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair 
and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the 
use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, 
or degrading treatment.
  Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to 
select his own counsel and to make hearsay evidence harder to use in 
court. It improves procedures for the handling of classified 
information while also permitting military commissions to continue 
existing cases for 90 days or until revisions have been made to 
supporting court manuals and handbooks.
  The bill matches the administration's request for $9.3 billion for 
missile defense programs and provides the resources necessary to meet 
threats facing the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends 
and allies, and provides $2.2 billion to support the Department of 
Energy's nonproliferation programs. It strengthens the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile is 
safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground testing.
  Further, the bill provides technical and financial support to local 
law enforcement and prosecutors that they can more aggressively try 
violent crimes which are motivated by the victim's race, color, 
religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
or disability; expands the ability of Federal prosecutors to try 
similar types of cases in Federal court if State or local officials are 
unable or unwilling to prosecute these cases; and criminalizes attacks 
against U.S. servicemembers because of their service to their country.
  I want to address one last point. The bill includes new hate crimes 
legislation that will prohibit offenses based on the actual or 
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. This kind of 
far-reaching protection is important for America, and I am proud to 
support it.
  There are still far too many incidences of violence in and around our 
schools and churches. During the last 10 years, 69 persons have been 
killed or injured at church and another 122 children have died in or 
around their school. The numbers are devastating. One has only to look 
at the beating death of Chicago teenager Derrion Albert outside his 
high school, an honor student, to see how devastating it is to see 
violence in our schools. I hope this bill can help bring an end to that 
sorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend, the 
distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Today the House will consider the bipartisan conference report for 
the 2010 National Defense Authorization legislation. With this 
important legislation, I think we are sending the message to our men 
and women in uniform that we support them and that we deeply appreciate 
their service.
  The conference report authorizes over $550 billion for the activities 
of the Department of Defense. It also provides approximately $130 
billion to support our combat operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and 
other fronts of the war on international terrorism.
  I wish to commend both the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. 
Skelton, and the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, both good friends and 
admired colleagues, for their commitment that they have demonstrated in 
this legislation to put partisanship aside in order to get this 
important legislation to the President.
  While I support the conference report, I know it is not perfect. No 
human endeavor is. But I believe that the conference report will 
strengthen our national security and help modernize our military. It 
will provide servicemembers and their families with improved health 
care, support, and quality-of-life programs. I'm pleased that it 
includes the House-passed 3.4 percent pay raise for our troops instead 
of the lower request that had come from the President.
  Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE 
eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE 
coverage 180 days before they go on active duty and will prevent 
increases in copayments for inpatient care at civilian hospitals under 
TRICARE. The bill provides over $2 billion for family housing programs 
to expand and improve the quality of military housing.
  The legislation authorizes the expansion of our military by 30,000 
Army troops, 8,100 marines, and over 14,000 Air Force personnel and 
approximately 2,500 members of the Navy.

                              {time}  1030

  I would like to thank the members of the conference committee for 
including my request for authorization for funding for the finalization 
of construction of a new permanent headquarters for the United States 
Southern Command that is located in the congressional district that I 
am honored to represent. Currently, the Department of Defense is 
leasing the land for SOUTHCOM from a private individual. The funds 
authorized in this legislation will be used to complete construction of 
the new headquarters on land adjacent to the current location and lease 
it from the State of Florida for the sum of $1 per year.
  This provision is extremely important to my community because 
SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 
billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida's economy.
  As a supporter of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I 
am pleased to see that it was included in the underlying legislation, 
though I wish that the provision would have been expanded to include 
also more serious penalties for crimes against members of the armed 
services and their families. There are people who hate our armed 
services for what they symbolize, and our armed services, I think, 
deserve the additional protection from crimes of violence.
  There are aspects of this legislation, obviously, with which I 
disagree, Mr. Speaker. Since the beginning of military aviation, the 
United States has very wisely invested in our military air superiority. 
In recent military operations, we've clearly seen that our investments 
pay off. Our military air superiority saves the lives of our men and 
women in uniform, and it saves the lives of countless civilians. That's 
why I am very disappointed that the underlying legislation fails to 
include funding for the F-22, the world's most advanced fighter plane 
and one that we may very well need in future operations. Obviously not 
against ragtag terrorists, but against the superpowers of the future.
  I hope and pray that this shortsighted decision will not hurt the 
long-term safety of our Nation and our men and women in uniform.
  I also have deep reservations about the decision to block full 
funding restoration for missile defense. This unwise decision, in my 
opinion, comes at a time when the demented despot of North Korea 
continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and 
threatens the United States and our friends and allies with 
destruction.
  The Iranian tyranny, while it continues to massacre its people in the 
streets perhaps today in a less public manner than a few months ago, 
nevertheless continues to massacre its people. It also threatens to 
wipe Israel off the face of the map. It's clear to me that the world 
faces a grave and I believe imminent threat from the dictatorships in 
North Korea and Iran, and now is not the time to cut missile defense. 
Unfortunately, because of the request from the executive branch and

