[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24376-24390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 808, I call up 
the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1215


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
H.R. 2647.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXII that states 
that nongermane items may not be included in conference reports and 
that this bill contains a nongermane item in the hate crimes 
legislation that was included in it, I raise a point of order against 
H.R. 2647.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 808, all points 
of order against the conference report are waived.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, many Members have grave concerns 
about the thought-crimes legislation that's included in H.R. 2647. Is 
there any way for any Member to gain a separate vote on the thought-
crimes legislation included in H.R. 2647 under the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A conference report is considered as a 
whole.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, because thought-crimes legislation 
is included in H.R. 2647, is there any remedy that a Member of the 
House has for gaining access to have a separate vote on the thought-
crimes legislation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A conference report is considered as a 
whole.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 808, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 7, 2009, at page 23796.)
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 24377]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference 
report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2010. I especially want to thank my ranking member, my good 
friend, Buck McKeon, the gentleman from California, our partners in the 
Senate, Senator Carl Levin and Senator John McCain, and all the 
conferees from the Armed Services and 13 other committees who have made 
this conference report a reality.
  Mr. McKeon, brand new as ranking member of our committee, hit the 
ground running and has done yeoman's work, and I particularly wish to 
single him out and express my appreciation for the work he has done to 
help bring this to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has a base of $550 billion for the United 
States military. This has $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and 
in Iraq, which total $680 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at war. This is a deadly serious moment in this 
body. This bill is critical for national security, and I am pleased to 
say this bill gets it right.
  The conference report provides several major victories for our troops 
and their families, and the bill strikes a right balance between our 
focus on the immediate fights in Afghanistan and Iraq and the long-term 
needs of our military.
  The vast majority of this bill has bipartisan support. The bill 
provides almost $20 billion combined for Army and Marine Corps reset 
and equipment shortfalls in the Guard and Reserves. It has $550 million 
for Army barracks and Guard and Reserve infrastructure. To boost 
readiness and reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the 
size of the military all across four services and authorizes an 
additional 30,000 Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
  This bill reflects our effort to recognize 2009 as the Year of the 
Military Family by providing a 3.4 percent pay raise for all 
servicemembers. The bill also extends the authority of the Defense 
Department to offer bonuses and incentive pay. It expands TRICARE 
health coverage. It prohibits fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care 
for a year, provides for $2.2 billion for family housing programs and 
improves the benefits available to wounded warriors.
  To ensure our strategy in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan is 
effective, this bill requires the President to assess U.S. efforts and 
report on the progress. The bill authorizes funds to train and equip 
the Afghan National Security Forces and authorize the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund. The bill improves accountability and oversight 
of U.S. assistance. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report on the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces out of 
Iraq.
  On acquisition reform, the conference report supports the plan to 
increase the size of the acquisition workforce and reduce reliance on 
contractors for acquisition functions.
  It eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse through better contract 
oversight. The bill also repeals the National Security Personnel 
System, returning employees to the general schedule over 2 years while 
providing additional flexibility for hiring and personnel management.
  The conference agreement prohibits the release of Guantanamo Bay 
detainees into the United States, its territories and possessions, and 
restricts detainee transfers until after the President has submitted a 
plan to Congress.
  The conference report revises the Military Commissions Act to make 
military commissions fair and effective and ensure that convictions 
stick.
  Let me briefly address two difficult aspects of the conference 
report.
  First, I am disappointed, and so very disappointed, that we were not 
able to retain the House's provision implementing the President's 
proposal on concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. The 
Armed Services Committee fought hard with the assistance of our 
leadership and many other committees to pay for that proposal. The 
Senate's budget rules, however, would not support a solution. And I 
urge the President to work with us in a way to pay for this, which will 
meet the budgetary rules of both the House and the Senate.
  Finally, regarding the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I have said 
several times that I would have preferred it to have been enacted as a 
stand-alone bill, not on this Defense bill. But it's important to note 
that the conferees included important sentencing guidelines for crimes 
against military servicemembers and added protections for the first 
amendment rights of preachers and ministers to that bill.
  I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate passed its version of the 
bill with the hate crimes provision by a vote of 87-7, which is a 
strong bipartisan vote in the United States Senate.
  Whatever one's position on hate crimes, I believe that the enormous 
good done in this legislation merits its support by every Member of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We should support the troops. We should 
support their families. We should make sure that they have the finest 
equipment and training possible. That's what this bill does. This bill 
will support our troops in the field and their families at home and 
meet our Nation's immediate military requirements and preserve the 
ability to deter and respond to future threats.
  I urge the House to vote for this conference report and move it to 
the President's desk as soon as possible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, as legislators, we meet once again to 
address a wide range of important national security activities 
undertaken by the Departments of Defense and Energy.
  We all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. This is 
especially true during a time of war, and it's always true of my good 
friend and colleague, Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, 
the gentleman from Missouri. I commend Chairman Skelton for shepherding 
this bill through the conference process. Ike, you've done a remarkable 
job.
  As most of you in the Chamber know, this conference report contains 
hate crimes legislation. This is anathema to me. I am opposed to hate 
crimes legislation, and I am especially opposed to the procedure of 
putting it on a Defense bill--especially in time of war, using our 
troops to get this legislation passed. It's not germane to the work of 
the committee and needlessly introduces a partisan matter in an 
otherwise bipartisan bill.
  I've consistently opposed the passage of hate crimes legislation 
personally, and I continue to oppose it today. Unfortunately, 
congressional Democrats made the political decision to attach the hate 
crimes legislation to this bill. I oppose, as I said, using the men and 
women of the military as a leverage to pass this partisan legislation.
  What should have been included in the bill is concurrent receipts. 
The House bill included a one-year expansion of concurrent receipts of 
military disability retired pay and veterans' disability compensation 
for our medically retired veterans. The House provision should have 
prevailed over the Senate procedural hurdles. We owe this to our 
veterans.
  Though flawed, this bill has my support.
  This conference report authorizes over $550 billion in budget 
authority for the Department of Defense and the national security 
programs of the Department of Energy. Additionally, the legislation 
authorizes over $129 billion in supplemental funding to support 
operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on 
terror.
  This bill rightfully acknowledges that the United States has a vital 
national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once 
again become a safe haven for terrorists and supports a comprehensive 
counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by 
Congress.
  The conference report supports our strategy in Afghanistan in a 
number of ways. The bill authorizes $1.3 billion for the Commander's 
Emergency Response Program, which is unique authority critical to 
implementing General McChrystal's counterinsurgency operations. 
Additionally, the conference report authorizes $7.4 billion for the 
Afghan Security Forces Fund. These funds are the key to increasing the 
size and professionalism of the Afghan National Security Forces.

[[Page 24378]]

  Finally, this bill reauthorizes expired DOD contingency construction 
authority to rapidly authorize and build facilities needed to support 
the war in Afghanistan.
  With respect to Iraq, the report ensures that the Congress will 
support the President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing 
our commanders on the ground the flexibility to hold hard-fought 
security gains and to ensure the safety of our forces.
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we owe our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines the very best available equipment, training, and 
support in order to provide them with the best possible tools to 
undertake their mission. The provisions in this bill go a considerable 
way in demonstrating this support. In particular, the House provision 
prevailed in a couple of critical areas.
  This bill funds the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, 
provides $430 million in RDT&E for continued development of the F136 
engine, and provides $130 million for F136 engine procurement. Finally, 
the conference report includes a multi-year procurement contract for 
additional F-18s.
  As a Nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and 
women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the 
sacrifices they make to protect our freedom. I am pleased that this 
legislation includes a 3.4 percent pay raise, which is a half 
percentage point above the President's request. We also increase active 
duty end strength by 55,227 over fiscal year 2009 levels. This is 
essential for easing the burden on our current forces.