[[Page 24367]]

 acquiescence here on the part of the leadership, it is occurring, and 
I think it is a mistake.
  I would have liked to have seen included in this legislation section 
1226 of the Senate version of the bill, which would have required a 
report to Congress on the Republic of China's--that's free China, 
Taiwan--defense capabilities. That report would have greatly enhanced 
the ability of Congress and the administration to assess their 
obligations to sell defense articles as required under the Taiwan 
Relations Act, ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a 
sufficient self-defense capability.''
  The peace in that area has been maintained because this Congress, 
throughout the decades ever since the betrayal of Taiwan, this Congress 
has insisted on the United States selling, making available for 
purchase by the Republic of China, the military equipment and 
technology necessary to deter an armed attack. So I am sorry that that 
provision that was in the Senate legislation is not included in the 
final conference report.
  Again, despite the aspects of the legislation with which I do not 
agree, I feel that overall this legislation is necessary and that we 
pass it. Obviously although it's not perfect, it helps modernize and it 
supports our military forces. It provides our men and women in uniform 
with support they need and deserve.
  So I would ask my colleagues, as I have done, to look further than 
the aspects with which one may disagree within the legislation and pass 
it.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
bill. I would like to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for the time on the 
rule as well as House Armed Services Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon for their tireless work on this bill. Their job is not 
easy.
  Our Nation faces a war on two fronts and growing threats to our 
security here and abroad. As our economy struggles to recover from a 
meltdown, the resources we have available to devote to these problems 
are under increasing pressure.
  It's time we bring our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
commend President Obama and his efforts to end our military presence in 
Iraq and look forward to helping him achieve this goal soon.
  I am concerned, however, about the possible increase of troops in 
Afghanistan. We cannot achieve peace through the occupation of an 
entire country. The occupation of Afghanistan will not help us defeat 
the very real threat of al Qaeda. We need to take a new look at our 
policy, moving towards targeted operations against al Qaeda rather than 
the occupation of an entire country. And this can only come about 
through discussion and debate.
  We need an exit strategy for Afghanistan, a plan for peace. This bill 
promotes such a plan by requiring assessment of goals in Afghanistan 
with timelines and by increasing numbers in the Afghan National 
Security Forces to prepare for the transition.
  Recognizing, however, that this authorization will inevitably 
continue war efforts inherited from the previous administration, I take 
great pause in deciding to support it. But at its heart, this 
authorization is about more than our policy towards Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this authorization today because, in 
doing so, Congress finally--after nearly a decade of debate--has the 
opportunity to pass historic hate crimes legislation. My home State of 
Colorado has long had hate crimes legislation on the books, including 
gays and lesbians, and I am proud to stand before you as a 
representative of the Second Congressional District and as an original 
cosponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
2009 which is included in this Defense authorization bill.
  Our hate crimes legislation expands Federal jurisdiction to 
investigate and prosecute hate crimes and provides law enforcement with 
another means of ensuring that the safety and rights of all Americans 
are protected. It offers Federal protection for victims of hate crimes 
targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin, 
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, as well as 
protecting men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United 
States from hate crimes. It also provides assistance to State and local 
law enforcement agencies and amends Federal law to aid in the 
prosecution of bias-motivated crimes.
  Hate crimes are not limited to the LGBT community. They occur every 
day in every State and perpetuate a climate of fear throughout minority 
communities. What makes these crimes so odious is that they are not 
just crimes against individuals; they're crimes against entire 
communities and create environments of fear in entire communities.
  There is a difference between burning a cross on the lawn of an 
African American family and an act of simple arson. This legislation 
clarifies that our country has zero tolerance for hate crimes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. I rise in support today--despite my opposition to the 
war--of the 2009 reauthorization bill. And I thank Chairman Skelton and 
Ranking Member McKeon for including the hate crimes bill and bringing 
this historic legislation to the floor of the House and to the desk of 
the President of the United States of America.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished leader from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule, for the first 
time that I am aware of, allows the Defense authorization bill to 
become a vehicle where other social legislation is finalized, where the 
country's laws are changed, where those of us who have always voted for 
the Defense authorization bill now have a choice of voting for a bill 
that includes something that we've always voted against. And even if it 
was something that I was for, I don't think this rule should move 
forward in a way that changes the law so that we would, in the future, 
have two classifications of criminals and two classifications of 
victims.
  Criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 
Victims should be protected to the fullest extent of the law, and it 
should not, Mr. Speaker, happen in the Defense authorization bill. To 
use this bill in this way is a step in the wrong direction, and I am 
afraid it's the first step in that wrong direction where every bill to 
defend the country, every bill to find out what our enemies are up to, 
every bill to fund our troops, every bill to take care of their 
families will become a vehicle for other social legislation that has 
nothing to do with defense. That should not be in this bill.
  This rule should allow a vote that takes it out of the bill, at the 
very least, and it sets a very terrible preference, Mr. Speaker.
  I urge this rule be rejected so we can move forward with a Defense 
authorization bill like every Defense authorization bill for at least a 
decade that dealt with defense and those who defend our country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady for her courtesy and the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 2647, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  In addition to the bill's robust support of our national defense and 
national security programs, H.R. 2647 includes several key Federal 
employee initiatives which will come under my jurisdiction as the 
chairman of the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of 
Columbia Subcommittee. I am pleased to report that the bill 
significantly enhances the Federal Government's recruitment and 
retention