                              {time}  1230

  I'm pleased that this conference report prohibits any increases to 
TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard health care fees. Finally, the bill 
increases from $500 to $1,100 the maximum monthly supplemental 
subsistence allowance paid by DOD to low-income members with 
dependents, so that military members need not rely on food stamps.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my fellow Republicans, I 
understand your opposition to the inclusion of hate crimes in the 
Defense authorization bill. I committed to each of you that this vote 
should be a vote of conscience, and I understand you're on the horns of 
a dilemma. I understand your opposition to hate crimes, and I 
understand this terrible position you've been put in. But I know that 
if you vote against this bill because of the hate crimes legislation, 
it does not diminish in any way your support of the troops and the men 
and women in our Armed Forces.
  When I became ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I made 
a commitment to each of you and our men and women in uniform and their 
families that I would do everything in my power to provide our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with the support they desperately 
need and deserve. As the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, so long as America's sons and daughters are under fire in 
combat, fighting for our country, I have the obligation to support them 
first above everything else.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon) for his straightforward commitment to the young men and 
women in American uniform. At this time I yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague, my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010. This is, my friends, a very, very good bill; and we cannot ignore 
the fact that we are fighting two wars. We're fighting a war in 
Afghanistan and a war in Iraq. The conference report before us today 
reflects our efforts to strengthen the readiness posture of our Armed 
Forces. It authorizes a total of $244.5 billion for operations and 
maintenance, including $4.7 billion for Army training, $13 billion for 
Army and Marine Corps equipment reset, and $255.3 million for pre-
positioned stocks.
  The conference report adds $70 million to address Navy aviation depot 
maintenance. It provides $350 million to replace rundown Army barracks, 
and adds $200 million for National Guard and Reserve construction 
projects. It funds the 2005 BRAC account at $7.4 billion and adds $100 
million to address the environmental issues at bases closed prior to 
2005.
  The conference report expands the Homeowners Assistance Program and 
provides $300 million to help ensure that servicemembers who were 
forced to move during the real estate downturn are not severely 
affected financially. The conference report supports energy security by 
authorizing $12.3 million for energy conservation projects on military 
installations and programs that enable the Defense Department to reduce 
energy used during times of peak demand.
  The conference report repeals the NSPS and transitions DOD civilian 
employees back to the General Schedule by January 1, 2012. At the same 
time, it provides the Department flexibilities to ensure efficient 
hiring and effective personnel management. The conference report allows 
FERS employees to receive credit for unused sick leave toward their 
retirement annuity. It provides locality pay for Federal workers in 
Hawaii, Alaska and the United States territories.
  My friends, this is a good conference report that reflects our 
bipartisan desire to improve readiness and balance the many priorities 
of our military around the world and domestically. My friends, I urge 
you to support this bill. It is a good bill and it gives our troops 
what they deserve and they need.
  Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield, at this time, to the gentleman from 
Maryland, ranking member on the Air, Land Subcommittee, Mr. Bartlett, 
such time as he may consume.
  Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my subcommittee chairman, 
Mr. Abercrombie, as well as HASC chairman Ike Skelton and Ranking 
Member Buck McKeon for their collaborative leadership drafting this 
vital bill. I also thank the staff members who serve us so well. Thank 
you, thank you.
  Overall, this is an excellent conference report. That is why I'm 
appalled that my colleagues would violate House rules and pervert this 
annual national military strategy bill by including the totally 
unrelated partisan Senate amendment. With deep regret, I resolutely 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. I've 
dedicated almost 40 years to protecting the lives of the men and women 
who serve in our military. For 20 years I invented and worked on 
defense projects to provide them lifesaving equipment, including 19 
military patents.
  I've been honored to serve for 17 years on the Armed Services 
Committee with colleagues who have worked tirelessly to achieve our 
bipartisan goals of providing rules and equipment so that our soldiers, 
airmen, marines, sailors, and the civilians who support them will 
succeed in their missions and return home safe.
  There isn't time to review all provisions, but highlights of the Air 
and Land Forces portions which I worked on so hard with Chairman 
Abercrombie include 30 F-35 aircraft and an increase of $430 million in 
research and development for continued F136 engine development and $130 
million for F136 engine procurement; an additional $600 million, for a 
total of $6.9 billion to reduce equipment shortfalls in our National 
Guard and Reserves; inclusion of my proposed requirements for DOD to 
establish specific budget line items within the procurement and 
research, development, test and evaluation accounts for body armor.
  This will improve accountability, increase transparency, as well as 
facilitate the advancement of lighter weight technologies. $6.7 billion 
for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, $1.2 billion above the 
President's request. $2.45 billion for the President's request for 
Future Combat Systems communications network and spin-out equipment 
sets expected to continue as separate programs in fiscal year 2010.
  I would like to especially thank Chairman Abercrombie for his 
leadership and relentless efforts to ensure

[[Page 24379]]

continued funding for the F-35 alternate engine program. My unavoidable 
and regrettable ``no'' vote is due solely to the inclusion of this 
extraneous amendment. It violates House rules. It sets a dangerous 
precedent by including an extraneous and nongermane bill in Congress' 
annual national defense strategy and policy bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlelady 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010. As 
the chairwoman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I'm proud to 
speak for this bill which continues our commitment to our men and women 
in uniform and their dedicated families. I want to recognize the 
ranking member on the subcommittee, Representative Joe Wilson, for his 
support and assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize the chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, and the ranking member, Buck 
McKeon, for their leadership. These gentlemen exercised extraordinary 
direction in order to complete another solid Defense authorization 
bill. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this conference 
report as it provides vital, and I mean vital, support for the armed 
services during this time of conflict and especially for their 
families, their families, who face the daily stress and strains of 8 
years of war.
  Let me highlight a few of the important programs and policies in the 
conference report which reflect that this has been deemed the year of 
the military family. The bill provides for a 3.4 percent pay raise. It 
makes mandatory face-to-face mental health screening for all returning 
servicemembers. To help schools with large enrollments of military 
children, it provides $30 million for Impact Aid, as well as funds to 
assist military children with severe disabilities.
  To that end, it also establishes an Office of Community Support for 
Military Families with Special Needs. The report expands TRICARE 
eligibility when it comes to dental programs and provides TRICARE for 
Reservists called to duty 180 days before they reactivate. It also 
allows Reserve retirees and their families to buy into TRICARE Standard 
coverage, and it prohibits an increase in TRICARE fees for inpatient 
care for 1 year.
  To reduce the strain on our forces, the conference report authorizes 
an additional end-strength increase for the Army for 2010 and makes 
further increases possible. It also sets up a program to account for 
missing persons from conflicts beginning with World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a moral and constitutional responsibility to 
ensure that those who volunteer to defend our Nation have the training 
and equipment they need to successfully execute their mission. The bill 
before us recognizes the sacrifices that those in uniform, survivors, 
retirees and their families are making on behalf of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I would also like to express my 
support for the inclusion of language to strengthen our Federal hate 
crime laws in this conference report. Hate crimes perpetuate and 
reinforce historic discrimination and persecution against particular 
groups. They are committed not simply to harm one particular victim, 
but to send a message of threat and intimidation to others. Left 
unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to unravel the very fabric of 
American society that our servicemembers fight to protect.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Akin), ranking member on the Sea Power Subcommittee, 
2 minutes.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, the bill that's before us today is a product 
of hundreds and hundreds of hours of hearings, all kinds of work by 
Members and staff, and by and large it's a good product. It's a 
political product. It has trade-offs here and there to try to balance 
one requirement against the other; and it is, once again, a reflection 
of a committee that I have been honored to be able to serve on for 9 
years, a committee that has been largely bipartisan, a committee that 
has focused on solving problems, defending our Nation, and supporting 
our troops.
  And in all of those regards, this bill is fine, except for there is 
an elephant the room. The elephant in the room was an invention of the 
Senate. They decided to put onto a bill that is focused on supporting 
our troops their own liberal social agenda of hate crimes legislation. 
Now, they claim they have the votes to pass that so why don't they pass 
it somewhere else? Instead, they put it on the backs of our service men 
and women and expect to use a blackmail kind of approach to have us, to 
dare us to vote against adding something that's totally extraneous to 
defense of this Nation on the backs of our service people.
  A number of us are saying, as much as we support our troops, as much 
as we support the hard work of this committee, we believe that this is 
a poison pill, poisonous enough in fact that we refuse to be 
blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place 
in this bill. This is the kind of shenanigans that makes the American 
public irate. This is the kind of thing, like passing 300 pages of 
amendments at 3 in the morning, that makes the public nauseous.
  And I, for one, as much as I support our troops, indeed, I even have 
a son going to Afghanistan in 3 weeks, as much as I support him and the 
rest of our troops, I will not allow us to be blackmailed into voting 
for something totally extraneous on this bill; and that's the reason 
why I will not support the bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. I wish to remind my fellow Missourian that the United 
States Senate voted for the Defense bill with the inclusion of the 
section that he objects to by 87 votes to 7, a strong bipartisan vote.
  I now yield 3 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces, Mr. Langevin.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in strong support of the conference agreement on H.R. 2647, the 2010 
National Defense Authorization Act. I'd like to personally thank 
Chairman Skelton for his outstanding leadership in bringing this bill 
to the floor and always looking out for our troops, as he always has in 
the course of his career. I also want to recognize the leadership of 
Ranking Member McKeon.
  As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I'm proud of the 
provisions this legislation includes to sustain and modernize our 
strategic weapons systems.
  In the area of nuclear weapons, the conference agreement increases 
funding for the Stockpile Stewardship Program by $48.7 million and 
establishes important new guidelines for nuclear weapons stewardship, 
including a new Stockpile Management Program. The program clarifies 
that changes to the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile must be limited to 
sustaining current capabilities and requires that any changes use 
weapons components that can be certified without nuclear testing.
  Now, regarding ballistic missile defense, this Congress has made this 
program a priority. The conference agreement fully funds the 
administration's request of $9.3 billion for missile defense programs. 
It authorizes $1.8 billion for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, adding 
$23 million for additional SM-3 missiles, and authorizes $1.1 billion 
for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD. These 
amounts reflect an increase in the funding for these proven systems by 
$900 million over the FY 2009 levels.
  The bill also authorizes up to $309 million for the recently 
announced European missile defense plan if the Secretary of Defense 
certifies that the system is operationally effective and cost effective 
in providing protection for Europe and the United States.
  Further, the bill includes over $1 billion to test, sustain, and 
improve the existing Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, and 
includes a provision requiring the Department to establish a plan to 
maintain its operational effectiveness of the system over the course of 
its service life.