[[Page 24368]]

capabilities, as well as further bolstering agency management and 
worker productivity.
  The underlying bill will now allow the Federal Employees Retirement 
System to provide employees with retirement credit for unused sick 
time. Under the current system, we have half of our employees that are 
allowed to get credit for unused sick time, and the others are 
encouraged to use their sick time whether they need it or not.
  Under this new bill, Federal workers, managers, and agencies will 
have the flexibility they have long called for. This is a great change 
in our personnel management system.
  Additionally, this legislation fixes a civil service retirement 
annuity calculation problem for those employees who wish to phase down 
to part-time at the end of their working careers. Under the existing 
system, senior employees--many times our most valuable senior 
employees--are forced to simply retire and not work part-time at the 
end of their career in order to train their successors, because the 
calculation would hurt their pension if they work part-time at the end 
of their career. This change will obviously correct that inequity.
  The Office of Personnel Management supports that as a way to retain 
the skill-set and knowledge of employees who are nearing the end of 
their careers and who want to work part time to help train future 
agency leaders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. LYNCH. Also included is a provision that allows D.C. court 
employees to be compensated for lost retirement credits when those 
workers were involuntarily transferred to Federal service.
  H.R. 2647 will also terminate DOD's disastrous so-called pay-for-
performance personnel system.
  I would like to extend my gratitude to Ike Skelton, chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, and Buck McKeon, the ranking member, as well 
as Members Jim Moran from Virginia, Mr. Connolly from Virginia, Mr. Van 
Hollen from Maryland, and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton from the 
District of Columbia, and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer for their efforts 
on behalf of the Federal workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by thanking Chairwoman Slaughter 
for the time and restating my support for the rule.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
my friend, the great Texan, Judge Carter.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor and privilege to 
represent 52,000 fighting American soldiers, men and women. As we stand 
here on the floor of this House today, 25,000 of my soldiers that I 
represent from Fort Hood, Texas, are engaged in combat against an enemy 
of the United States. And we have lost hundreds of soldiers from Fort 
Hood; and we have had thousands of soldiers, men and women, injured 
from Fort Hood fighting for freedom and doing their duty and 
accomplishing their mission.
  I have always supported the United States military in every form or 
fashion, and I have always been a crusader for the authorization bill 
that gives those tools that gives my fighting men and women that fight 
for Fort Hood and fight for Texas and fight for America the opportunity 
to do their mission, accomplish their goals and maintain freedom.
  But I'm in a dilemma today, as are many, many of my colleagues 
because we seem to be following a code of secrecy that seems to be the 
new mode in this Congress. When you have something you don't want to 
talk about out in public, you hide it somewhere. And so we're looking 
today on the fact that we've added to the bill that's designed to 
protect the men and women of the United States military and keep them 
safe, we've added a criminal justice issue having to do with hate 
crimes.
  In 20 years on the bench as a criminal judge, at a felony level in 
Texas, I've spent an inordinate amount of time protecting the rights of 
the individual and protecting the rights of the defendant. I believe 
that we have created a justice system in America that blindly treats 
everyone equally. There are those who disagree, and I understand that 
debate.
  But that debate should be resolved in a one-on-one confrontation 
between those who think the justice system treats all fairly and those 
who do not, and if hate crimes is the solution to that bill, if we 
thought crimes are what we want in America, then I think we should go 
forward independently on a hate crimes bill. And I think those who 
support hate crimes should have the courage to come out from underneath 
the cover of the United States serviceman and step up and say, this is 
a problem in America and it needs to be solved, and here's how we solve 
it.
  Let us discuss it as men and women who represent the American people, 
and let us vote as our constituents would have us vote on the issue 
before us, hate crimes. Let's not hide that issue behind that American 
soldier who, at this very moment, is patrolling over in Iraq and 
putting his life on the line. This is an awful thing to do to the 
American soldier because it is taking him and having his Representative 
have to be in a quandary to support the military because someone is 
plugging in a bill that they might disagree with.
  I believe every victim is entitled to be protected by the law. No 
matter who they are or what they do, they are entitled, as a victim, to 
be protected under the law and their rights to be part of the criminal 
justice system. And I believe the sentencing process that we give to 
our judges and our juries it is very important that they have choices 
to make and they can take into consideration evidence of why the event 
occurred, whatever that why may be.
  But I think, to stick in here a controversial issue, which goes 
farther than just what the crime is, but what was that person thinking, 
or what are we going to presume that person was thinking, and if 
anybody ever talked to him on this subject, do we presume that they 
shall be considered aiding and abetting in this criminal offense. And 
it has issues that affect the religious freedom of the United States.
  These are issues that should be talked about independently. It's time 
for the United States Congress to address this type of thing and other 
things openly and forthwith, and not hide them in another bill and 
force people to vote against their conscience. I'm ashamed of what 
we're doing here today, Mr. Speaker. I think we can protect these 
innocents that we're talking about using the fact that our Constitution 
tells us to and demand that kind of behavior from our justice system 
without going into thought crimes, hate crimes, and infringement upon 
States' rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, as one of the House conferees of this 
report, I have no confusion in terms of why I'm here and what we're 
doing to support the troops. I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the conference report of H.R. 2647, and I will submit my full statement 
for the Record.
  I thank Chairman Skelton for his continued skillful leadership, for 
the Speaker appointing me as a conferee, and Mr. Oberstar for 
recommending me. What is the report about? There's no covers here. The 
report is clear. It's about restoring and enhancing the readiness of 
our troops and the equipment. It's about taking care of our military 
personnel, and it also authorizes needed investments to keep our Nation 
strong.
  So let's talk about what that means. Troops, enabling that the 
Department of Defense would have 213 C-17s so we can support our men 
and women; that our military families would not have to wait on a 3.4 
percent military raise that they've long deserved. But let me focus my 
final moment on why and what my specialty is and what I think is so 
important in this bill, talking about port security as national 
security.
  When we consider the provision that is in this bill, port security, 
infrastructure, development program, it will enable our ports to 
finally come up to