[[Page 24380]]

  Within the strategic intelligence programs, the conference agreement 
requires the Department of Energy to develop a plan to ensure that our 
national security laboratories have sufficient funding and technical 
abilities to monitor, analyze, and evaluate foreign nuclear weapons 
activities and requires the Department of Defense to assess gaps in 
U.S. intelligence for foreign ballistic missile programs and prepare a 
plan to ensure our intelligence centers can sufficiently address these 
shortfalls.
  Lastly, in addition to our national security priorities, I am pleased 
that the Federal hate crimes legislation is included in this bill to 
allow law enforcement to more aggressively pursue individuals who 
commit violent crimes that are motivated by a person's religion, 
disability, or sexual orientation.
  Finally, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. 
I, again, thank Chairman Skelton for his outstanding leadership on 
bringing this bill to the floor and shepherding it through the process. 
It clearly shows that this Congress is clearly behind our Nation's 
military and our warfighters.
  Mr. McKEON. I'm happy to yield, at this time, 1\1/2\ minutes to our 
conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I thank the 
ranking member and the distinguished chairman of this committee for 
their work on the defense elements of this legislation, but I rise with 
a heavy heart to express my opposition to the National Defense 
Authorization Act because today's vote isn't just all about providing 
for the national defense.
  Because of actions taken in the United States Senate, unrelated, 
divisive, liberal social policies have been added to this legislation 
in the form of hate crimes. For that reason, I must oppose it.
  The majority in this Congress and in the Senate has included hate 
crimes provisions in this legislation that have nothing to do with our 
national defense and will threaten the very freedoms of speech and 
freedom of religion that draws the American soldier into the uniform in 
the first place. Thomas Jefferson said it best: ``Legislative powers 
should reach actions only and not opinions.''
  The reality is that by expanding the Federal definition of hate 
crimes, as this legislation does, we will generate a chilling effect on 
religious leaders in this country. Pastors, preachers, rabbis, and 
imams will now hesitate to speak about the sexual traditions and 
teachings of their faith for fear of being found culpable under the 
aiding, abetting, or inducing provisions of current law, and that must 
not be. It is just simply wrong to use a bill that's designed to 
support our troops to erode the very freedoms for which they fight.
  As a result, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, a member of 
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. 
Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views on the 
final conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
McKeon for working so closely with me on a compromise to H.R. 44, the 
Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. I also want to thank Erin 
Conaton, Paul Arcangeli, Dave Sienicki, Eryn Robinson, Vickie Plunkett, 
Julie Unmacht, and Andrew Hunter.
  Unfortunately, I was disappointed that H.R. 44 was not included in 
the final Defense authorization bill, but I'm confident that the 
commitments made by the House and the Senate conferees to hold hearings 
and to readdress war claims in next year's Defense bill will be honored 
and that further debate on this important legislation will bring us 
closer to finally passing this bill.
  I, again, want to thank my colleagues in the House who have supported 
including H.R. 44: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Congressman 
Larson of our caucus, Members across the aisle, and many others.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference committee report has significant 
funding commitments for the military buildup, and I thank the committee 
for this.
  Mr. McKEON. I'm happy to yield, at this time, 2 minutes to the 
Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California and also salute the 
gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, today could have been and should have been marked by 
bipartisan support for our troops, but instead has become something 
very different.
  The sole purpose of the Department of Defense authorization 
legislation is to authorize funds to ensure a strong national defense, 
but today it is being used as a vehicle to force hate crimes 
legislation through the House, and it is with deep regret that I'm left 
with no choice but to oppose it.
  This legislation and this vote is a political ploy and symbolic of 
everything that is wrong with Washington. Those who support the Federal 
criminalization of hate crimes should demand that it be removed from 
this legislation and be considered solely upon its own merit, not that 
of our national defense.
  I believe that all Americans should be protected from violent crime 
and viewed equally under the law, and the truth of the matter is that 
all violent crimes are hateful. Thought crimes are no different.
  Our message is simple: All Republicans support our troops, and the 
issue of hate crimes has nothing to do with our national defense.
  One must really question the priorities of this majority. We must 
not, should not treat our service men and women as political pawns in 
their effort to force a social agenda upon the court system and the 
American people.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Let me begin by thanking our chairman and ranking member 
for the phenomenal job they've done.
  Let me begin by telling the gentleman from Virginia that I agree with 
much of what he said. I would also remind the gentleman from Virginia 
that, like him, I voted to send those young men and women to Iraq and 
Afghanistan. With that vote came my commitment to equip them, to pay 
them, to take care of their families should something bad happen to 
them, to provide them with the very best equipment.
  The one thing that every American can agree on is we have the world's 
best Army. We have the world's best Navy. We have the world's best 
Marine Corps. We have the world's best Air Force. This bill keeps it 
that way.
  I regret that the other body, by a vote of 87-7, put some language in 
there that should never be in this bill. But the bottom line is, come 
November, sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas, I'm going to be 
visiting at least 7,000 Mississippians, to the best of my ability 
trying to see every one of them that I voted to send there. And when I 
look them in the eye, I want them to know that I voted in support of 
them over the reservations of one small part of this bill.
  The bill does a lot of good things for our Navy. It pays for seven 
new ships: a DDG-51 class destroyer, the best Destroyer in the world, 
one that we're going to build for at least another decade; two Littoral 
Combat Ships; two T-AKE dry cargo ships; a Joint High Speed Vessel; and 
a Virginia class submarine.
  It includes language to see to it that our next generation of 
carrier, with the all-important electromagnetic launch system, will 
have the proper oversight so that it is delivered on time and on 
budget. It includes language to see that the Littoral Combat system 
that, to date, has been poorly handled will be done better in the 
future with a 10-ship buy, followed by a 5-ship buy, at the best price 
for whoever is willing to make that ship.
  It funds the F-18E/F program, the world's best fighter, except for 
the F-22, and, quite frankly, a lot more affordable fighter than the F-
22.