[[Page 24369]]

speed where we can be competitive, as well as the economic engine that 
we reside in.
  Now, let's talk about the ports. The role of our ports is not just 
economics. It's to connect the ports. That's the point. And when you 
look at 14 commercial ports currently in the United States, two of 
which are in my area, they are called strategic ports for that very 
reason. When you look at Operation Enduring Freedom, that was the 
largest area where we had the sealift tonnage and troops that were 
moved through the ports to enable us to respond.
  So when we talk about this Defense authorization bill, it's quite 
clear why we're here today. We're here to talk about our troops, to 
prepare them and to give them the resources that they so richly 
deserve. Currently, our ports are struggling without enough money for 
the Army Corps to do the proper dredging.
  I urge my colleagues to support this, and I stand in support of Ms. 
Slaughter as we move forward on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as one of the House conferees on this report, I rise in 
strong support of the rule and the underlying Conference Report on H.R. 
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 
which provides $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of 
Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
  I thank Chairman Skelton for his skillful leadership in shepherding 
this legislation to the floor. I also wish to express my appreciation 
to Speaker Pelosi for appointing me as a conferee. And I cannot say how 
much it means to me to have the confidence of my chairman, Mr. 
Oberstar, who recommended me to the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I support the 
conference report for three reasons: (1) it restores and enhances the 
readiness of our troops, equipment, and defense infrastructure; (2) it 
takes care of our military personnel and their families; and (3) it 
authorizes the needed investments to keep our nation strong, safe, and 
respected in the world.
  Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions. This 
legislation:


                     Troop and Equipment Readiness

  Increases the size of our overstretched military by 30,000 Army 
troops, 8,100 Marines, 14,650 Air Force personnel, and 2,477 Navy 
sailors as requested by the President and Commander-in-Chief;
  Provides $6.9 billion to address equipment shortfalls in the National 
Guard and Reserves;
  Provides $4.7 billion for training opportunities for the Army;
  Adds $350 million for Army trainee barracks construction and $200 
million to support National Guard and Reserve military construction 
projects;
  Requires DoD to maintain a strategic airlift fleet of 316 aircraft, 
an increase of 24 over previous requirement, which should help bring us 
closer to the goal of maintaining the full complement--at least 213--of 
C-17's, the incomparable and irreplaceable air transport that is 
assembled in my congressional district.


                       Help for Military Families

  Provides a 3.4 percent military pay raise;
  Prohibits fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care for 1 year;
  Provides $2.2 billion for family housing programs;
  Adds $276 million to support the Housing Assistance Program that 
helps service members forced to sell their homes at a significant loss;
  Provides travel and transportation for three designated persons, 
including non-family members, to visit hospitalized service members.


                    Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

  Bans permanent bases in Iraq and prohibits U.S. control of Iraqi oil;
  Requires report on responsible redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq;
  Bans permanent bases in Afghanistan;
  Requires reports to assess progress toward security and stability in 
Afghanistan and in Pakistan;
  Requires a system to register and track all U.S. defense articles 
provided to Afghanistan and Pakistan;
  Directs GAO to provide separate reports assessing the strategic plans 
for Iraq and Afghanistan.


                  Port Security and National Security

  Mr. Speaker, in my remaining time let me discuss an additional reason 
why I support the conference report. Working together constructively, 
the conferees were able to reach agreement and included in the 
Conference Report provisions establishing a port infrastructure 
development program. Let me explain why this is a significant, 
constructive, and necessary enhancement to the bill. The subject is 
very important but I will be brief.


                ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF AMERICAN PORTS

  Our Nation's ports are vital to the economic health and prosperity of 
our Nation. According to the International Trade Administration, last 
year U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 12 percent to $1.84 
trillion, while imports increased by 7.4 percent to $2.52 trillion. 
Exports accounted for 13.1 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 
2008. To put that in historical context, in 2003, exports were 9.5 
percent of GDP; in 1969 they were only 5.3 percent.
  The Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles is the busiest container port 
in the United States. This port complex is the fifth busiest port in 
the world, moving $260 billion in total trade and handling 14.33 
million 20-foot containers in 2009. This represents approximately 40 
percent of all the containers entering the United States. More than 
886,000 jobs in California are directly or indirectly related to the 
international trade activities at the ports.
  According to the U.S. Coast Guard, there are 360 commercial ports 
that provide approximately 3,200 cargo and passenger handling 
facilities. The importance of our ports is only going to continue to 
grow. The Department of Transportation estimates that by 2035, the 
volume of freight shipped on the U.S. transportation system will 
increase more than 48 percent--and much of this freight enters the U.S 
through our ports.


                    NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

  While it is undeniable that the international trade handled by the 
Nation's ports is a major engine driving our economy, public and 
commercial ports serve another critical function that is vital to our 
national security. Mr. Speaker, it is an understatement to say that in 
times of war, ``the role of ports is to connect the forts.''
  During wartime and national emergencies, the Defense Department 
designates two dozen ports to support the mobilization, deployment, and 
resupply of U.S. forces during major conflicts. Commercial port 
facilities routinely ship military cargo and many U.S. ports host major 
naval installations. Indeed, 14 commercial ports--including the Port of 
Long Beach and Los Angeles--are deemed so critical to the defense and 
security of the Nation that they have been designated as ``strategic 
ports.'' The others are: Tacoma, Wash.; Oakland, Calif.; San Diego, 
Calif.; Corpus Christi, Texas; Beaumont, Texas; Jacksonville, Fla.; 
Savannah, Ga.; Charleston, S.C.; Wilmington, N.C.; Morehead City, N.C.; 
Hampton Roads Area Ports, Va.; Philadelphia, Pa. and the New York/New 
Jersey Port Complex.
  U.S. public and commercial ports have been indispensable in the 
deployment of troops and material for Operations Enduring Freedom and 
Iraqi Freedom since the conflicts began there in early 2001. The 
Military Sealift Command, MSC, and the Military Traffic Management 
Command, MTMC, use public ports to preposition mobility forces and 
assets and provide global surface deployment command, together with 
control and distribution operations, to meet national security 
objectives in peace and war.
  According to the Department of Defense, the total sealift tonnage 
moved in the first 6 months of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the 
deployment and redeployment of approximately 240,000 troops and their 
equipment was part of the largest troop rotation since World War II. 
Sealift tonnage passing through the Nation's ports accounted for 
approximately 84 percent of the total Operation Iraqi Freedom cargo 
shipped during this period.


     THE CRITICAL ROLE OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE TO NATIONAL SECURITY

  Commercial ports are a linchpin of the economy and a critical 
component of our national defense. But Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. 
It is simple and it is stark: Our ports are increasingly less capable 
of fulfilling their vital functions because we have not invested 
sufficient resources to maintain and modernize them. Port 
infrastructure is rapidly falling into a dangerous state of disrepair.
  For too long we have neglected to make the critical investments 
necessary to ensure the United States remains the world leader in goods 
movement. Consequently, today in Long Beach and other ports around the 
country we find growing congestion, dangerous roads and safety hazards, 
increasing levels of pollution and other environmental problems in our 
communities, especially those near freight corridors like the Alameda 
Corridor in my home district.
  The situation is not much better when it comes to the dredging of our 
ports and harbors. Global competition has led to the deployment of 
larger vessels capable of carrying increased tonnage but requiring 
deeper ports and harbors. That means frequent and better dredging.
  However, according to the Army Corps of Engineers only 160 dredging 
contracts were