[[Page 24381]]

  Lastly, it includes $6 billion for the most important weapon in our 
inventory at the moment, and that is the next generation of mine 
resistant vehicles. Look at the casualty list from Afghanistan. Almost 
every casualty is a result of an improvised explosive device on a 
vehicle that is not mine resistant.
  The magnificent vehicles that we have built that work so well in Iraq 
and have saved so many lives in Iraq were, unfortunately, too big and 
too bulky for the terrain in Afghanistan. That's why we have to come up 
with a second-generation vehicle. This bill funds 5,000 of those 
vehicles that when they are delivered, from day one, will start saving 
lives and bring our friends and our family members back home with their 
limbs.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, like many of you, I have very, very, very 
deep concerns and, in fact, anger over some language that was included 
in this bill. But that is not enough to keep me from voting for funding 
the troops that serve our Nation so well, giving them the equipment 
they deserve.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the ranking member on the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats 
and Capabilities Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great disappointment and, really, sadness 
today that I rise to inform my colleagues that I, too, will be voting 
against the Defense authorization conference report.
  As the ranking member of the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee, the underlying bill does, in fact, carry a 
tremendous amount of good things that will help our troops and our 
Armed Forces, providing what they need as a warfighter to better face 
today's security challenges.
  We have extended to the Secretary of Defense the authority to offer 
rewards for those individuals who provide information and nonlethal 
assistance in support of the Department's combating terrorism efforts. 
We increased the authorization level for Special Operations Command's 
1208 authority.
  But this is a big thing to many of us. The hate crimes bill is not at 
all germane to this piece of legislation. The House passed it as a 
standalone piece of legislation. Our authorization bill, I believe, 
should not be used as a vehicle to forward this controversial and 
unconventional--and I think unconstitutional--piece of legislation that 
attacks our First Amendment rights.

                              {time}  1300

  The fiscal year 2010 National Defense bill started off as a 
bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, it has ended up in an extremely 
partisan fashion. The outstanding work of this committee, I think, is 
being belittled.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, there is not a word in this bill that 
silences a religious voice or a voice of conscience because of the hate 
crimes legislation. What there is in this bill is a very important 
choice that my friend, Mr. Taylor, just talked about a minute ago. A 
few years ago, we discovered to our horror that when vehicles drove 
over roadside bombs, the floors of the vehicles were not capable of 
stopping the explosion from killing the troops inside. That problem has 
manifested itself again in Afghanistan on rugged terrain. This bill 
funds 5,000 vehicles that will protect the lives of the young Americans 
who travel that rough terrain.
  The choice is not about House procedure or civil rights arguments. 
The choice is yes or no. For those 5,000 vehicles, for those troops who 
travel that rough terrain, yes or no. The right vote is ``yes.'' The 
way to honor our commitment is ``yes.'' I would urge both Republicans 
and Democrats to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report increases active and reserve 
component end-strengths; provides a 3.4 percent pay raise; prohibits 
increases in TRICARE Prime and Standard cost shares; improves the 
ability of servicemembers to vote and have their votes counted; and 
provides numerous improvements to assist wounded warriors.
  As a veteran myself and father of four sons serving in the military, 
I know this is an important bill. However, this conference report falls 
short of what should be done on behalf of our military and our military 
families. I am disappointed that the conference report fails to adopt a 
House provision to allow for concurrent receipt of military disability 
retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for all disability 
retirees regardless of disability rating percentage or years of 
service.
  There are numerous explanations for why we did not adopt this paid-
for provision, including that the President did not provide the proper 
offsets, or that the Senate objected to the proposed offsets for the 
mandatory spending.
  In my view, these reasons do not justify inaction on this issue. It 
sends the wrong message to our military and veterans that this 
provision was kept out of the conference report.
  It is past time we stop talking about support for concurrent receipt 
and repeals of the offset in the Survivor Benefit Plan-Dependency 
Indemnity Compensation SBP-DIC offset, the tragic widow's tax. It is 
time for action to do the right thing now to remove these unfair 
burdens on widows and disabled military veterans. Sadly, billions of 
dollars for Cash for Clunkers but lack of consideration for widows and 
disabled veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, has many provisions that 
improve the strengths and quality of life of active duty and reserve 
personnel and their families. It increases active and reserve component 
end-strengths; provides a 3.4% pay raise; prohibits increases in 
TRICARE Prime and Standard cost shares; improves the ability of service 
members to vote and have their votes be counted; and provides numerous 
improvements to assist wounded service members. As a veteran myself, 
and a father of four sons today in the military, I know this is an 
important bill. I am the ranking Republican serving on the Military 
Personnel Subcommittee led by Chairwoman Susan Davis who I know is 
devoted to our troops and families.
  There are, however, areas where this conference report falls short of 
what should be done on behalf of our military and their families. I am 
disappointed that the conference report fails to adopt a House 
provision, based on the President's proposal, to allow for concurrent 
receipt of military disability retired pay and veterans' disability 
compensation for all Chapter 61 disability retirees regardless of 
disability rating percentage or years of service.
  There are numerous explanations for why we did not adopt this paid-
for provision, including that the President did not provide the proper 
offsets, or that the Senate objected to the proposed offsets for the 
mandatory spending. There are also concerns that the Senate could not 
muster enough votes on this veterans' issue to overcome a budget point 
of order against the provision on the floor.
  In my view, all these reasons do not justify inaction on this issue. 
It appears that if this provision had been given the level of priority 
it demands, leadership both in the House and in the Senate would have 
found a way to adopt it in the conference report. Just as they found $3 
billion of borrowed money for cash for clunkers in a matter of hours.
  The House proposal, based on President Obama's budget request, was 
paid for, even though it was a flawed proposal to start with. It 
provided only nine months of concurrent receipt benefits which means 
they would have expired before the House and Senate could have 
completed another defense authorization bill to extend the benefit.
  If the House Democratic leadership had wanted to, it could have found 
the funding necessary to offset a fully funded benefit ($5.2B over 10 
years), or, as a minimum, to fund at least 12 to 18 months of benefit 
to ensure Congress had time to act again.
  It sends the wrong message to our military and veterans that this 
provision was kept out of the conference report. It sends the wrong 
message in particular when the objection is a procedural matter--a 
budgetary point of order--that has been ignored by the Senate in 
previous instances. In fact, the last time it did arise was when we 
passed TRICARE for Life

[[Page 24382]]