[[Page 24370]]

awarded last year to dredge 146,747,977 cubic yards of sediment. This 
is not nearly enough. According to the Department of Transportation, in 
several strategic ports dredging must be increased as much as 45 to 50 
feet to accommodate the larger commercial vessels dominating the 
shipping industry.
  Instead of using funds to maintain and dredge our harbors, we have 
used more than half the funds collected for that purpose by the Harbor 
Maintenance Fund to support the budget deficit instead of eliminating 
the port infrastructure deficit. Currently, the HMT Fund has a surplus 
of approximately $4,600,000,000. In fiscal year 2009, more than $1.6 
billion was collected by only $710 million, 43.7 percent, was 
appropriated for dredging operations.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to port infrastructure the current states 
of affairs is simply intolerable. We are placing our commercial 
enterprises at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. Worse, 
we are putting our national security at risk.
  That is why I have been working to correct this problem since I have 
been in the Congress. Recently, I introduced three bills:
  1. H.R. 3447, ``Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Reform Act,'' which 
would provide a reliable and guaranteed source of funding for harbor 
dredging;
  2. H.R. 3446, the ``Clean Low-Emission Authorization Nationwide 
(CLEAN) Ports Act of 2009,'' which will lead to a reduction in 
pollution levels plaguing port communities by establishing a grant 
program to assist port authorities to acquire fuel efficient and low-
emission vehicles, equipment and systems; and
  3. H.R. 2355, the ``Making Opportunity via Efficient and More 
Effective National Transportation Act of 2009'' (``Movement Act''), 
which provides funding for infrastructure projects that will improve 
the movement of goods, mitigate environmental damage caused by the 
movement of goods, and enhance the security of transported goods.
  I will discuss these proposals in more detail at another time. But it 
suffices for now to say that what each of my bills has in common with 
the provision we have included in the Conference Report is that they 
all recognize the critical importance of making the necessary 
investments in port infrastructure to ensure that ports are capable of 
moving goods efficiently, absorbing new capacity, remaining 
competitive, and fulfilling its national defense function.


                               CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support the Conference Report because 
it restores and enhances the readiness of our troops, equipment, and 
defense infrastructure. It takes care of our military personnel and 
their families. And it authorizes the needed investments to keep our 
Nation strong, safe, and respected in the world. That is why I was 
proud to have been selected as a member of the Conference and to have 
signed the Conference Report. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the rule and in voting for the bill on final passage.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to 
my friend, the great leader from Indiana, Mr. Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in 
opposition to the hate crimes provisions and the balance of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  Throughout my nearly 9 years in Congress, I've been down range with 
our troops every year, in Afghanistan and Iraq. I've also supported 
every Defense authorization bill that has come before this body, and so 
I rise with a heavy heart today to say that I will break that personal 
tradition in opposing this bill.
  Now, no one doubts that the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 is an important piece of legislation whose essential 
elements will provide for our troops the critical resources they need 
to accomplish their mission. However, the majority in this Congress has 
cynically included hate crimes provisions in this legislation that 
threaten the very freedoms of speech and religion that draw our 
soldiers into the uniform of this Nation.
  Men and women throughout our history have put on the uniform for a 
variety of reasons, some out of a sense of patriotism, some out of a 
sense of love for their families, love for their country, a sense of 
duty; but in every single case, I would offer that, from the American 
Revolution forward, every American who has put on the uniform of this 
country has done so to defend freedom. Therefore, the very idea that we 
would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a 
bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get 
the job done and come home safe is unconscionable.
  It is simply inappropriate to use the Defense bill as a vehicle for 
divisive liberal social policies wholly unrelated to our country's 
national security. Here, the Democrats in the majority, with the assent 
of this administration, are piling liberal social priorities on to the 
backs of our soldiers. This is disturbing, I suspect, to millions of 
Americans and counterproductive to the legislative process.
  But on to the substance of hate crimes. I find myself in strong 
agreement this day with Thomas Jefferson who said, and I quote, 
``Legislative powers of government reach actions only, not opinions.'' 
And he actually connected that very principle with the foundation and 
rationale for the First Amendment. The hate crimes provisions in this 
legislation, as before, are antithetical to those First Amendment 
traditions and unnecessary. Violent attacks on people are already 
illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. And there's no evidence 
that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not being fully 
and aggressively prosecuted under current law.
  Therefore, in a practical sense, hate crimes serve no purpose. But 
they instead penalize people for thoughts, beliefs and attitude and 
send us down that very slope that Thomas Jefferson warned against. Now, 
some of these thoughts and beliefs and attitudes, racism, sexism, bias 
against people because of their sexual preferences, I find abhorrent. I 
disdain discrimination. I disdain bigotry. But these hate crimes 
provisions, including those that will be added to Federal law today, 
are broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the 
rights of freedom and speech and religion must be first and foremost 
and paramount on the floor of this chamber.
  To put it quite simply, adding hate crimes provisions in this Defense 
bill puts us on a slippery slope of deeming particular groups as more 
important than others under our system of justice. Singling out 
particular groups of victims erodes our longstanding legal principle of 
equal protection under the law as well. The First Amendment of the 
Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 
America was founded on the notion that the government should not 
interfere with the religious practices or expressions of our people.
  But there is a real possibility that these provisions in this Defense 
bill having to do with hate crimes and sexual preference could have 
that effect. These provisions, as written, could result in a chilling 
effect against religious leaders in this country. As has been 
previously stated by Judge Carter of Texas, under section two of title 
18 of the U.S. Code today, an individual may be held criminally liable 
who aids, abets, counsels, commands or induces or procures in the 
commission of a Federal crime.
  Therefore, to put a fine point on it, any pastor, preacher, priest, 
rabbi, or imam who may give a sermon out of their moral traditions 
about sexual practices could presumably, under this legislation, be 
found to have aided, abetted or induced in the commission of a Federal 
crime. This will have a chilling effect on religious expression from 
the pulpits, in our temples, in our mosques and in our churches; and it 
must be undone.
  So let me say, as I close, the provisions added to this legislation 
threaten religious freedom by criminalizing thought. It is simply wrong 
to further criminalize thought and chill religious expressions of 
Americans. But let me also say, as I said before, a Defense 
authorization bill ought to be about the national defense. And here we 
have, in this majority, in an effort, presumably, any effort to move 
liberal social policies at home, a willingness to pile unrelated 
liberal priorities on the backs of an effort to advance our national 
security. And that's unconscionable.