and there were votes necessary to defeat the budget point of order.
  It should be noted that we had avenues that could have been pursued 
to address this budgetary concern--namely allowing House repeal of the 
deepwater drilling to stand as a spending offset. Unfortunately, that 
option and this opportunity to take action on this issue were not 
supported.
  The bottom line is this. The failure to adopt this provision sends 
the wrong message to our disabled military veterans that we would not 
take a modest first step in providing concurrent receipt for all 
disabled military personnel.
  It is past time we stop talking about support for concurrent receipt 
and repeals of the offset in the Survivor Benefit Plan--Dependency 
Indemnity Compensation, (SBP-DIC offset) the so-called tragic widow's 
tax. It is time for action to do the right thing to remove these unfair 
burdens on widows and disabled military veterans. Sadly, billions for 
cash for clunkers, but lack of consideration for widows.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, my 
colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to second what the gentleman from New Jersey said 
just a minute ago. I'm not going to get into the details of the Armed 
Services authorization part of this bill except to simply say that we 
do an awful lot of very important good things for our soldiers, their 
families and for the defense of this country in this bill. It would 
take an awful lot, an awful lot for me to vote against the bill because 
something that is nongermane has been included in the bill.
  Now I did vote to keep hate crimes out of the bill. That didn't work. 
I can't tell you how often in this Chamber I have had to vote on bills 
that included things I didn't want in the bill. It is rare that we have 
a bill, a large bill, that doesn't include all kinds of things I would 
prefer to not be in the bill.
  There is something that I think is very important to point out about 
the hate crimes legislation that is in the bill. It's language that was 
added by Senator Sam Brownback on the Senate side, and it's language 
which addresses the principal concern that I hear from my constituents 
about hate crimes legislation. My constituents don't mind putting 
people in jail for being violent with other folks. They don't have a 
problem with that at all. They don't have a problem with increasing 
sentences, not one whit. The longer the better. If you're a criminal, 
you do the time, and as far as my folks are concerned, you can do more 
time.
  The worry was that somehow the right of individuals, of pastors and 
others to criticize behavior, to talk about sin, that somehow that 
right would be infringed upon, that free speech would be chilled. And I 
have to thank Senator Brownback because in the bill we have language 
that takes care of that issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  On pages 1366 and 1367 of the bill, it states:
  Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, 
shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights 
under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor 
shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, 
be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a 
person's exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or 
central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or 
association, unless the Government demonstrates that application of the 
burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental 
interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that 
compelling governmental interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, 
expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an 
act of physical violence; or incite an imminent act of physical 
violence against another.
  My folks don't want people planning or preparing for physical 
violence. They don't want people inciting physical violence against 
other folks. They want people to be free to criticize, to argue, to 
speak and to condemn sin. I think Senator Brownback has hit it exactly 
right.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the former mayor of Dayton, Ohio.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and 
Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership and their steadfast support 
for our men and women in uniform.
  The portion of this bill that relates to our strategic forces 
legislation reflects broad bipartisan agreement. The conference report 
retains a provision to establish the stockpile management program, 
strengthen the stockpile stewardship program and preserve the 
intellectual infrastructure.
  I am pleased that the report includes a provision on the START 
follow-on treaty, which makes it clear that the treaty should not 
include limitations on missile defense or advanced conventional 
weapons; and that the enhanced safety, security and reliability of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile and modernization of the nuclear weapons 
complex are key to enabling further stockpile reductions.
  I am disappointed that the conference sustains the President's cut of 
$1.2 billion to our missile defense systems. These cuts come despite 
significant activity in Iran and North Korea's ballistic missile and 
nuclear weapons programs.
  I introduced a provision which would have increased funds for the 
European missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic and 
open the door to an alternative only if the Secretary of Defense 
certified that it was at least as cost effective and operationally 
available as the Czech and Polish-based system. Unfortunately, my 
amendment was diluted as the Defense bill passed. However, I still 
expect the administration to address its intent.
  In missile defense, I am pleased that the report authorizes an 
increase of $20 million to sustain the GMD industrial base and $23 
million for additional SM-3 interceptors.
  In another area, I am concerned that this report does not include the 
House-passed language protecting child custody arrangements for 
servicemembers. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his bipartisan 
support on this issue. The language which I offered has consistently 
been opposed by the Senate and the Department of Defense, although it 
has passed the House four times.
  While the report includes a study to be undertaken by March 31, 2010, 
studying this issue and waiting for States to enact custody protections 
is not a strategy to solve this problem. Our men and women in uniform 
serve in a Federal military and deserve Federal action on this issue.
  I appreciate the work that has been done on this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report with some 
serious reservations. This legislation will finally enact the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That is a historic, albeit long 
overdue, accomplishment.
  I am concerned, however, about the section dealing with military 
commissions. President Obama's goal, which I share, is a system that is 
fair, legitimate and effective. But we already have that in the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice and our Article III courts. We should use 
these existing tools and stop insisting on a new and inevitably second-
class military commissions system. But given the existing Military 
Commissions Act of 2006, which allows

[[Page 24383]]

for the admission of statements obtained through the use of cruel, 
inhuman and degrading interrogation methods, we should support the 
improvements in this bill--placing further limits on the use of coerced 
testimony and hearsay; expanding the scope of appellate review to 
include review of facts and not just law; and taking greater account of 
the need for adequate defense counsel and resources. These changes do 
not go far enough, and additional changes suggested by the Judiciary 
Committee--including a sunset provision, a voluntariness requirement 
for all statements, a different appeals structure, and a prohibition on 
the trial of child soldiers by military commission--should have been 
adopted. Nonetheless, I support the improvements made by this 
conference report with the hope that we can make further progress in 
the future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, whether it is because of the actual or perceived race, 
color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, or disability of the victim, these violent acts causing death 
or bodily injury target not just an individual but an entire group. 
These crimes do, and are often intended to, spread terror among all 
members of the group.
  Today, we have the opportunity to do the right thing. I hope we can 
agree to do so.
  I am concerned, however, about the section dealing with military 
commissions. It makes some important improvements, but in some key ways 
the system will remain at odds with our best traditions.
  When President Obama initially suspended use of military commissions, 
I was optimistic that we had seen the end of this flawed system. 
President Obama has since signaled his intent to revive the 
commissions, and has called for reforms that would bring them in line 
with the rule of law. President Obama's goal which I share, is a system 
that is fair, legitimate, and effective. But we already have that in 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice and our Article III courts. We 
should use these existing tools and stop insisting on a new and 
inevitably second-class military commission system.
  But, given the existing Military Commissions Act of 2006, which can 
be used to try detainees and allows for the admission of statements 
obtained through the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation 
methods, we should support the improvements in this bill. This bill 
improves existing law by placing further limits on the use of coerced 
testimony and hearsay, expanding the scope of appellate review to 
include review of facts and not just law, and taking greater account of 
the need for adequate defense counsel and resources. These changes do 
not go far enough, and additional changes suggested by the Judiciary 
Committee--including a sunset provision, a limitation on the use of 
military commissions for Guantanamo detainees, a voluntariness 
requirement for all statements, a different appeals structure, and a 
prohibition on the trial of child soldiers by military commission--
should have been adopted. Nonetheless, I support the improvements made 
by this conference report, with the hope that we can make further 
progress in the future.
  So I will support this conference report, mindful that our work is 
not done. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
Congressman Wittman who represents America's historic First District of 
Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the conference 
report for H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act.
  The members of the House Armed Services Committee are dedicated to 
supporting our servicemembers and their families, and as such, this 
bill includes an appropriate increase in military pay and improves 
veterans care.
  I am pleased to see that the bill makes progress towards 
strengthening our naval presence on the high seas. We must continue to 
develop the industrial base and promote shipbuilding to establish a 
floor, not a ceiling, of 313 ships in our Navy.
  I do, though, remain troubled by the absence of a 30-year 
shipbuilding plan and a 30-year military aviation plan. Without these, 
critical perspective is lost. The bill provides a temporary waiver for 
the number of carriers to dip below 11, but my reservations remain. 
Maintaining 11 aircraft carriers is essential to maintaining our long-
term naval superiority.
  The strategic risk we accept in this Defense authorization bill is 
also of particular importance. As we consider strategic threats 
urgently facing our country today, it is troubling that the bill 
reduces missile defense funding by $1.2 billion.
  This bill also includes $46 million for channel dredging at Naval 
Station Mayport, Florida. It is fiscally irresponsible to spend money 
on dredging and preparing to homeport a nuclear aircraft carrier prior 
to the conclusion of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
  Unfortunately, the Senate also added a provision to expand the 
Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes. Proponents of this provision are 
using this national security bill to get this legislation to the 
President's desk through the back door, a tactic we have seen repeated 
over the last 9 months. This bill is about national security, not 
social legislation. To use the circumstances of our sons and daughters 
in harm's way to legislate on social issues is unconscionable. We 
should not use a bill in support of our servicemembers to promote 
social legislation. I urge my colleagues to continue in the future to 
work towards a better alternative.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Ranking Member McKeon and 
Chairman Skelton, for their work in bringing this bill to the floor. 
But we can do better, and we must.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and chairman of the 
committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Chairman Skelton.
  As chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I rise 
in support of the conference agreement on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Title 19 of the bill makes 
important updates to the retirement system for Federal employees.

                              {time}  1315

  These changes will improve the retirement system's effectiveness as a 
recruiting and management tool at a time when we need to attract the 
best and the brightest of the Federal workforce. The reforms eliminate 
inconsistency in the way part-time service, breaks in service, and 
unused sick leave are considered in calculating retirement benefits. It 
helps civilian workers at the Department of Defense, the largest 
employer in the Federal Government.
  I also support the repeal of the National Security Personnel System. 
This system implemented by DOD has been a near-total failure, and I 
support making a fresh start.
  I also support the report's continued funding for programs at 
historically black colleges, universities, and minority-serving 
institutions to ensure that students are trained to meet our Nation's 
defense research and technological needs.
  I thank Chairman Skelton and the other conferees for their support. I 
urge all Members to support this conference report. Again, I want to 
thank all of the staff members who made this possible.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate our dear chairman from 
Missouri, Chairman Skelton. He commented that we are at war, this is 
deadly serious, and he is right. Our troops need our support, and 
having been in the Army at Fort Benning at a time when we were being 
cut in the late 1970s, I am very sensitive to that. But our troops are 
fighting for freedom as well.
  Bringing a hate crimes bill that is based on two false premises and 
putting it on the backs of our soldiers is wrong. It should not be 
done. We have heard from a majority Member that if we vote this down, 
the hate crimes will be pulled off, and then we can vote for the pay 
raise that these people justly deserve. There is no escalation in hate 
crime numbers. The FBI statistics show they have been continually going 
down. This would not change the outcome of the Matthew Shepard case. 
They got life; the maximum here is life. In the James Byrd case, the 
two

[[Page 24384]]

most culpable got the death penalty; the maximum here is life. All this 
would do is bring that penalty down.
  This is based on false assumptions. It should not be added to our 
soldiers' backs. Let's get a clean bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we all support our troops. I 
don't think anybody doubts that. So why are we adding a hate crimes 
amendment to this bill? Why are we doing social engineering on the 
backs of our troops on a defense bill? I think it is being done for 
political purposes. I think that there are people on the other side 
that want to put Republicans in a political trick bag in the next 
election, and I think that is very unfortunate.
  We should be worrying about the defense of this Nation and the men 
and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today. We should not be 
doing social engineering on this bill. It is just wrong. I think it is 
being done for political purposes. I just say to my colleagues on the 
other side who are doing it, shame on you.
  Mr. SKELTON. I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully reserve my 
time on behalf of the Republican leader who will be here shortly.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my 
colleague, the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank the ranking 
member for his leadership.
  I want to say particularly as I start that the distinguished chairman 
of this committee does America a great service. This is a critical bill 
for our Nation and for our men and women in uniform. There is no 
greater advocate of America's readiness or the quality of life of our 
service personnel than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I 
want to thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on this vital 
bill for fiscal year 2010, which takes important steps to enhance our 
military readiness, our national security, and the well-being of our 
military families, and I might add our Federal employees, our civilian 
personnel as well.
  I particularly want to thank Chairman Skelton, the Armed Services 
Committee and staff for their months of hard work to bring this 
legislation close to enactment. I know on the staff, this has been 
tough. The conference was tough.
  In sum, the conference report authorizes $550.2 billion in budget 
authority for the Department of Defense and the national security 
programs at the Department of Energy, as well as $130 billion for 
overseas contingency operations. It is a serious response to the real, 
immediate, and rapidly changing threats our Nation and our troops face.
  Among its most important provisions are those that help to rebuild 
our Armed Forces, which are worn down after years of war.
  It provides $11 billion and $2 billion to re-equip the Army and 
Marine Corps respectively, as well as $6.9 billion to meet equipment 
shortfalls in the National Guard and Reserve.
  In line with President Obama's request, it also adds an additional 
30,000 troops to the Army, 14,650 to the Air Force, 8,100 to the 
Marines, and 2,477 to the Navy. I believe these are critical 
provisions. We are asking our men and women to serve long tours at 
great risk. The trauma that they are experiencing is very substantial. 
The ops tempo, as we call it, is such that if we do not increase our 
forces, we will not be able to give the proper rest that our troops 
need. So I congratulate the committee for attending to that issue
  It authorizes 30,000 more Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 
Our Nation has made the proper decision to confront those who would 
cause us risk. But if we are going to do so, we must properly resource 
our services with the proper number of personnel.
  To ensure safety and dignified living standards for those troops, it 
commits $350 million to construct new Army training barracks and $200 
million for facilities in the National Guard and Reserve.
  This conference report also orients our country in the direction of 
the new national security strategy put forward by the Obama 
administration, which includes redeployment from Iraq and a commitment 
to the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The conference report 
reflects those priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I have other matters that I could speak to, but I think 
everyone on this floor knows the importance of this bill. I note the 
presence on the floor of, like Mr. Skelton, one of the great leaders in 
supporting our Armed Forces on the floor with me, my good and dear 
friend Bill Young from the State of Florida, as the ranking Republican 
on the Appropriations Subcommittee. I want to thank him for his 
leadership. Mr. Young has been here, Ike, longer than either one of us 
has been here, and he has served his country very well. It is 
appropriate that he is on the floor as we consider this important bill.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member in this House to 
support this bill which supports our troops, to support this bill which 
authorizes the funds necessary to respond to the needs and the policies 
of the United States of America in protecting our citizens and our 
homeland from those who would undermine our security and safety, who 
would attack our property and persons. That's what this bill is about.
  This bill has many items in it, some more controversial than others. 
But at heart, this bill is about our troops and about America's 
security. I would hope and urge every one of my colleagues, when the 
roll is called, to vote ``aye'' on this critically important bill for 
the security of the United States of America.
  Mr. Skelton, I congratulate you for your leadership. You are one of 
America's great patriots and leaders, and I am proud to be your 
colleague.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican 
leader, for when he arrives.
  Mr. SKELTON. Does the gentleman from South Carolina have any 
additional speakers?
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. We are reserving our full time for the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) as soon as he arrives.
  Mr. SKELTON. I prefer to close, Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman from 
Ohio speaks.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as we close on the 
Republican side, indeed, this is such an important bill for the 
military of our country. As has been indicated by so many of my 
colleagues, with the highest regard that we have for the chairman of 
the House Armed Services Committee, there is great distress over the 
additional language that should not have been added to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in your mind's eye picture a young Army 
corporal preparing to drive down a road in his security vehicle to help 
in an ongoing firefight in the mountains of Afghanistan. Picture in 
your mind this young corporal dressed in the Army fatigue uniform, an 
M16A2 standard-issue rifle in his hand with bullets made in America for 
that M16A2, wearing body armor furnished him and in the latest security 
vehicle provided by the United States Army.

                              {time}  1330

  That M16A2 rifle was furnished by the Congress of the United States. 
The ammunition for that rifle was furnished by the Congress of the 
United States. The body armor on that soldier was furnished by the 
Congress of the United States, and the vehicle in which he rides, that 
security vehicle was furnished by the Congress of the United States.
  As a young soldier, this young corporal goes down the road, look at 
that soldier and answer the question, Did you vote to support me as a 
Member of Congress of the United States?
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in my tenure I 
rise today in support of the conference report on H.R. 2647, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010.

[[Page 24385]]