                              {time}  1100

  Let's remember what our soldiers are fighting for. Let's remember why 
they put on the uniform. They wear the uniform to defend freedom. So 
let's take a

[[Page 24371]]

stand for freedom today and let's take a stand for a legislative 
process that has genuine integrity to purpose.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, and I sadly urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Defense authorization bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Klein).
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you to the gentlelady from New York. I 
rise today to strongly support the rule and the underlying bill, the 
conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act. I'm 
grateful to Chairwoman Slaughter for the time to speak, and Chairman 
Skelton and the ranking member for crafting a bill that protects our 
national security in a fiscally responsible way.
  This morning, I would like to focus on section 1077, which allows the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to provide veterans with service dogs 
that can facilitate treatment of their physical and mental 
disabilities.
  I first introduced the bipartisan Wounded Warrior K-9 Corps Act in 
July, and I'm proud to have worked out this language in this bill to 
help keep America's promise to our disabled veterans. The men and women 
who have served this country and are injured deserve our full and 
complete support when they return home, and that means doing everything 
we can to improve their quality of life after their service.
  I have seen these programs where they provide service dogs in action. 
I have witnessed the growth of disabled veterans after working with a 
guide dog or an animal that can assist them with physical therapy, 
their mental health, and even their job. These programs succeed, and 
they're another important way we can strongly stand behind our veterans 
and their families.
  I'd like to thank Senator Al Franken of Minnesota and Ed Whitfield of 
Kentucky, who were my indispensable partners in this bipartisan effort. 
I'd like to also acknowledge David Kildee of the House Armed Services 
Committee staff, and the Armed Services Committee staff, whose 
assistance proved crucial in this effort.
  Finally, this effort would not be possible without Irwin Stovroff, 
former World War II POW and someone who's a personal friend and my 
constituent. He is a guardian angel to many disabled veterans and 
wounded warriors who depend on him for their service dogs and their 
quality of life.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure, the conference report, 
and the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do not plan to 
support the rule or the underlying legislation. I have some of the 
concerns that were raised earlier about adding items that don't belong 
in a Defense bill. We simply shouldn't do that.
  But I do rise in support of a provision contained in the Defense 
authorization conference report that will hopefully shed some light on 
the process by which earmarks are competitively awarded by the 
Department of Defense.
  Section 1062 of the report represents a compromise between language 
in the Senate's version of the bill and an amendment dealing with 
earmarks that I was able to successfully offer in the House bill.
  The practice of earmarking, as we all know, has come under 
significant scrutiny in the media with the advent of the PMA Group 
scandal when it was revealed earlier this year. Yet, since that time, 
Congress has taken very little action to actually deal with the root 
cause of this problem.
  The Defense authorization bill, the Defense appropriation bill each 
contain hundreds of--in one case more than a thousand--individual 
earmarks, many of which--in fact, in the Defense appropriation bill, 
more than half of the earmarks are going to for-profit entities. We 
simply cannot continue to do that.
  No Member of Congress should have the ability to provide a sole-
source or no-bid contract to their campaign contractors. Until we 
address the root of that problem, we're going to have problems like 
this.
  A while ago, I worked with the Department of Defense--or, in fact, 
I've been working with them for several months now--to try to see where 
these earmarks are going and to see what process they have by which 
they are competitively bid. I should note that I'm skeptical that this 
language will do very much good because the Department of Defense tells 
us now that they follow a process by which earmarks are competitively 
bid; yet, I provided the Department with a subset of roughly 160 
earmarks in the FY 2008 legislation and asked for information regarding 
the competitive practices used to award these earmarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 20 seconds.
  Mr. FLAKE. After an initial review, though apparently consistent with 
competitive requirements, it was found that, with uncanny alignment, 
these earmarks actually went to their intended recipients.
  So we have much more work here to do, and I hope in the coming months 
we can fix this problem completely. Members of Congress shouldn't have 
the ability to award no-bid contracts to their campaign contributors.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I rise in strong support of the conference report on 
the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is what Americans 
have been waiting for. There's a military pay raise of 3.4 percent to 
say thank you to our troops. We prohibit fee increases on TRICARE 
patients for 1 year, something many of my constituents have worried 
about; increases the size of the military and relieves the burden on so 
many of our troops. It provides money for the National Guard and for 
Reserve construction projects, saying thank you to the National Guard 
and recognizing their hard work. It prevents permanent bases in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I'm also pleased that my amendment to repeal the National Security 
Personnel System has been included in the conference report. The 
Department of Defense employees will be returned to the previous 
system, the one that 80 percent of them liked and approved because it 
was a fairer system.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both this rule and 
the underlying conference report. The American people need to 
understand the sea change that's taking place with this rule and this 
conference report. It's the first time we have allowed social policy 
and the budget to drive our defense posture instead of our defense 
posture driving the budget. We have men today that are fighting and 
dying in Afghanistan, and they have no plan.
  Now, the law doesn't require that the administration have a plan. 
Common sense does. Fairness does. But what the law did require was on 
this report they have a shipbuilding plan so America knows what we're 
doing with their ships, how they're building, and that they certify 
that this budget, this authorization bill will meet. And this 
administration just refused to do it.
  The law also requires that they have an aviation plan that just makes 
sense. But the law requires them to give us a plan to say what they're 
going to do with our planes and the certification that this conference 
report does it. They just refuse to do it.
  When they sent the report over, they issued a gag order to members in 
the Pentagon where they couldn't even talk to Congress to tell them 
where they were putting dollars and which programs they were cutting, 
and that was just wrong. And then they have labeled their social agenda 
and overlaid it into a Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, and I hope we will 
defeat this rule and defeat the underlying conference report.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the

[[Page 24372]]

gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentlewoman and I thank her for her hard 
work on this and every other piece of legislation that this body votes 
on.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. I'm pleased to see that the 
conference report includes an important provision which would require a 
study on providing Federal retirement benefits to former Air America 
employees.
  From 1950 to 1976, Air America was a government corporation owned and 
operated by the CIA that supported America's missions during the cold 
war. The corporation conducted flight operations in various countries, 
including China, Korea, and Vietnam, on behalf of the Department of 
Defense and the CIA.
  The CIA conducted Air America operations in secret and did not 
acknowledge that Air America was a government corporation. Therefore, 
those Air America employees have never received their government 
retirement benefits.
  This noncontroversial Air America provision included in section 1057 
of the conference report simply requires a report from the Director of 
National Intelligence on the visibility of correcting this oversight 
and retroactively giving these employees Civil Service Retirement 
System benefits. It is only right. It is only fair. Air America 
employees served their country with distinction, often at great risk to 
themselves. They earned these benefits.
  This, in addition to so many other parts of this bill, make it well 
worth voting for, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Over the last few months, the American people have written and called 
their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town 
hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read 
bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people really 
were outraged, often finding out the majority leadership forced 
Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills 
without giving Members time to understand or really even to read the 
bills.
  For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called 
``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and-
trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances, 
much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our 
constituents are rightly upset.
  A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe 
legislation should be posted online in final form and available for 
everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation.
  You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would not be an issue, as the 
distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at 
least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor 
consideration.'' It's even on her Web site; yet, time and time again, 
the distinguished Speaker and majority leadership have refused to live 
up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have 
signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that 
all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of 
Congress and the general public for 72 hours before they be brought to 
the House floor for a vote.
  That's why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider 
that legislation, H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues, 
Representatives Baird and Culberson.
  I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the 
Department of Defense Authorization Act. But I want to make clear, the 
motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-
Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can pass the Defense authorization 
bill today and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 544.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and the extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my 
time.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of the conference report the 
     House shall be considered to have adopted the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 196) making corrections in the 
     enrollment of the bill H.R. 2647.''
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 808

             Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a

[[Page 24373]]

     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or 
     policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they 
     have always said. Listen to the definition of the previous 
     question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the 
     Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how 
     the Rules Committee described the rule using information form 
     Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional 
     Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control 
     of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually 
     the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of 
     debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending 
     business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution and 
ask for a ``yes'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on the 
amendment and the resolution will be followed by 5-minute votes on the 
amendment to H. Res. 808, if ordered; adoption of H. Res. 808; motion 
to suspend the rules on H. Res. 650, H.J. Res. 26, and H.R. 3590.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 187, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 764]

                               YEAS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     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
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     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
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carney
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Maloney
     Neugebauer
     Oberstar
     Sutton
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1146

  Messrs. BOREN, CASTLE, KUCINICH and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PASCRELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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 234, 
noes 188, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 765]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd

[[Page 24374]]


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

                               NOES--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     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
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     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)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Capps
     Carney
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Maloney
     Neugebauer
     Oberstar
     Rodriguez
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1153

  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________