  I still believe that we must bring common sense to our runaway 
defense spending and end support for outdated cold war era weapons 
systems that are costing taxpayers over $60 billion a year without any 
appreciable benefit to our national security.
  While I am pleased to see that H.R. 2647 includes language 
prohibiting the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq or 
Afghanistan, I continue to have serious concerns that the authorization 
for overseas operations included in this bill threatens to further 
entrench the United States in conflict and continue us down a path to 
war without end.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to oppose a military-first foreign 
policy strategy which endangers our troops and our national security, 
and undermines our ability to meet the needs of the American people.
  But today, I will be supporting this bill in the interest of all 
past, present, and potential victims of hate crimes and discrimination.
  It is long past time that we protect Americans against hate violence 
by ensuring hate crimes are fully prosecuted under the law, as provided 
for in this bill.
  No individual should face discrimination, fear, or violence on the 
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the House of 
Representatives. The Majority chose to add to the defense bill a 
totally unrelated and highly controversial bill, commonly called the 
Thought Crimes Bill or the Hate Crimes bill. There are serious concerns 
that religious leaders promoting traditional morality may be subject to 
potential criminal liability under this bill as prosecutors blur the 
line between what constitutes a ``hate crime'' and what they deem hate 
speech. Last minute changes to the Thought Crimes bill stripped 
important religious freedom protections and constitute further abuse of 
power. While no one should condone acts of hatred toward others, this 
bill goes far beyond its stated purpose.
  To airdrop this totally unrelated legislation onto a bill that 
authorizes our national defense budget is a travesty and abuse of power 
in the highest degree.
  Adding vague unrelated provisions that are likely to be proven 
unconstitutional to the defense bill is more than inappropriate. I have 
joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to the President 
expressing our concerns, stating ``Each of us takes very seriously the 
responsibility to ensure the men and women who volunteer to serve in 
our Armed Forces have the resources they need to defend this nation. 
Using our troops to pass divisive social policy does a profound 
disservice to them, this institution, and the constituents we serve.''
  Fortunately, this bill is not the last word on national defense this 
year, and we will soon have before us the Defense Appropriations bill--
the bill that actually provides funding for our troops. Congressional 
leaders should resist the urge to again engage in such abuses of power.
  I am introducing legislation today that will block the House from 
engaging in such behaviors in the future. My bill will bring some 
common sense to this place by ending the practice of merging totally 
unrelated bills in secret conference committees. Separate issues should 
be kept separate.
  It is also troubling that once again, the Majority failed to give 
Members of Congress and the public at least 72 hours to understand how 
$680 billion in taxpayer dollars are being spent. What last minute 
earmarks were included in the 2,200 page bill? No one knows!
  I am also disappointed with several shortcomings in the bill. The 
bill fails to include provisions to guarantee that Guantanamo Bay 
terrorist detainees will not be sent to the United States. At a time 
when Iran is advancing its nuclear and missile technology programs, the 
bill unwisely cuts over $1.2 billion from our national Missile Defense 
program. While there is also much good in this bill, I am glad that we 
will still have an opportunity to vote on the actual spending bill in 
the next few weeks. I would urge the Majority to resist the temptation 
to lard up that bill with last minute airdropped earmarks or play 
politics with our troops by adding extraneous liberal social policies.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference 
report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010. In particular, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and 
Ranking Member McKeon for their leadership in negotiating this piece of 
legislation.
  As others have attested, this bill will provide more than $600 
billion for our troops, so that they will be ready to confront today's 
adversaries and prepared to prosecute tomorrow's conflicts, all while 
knowing that the U.S. public stands ready to support their needs at 
home and abroad.
  Also included in the Defense Authorization are three provisions that 
will greatly benefit the federal employees that not only support the 
warfighter, but often serve alongside our men and women in uniform.
  The first is known as the Federal Employee Retirement Service (FERS) 
Sick Leave provision. This piece will allow FERS-enrolled employees to 
use their accumulated, unexpended sick leave towards the computation of 
their annuities upon retirement. This provision puts FERS employees on 
par with those in the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, which 
includes employees who joined the civil service prior to 1984.
  The second provision important to so many federal employees is known 
as the CSRS Part-Time Fix. It allows CSRS workers to phase-down to 
part-time status at the end of their careers without reducing their 
final annuities and pensions. Today, under CSRS, part-time service 
occurring during the final years of federal service negatively impacts 
the high-three annuity calculation, leading to earlier full-time 
service being calculated as part-time. This flaw often pushes out the 
most experienced and knowledgeable federal employees just at the time 
when this nation needs their service and expertise.
  The final federal employee provision contained in this bill is known 
as FERS Redeposit. This provision allows returning FERS employees, who 
earlier left federal service, to repay a deposit to the civil service 
trust fund, with interest, in order to be able to combine their past 
and new federal service for future annuity credit purposes. Like the 
other two federal employee provisions, the FERS Redeposit will help the 
federal government better recruit and retain the skilled men and women 
that are critically vital to our armed services.
  Though I have championed these provisions in the past, I must take 
some time to personally thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, 
Chairman Towns, and Chairman Lynch for their tremendous efforts to 
ensure that these provisions survived conference. Without the effort of 
these esteemed Congressmen, hundreds of thousands of federal employees 
would not be the beneficiaries of such provisions.
  Lastly, I strongly support the inclusion of The Matthew Shepard and 
James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in this legislation. This 
provision, which has passed Congress several times over the past few 
years, would extend federal hate crimes law to protect individuals 
targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, 
or disability. In addition to expanding the categories of hate crimes, 
it would allow the Justice Department to aid in the investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes at the local level through technical 
assistance and supplemental funding.
  Hate crimes have a chilling effect beyond a particular victim, 
spreading fear of future attacks among the targeted group. Congress 
cannot prevent hate from motivating individuals to commit violence, but 
we can ensure that the proper laws and resources are available to 
prosecute these cases to the fullest extent of the law. Enactment of 
this legislation is a long overdue step in combating all forms of hate-
based violence that impact communities across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Chairman Skelton for his leadership.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2647. 
Throughout my time in Congress I have been a champion for human rights. 
My opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by extension, 
the inclusion of an authorization for an additional $130 billion to 
fund these wars, is in part predicated on an understanding that war 
violates the human rights of the affected populations.
  The war and occupation in Iraq has taken the lives of over one 
million people. Thousands more innocent lives have been lost due to 
military operations in Afghanistan. These lives are often referred to 
as ``collateral damage.'' But in reality these lives represent innocent 
children, mothers, sisters, brothers, and fathers, among others, that 
were killed because a war and occupation has been imposed on them. 
Military operations have caused their homes to be invaded, their 
communities to be bombed and their resources, including food and water, 
to be increasingly scarce.
  Unemployment in both Iraq and Afghanistan is devastatingly high; 
access to humanitarian aid is limited; medical care and education are 
difficult to obtain or completely unavailable. The wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have clearly violated the human rights of the civilian 
populations in which they are being waged.
  The people of Afghanistan are suffering horribly from 8 years of war. 
During that time the Afghan central government has become increasingly 
corrupt and has failed to meet the

[[Page 24386]]

needs of the Afghan people. Iraq has been decimated during more than 
six years of war and occupation. The people of Iraq continue to wonder 
when the killing of the innocent will be enough to satisfy the U.S. and 
question when the U.S. will end the occupation of their country.
  The majority of the Iraqi and Afghan people are not extremists or 
insurgents, but they are the victims of the global war on terror whose 
daily lives now entail little more than struggling to feed their 
families and survive the violence of the war. Furthermore, the war in 
Iraq was based on false intelligence and an inaccurate, government 
sponsored, propaganda campaign.
  I ask this body: Where is our dedication to the human rights of the 
innocent people around the world who will be killed, maimed or 
displaced by the bombs, weapons and death machines that this bill 
funds?
  As a staunch supporter of human rights I have consistently supported, 
voted in favor of, and advocated for passage of hate crimes 
legislation. I am fully committed to ensuring that the human rights of 
all individuals are protected. Therefore, I believe that passage of 
hate crimes legislation is essential to ensuring strong human rights 
protections for the victims of violent crimes that are perpetrated 
based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national 
origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability of 
the victim.
  But there is a deep-seated irony in including a human rights 
provision in a funding bill that will inevitably ensure the 
continuation of human rights violations in parts of the world. I 
believe that, as a Nation and a part of the global community, we cannot 
fully ensure the protection of our own human rights here in the United 
States without being equally diligent in ensuring the human rights of 
our global society. I cannot trade the human rights of some for the 
human rights of others.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. I want to 
thank Chairman Skelton for his hard work and leadership on working with 
all members and the Senate in passing an important bill to authorize 
the funding for our entire armed forces.
  I am especially grateful for the provision to authorize funding to 
dredge the St. Johns River at Mayport Naval Station. It is important 
for our Navy to have the flexibility to station all of our vessels 
where they can be safe and provide the maximum amount of protection for 
national security.
  I am proud of the men and women of our military who, every day and 
every night, protect the freedoms we hold so dear. Congress determined 
the mission and it is up to us to make sure our soldiers have the 
proper resources to carry out that mission.
  The Navy and the President determined that part of that mission 
included making the harbor at Mayport Naval Station suitable for all 
the ships in our fleet. They included that requirement in the budget 
submitted to the Congress. And it is included in the conference report. 
This is a key military construction and force protection project.
  The U.S. Navy has an alternative docking location for every ship in 
the Navy except for aircraft carriers stationed on the East Coast. In 
order to provide this emergency docking location, the Navy requested 
funding in the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget for Channel Dredging at Naval 
Station Mayport.
  Right now, the channel to Naval Station Mayport is dredged to 42 feet 
plus a 2 foot overdraft. For a full loaded nuclear aircraft carrier to 
pull into Mayport without tide restrictions, the channel must be 
dredged to 50 feet plus a 2 foot overdraft.
  I was pleased to speak with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates earlier 
this year and he expressed his commitment to make the Mayport Naval 
Station a viable option for all naval ships in the event of emergency.
  This provision to allow the dredging to continue represents a huge 
victory not only for the First Coast community, but also for the brave 
men and women of the U.S. Navy, whose vulnerability to attack is 
decreased by avoiding consolidation of carriers in any single location. 
The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 highlighted the danger associated 
with docking large naval fleets in only one location. I am thrilled 
that the Department of Defense has decided to take advantage of the 
Jacksonville port in order to increase the safety of our men and women 
in uniform.
  This is about national security and ensuring we provide our Navy 
leaders with operational flexibility they need. Our aircraft carriers 
are too valuable of assets not to provide a back-up docking location.
  I am pleased at the support of the entire Florida delegation for 
working in a bipartisan matter to support the men and women of our 
military who, every day and every night, protect the freedoms we hold 
so dear. Congress determined the mission and it is up to us to make 
sure our soldiers have the proper resources to carry out that mission.
  I support this provision and the entire bill and urge my colleagues 
to support this bill as well.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to have to vote 
today in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2647, the 2010 
National Defense Authorization Act. For House Democrats to bring it to 
the Floor in its current form shows that they are not above playing 
politics with our troops.
  I commend the House Armed Services Committee and House conferees on 
the bill for their good work in support of our military. The conference 
report provides much-needed funding for our operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan at a time when the Administration's commitment to those 
missions is in question. We must continue to do everything in our power 
to give our troops the resources they need to succeed, and also to 
support their loved ones at home.
  I applaud the important provisions of this conference report that 
authorize funding for equipment acquisition, research and development, 
and reset. I am pleased that the legislation increases the size of the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to address current and future 
threats.
  The conference report bars the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo 
Bay to the United States pending a review on the threats they would 
pose to Americans. I find it unconscionable that the Obama 
Administration is still contemplating bringing terrorists to American 
soil after this Congress and the American people have gone on the 
record against such a reckless move.
  Most importantly, the conference report authorizes an across-the-
board military pay raise above what President Obama's defense budget 
requested. I was proud to vote to fund this pay raise in July when it 
was included in the 2010 defense appropriations bill, and look forward 
to quick action on a final version of that bill to provide this well-
deserved increase.
  The extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform make it 
of utmost importance that we give them the equipment and the support 
they need to complete their mission. They deserve far more than they 
are getting today from Congress, which is cynically using this bill to 
advance social policies favored by the Left. Attached to the bill by 
Senate Democrats is a wholly unrelated and unconstitutional so-called 
hate crimes bill.
  This hate crimes bill represents an unprecedented departure from the 
deeply rooted American principle of equal justice under law. Justice 
should be blind, rendered through a criminal justice system that does 
not take into consideration such issues as race, gender, and religion.
  Mr. Speaker, all violent crime is rooted in hatred. All violent crime 
is deplorable and should be punished to the fullest extent. Crimes not 
aimed at certain classes of people are just as reprehensible as those 
committed for other reasons. Crimes committed against one citizen 
should not be punished any more or any less than crimes committed 
against another.
  But this hate crimes bill treats senseless, random violence less 
harshly than other, less ``random'' crimes. Justice will depend on 
whether a victim is a member of a category deemed worthy of protection 
under this bill--a list, for the record, that does not include the 
unborn, pregnant women, the elderly, and others who are among society's 
most vulnerable.
  In fact, when the hate crimes bill was considered in the Judiciary 
Committee earlier this year, I offered an amendment to add the unborn 
to this list. The amendment was ruled non-germane on the outrageous 
grounds that the unborn are not ``persons.'' So much for defending our 
most defenseless.
  I find it intriguing that a provision offered by Republicans but 
opposed by Democrats in committee--heightening penalties for attacks on 
servicemembers--is now hailed by Democrats as a vital part of this 
legislation.
  The hate crimes bill raises the very real possibility that religious 
teachers of every faith could be prosecuted based on the sermons they 
give. By permitting legal action against anyone who ``willfully 
causes'' action by another person, it is not hard to imagine charges 
being filed against a pastor if a misguided parishioner claimed that 
the pastor's message caused him to commit a violent act. Subjecting 
pastors' sermons to prosecutorial scrutiny would prove a chilling 
effect on the rights of all individuals to freely practice their 
religion.
  It is beyond shameful that these hate crimes provisions have been 
stapled onto the defense authorization. They are completely irrelevant 
to the protection of our troops, and provide yet another example of how 
terrified the Democrat

[[Page 24387]]

majority is of free and open debate. Just as the hate crimes bill was 
originally debated in the House under a closed rule allowing for no 
amendments, it is now being presented to the House for only one hour of 
debate with no opportunity to amend it.
  Mr. Speaker, defense authorization bills have traditionally been free 
of politics, almost always garnering widespread bipartisan support. The 
actual defense provisions in this authorization bill are good. I would 
be proud to support this bill, absent the unrelated and 
unconstitutional hate crimes provisions included in it.
  The American people have a right to be ashamed of the poisoned 
process that forces pro-defense members of Congress to vote against 
what might otherwise be a good defense bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly that all men and women must be 
treated equally, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity or disability. That is why I am an 
original cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act.
  Hate crimes are real. They spread fear and intimidation among entire 
communities. This bill would strengthen local law enforcement's ability 
to prosecute hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national 
origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to 
the victim. It's long past time for Congress to pass this important 
legislation to help prosecute those who would commit these heinous 
acts.
  Some have opposed this bill by saying it would legislate ``thought 
crimes.'' It is patently false to say that we're criminalizing thought. 
We are criminalizing the brutality that results when these thoughts 
lead to the death and serious injury of an innocent victim. This is no 
more about criminalizing thought than the antilynching laws were about 
criminalizing knot tying.
  The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic and 
prosecutorial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution 
of any crime of violence that is motivated by prejudice based on race, 
color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender 
identity or disability of the victim. It also authorizes the Department 
of Justice to award grants to state and local law enforcement to assist 
in hate crime prevention.
  This bill is about hate crimes and giving law enforcement the tools 
they need to prosecute them. This bill has strong support from over 300 
civil rights, religious, LGBT, law enforcement and civic organizations, 
and I'm particularly pleased to identify the support of the Garden 
State Equality, a group that has fought tirelessly to fight 
discrimination against all Americans, including discrimination based on 
gender identity.
  The bill has in the past been approved by the House and the Senate 
only to fail to reach the president's desk. Yet, today we will finally 
pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act 
into law.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to explain my vote in opposition 
to the Conference Report to H.R. 2647, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  I absolutely support ensuring that our brave men and women serving in 
the Armed Forces have the necessary and best possible training, 
equipment, and other resources to accomplish their missions as quickly 
and safely as possible.
  I sought a seat on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in my 
first term so I could in some small measure help repay our debt to past 
soldiers and their families by protecting and strengthening their 
health, disability, and retirement benefits.
  I have introduced legislation to increase the pay of members of the 
military, provide tax cuts to active duty military personnel, give tax 
credits to our military to help them purchase homes, allow for 
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation, 
and encourage employers to hire members of the Reserve and National 
Guard.
  I have also traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit with our troops 
and let them know that I understand and appreciate what they are doing 
and will do whatever I can to support them.
  Very simply, I believe our brave warriors who are standing in harm's 
way to keep us safe are the true heroes in our society and deserve our 
complete and unfettered support. That is why I supported the House-
passed defense authorization bill earlier this year. I am terribly 
disappointed that I cannot vote for this conference report, however, 
because it includes several misguided provisions that should not become 
law.
  This bill is shamelessly being used to enact unrelated and 
controversial hate crimes legislation, to which many, including me, 
strongly object. The inclusion of this language in a bill to ensure our 
national security and meet our commitment to the troops is 
unconscionable.
  I believe that all crimes should be vigorously prosecuted and the 
convicted should be swiftly and appropriately punished. I do not 
believe that the federal government should be in the business of 
criminalizing thought and creating classes of people who supposedly are 
more deserving of protection than others.
  The bill cuts funds for missile defense by more than a billion 
dollars from last year's level and permanently prohibits the deployment 
of long-range missile defense interceptors in Europe; unless a lengthy 
certification process occurs, effectively shutting down a system that 
would protect us and our European allies from nuclear attack.
  The bill also strikes funding included in the House-passed bill for 
the production of additional F-22 fighters. These provisions leave us 
more vulnerable to attack from nuclear nations and those countries 
developing more advanced air assets.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not play along with this political charade and 
allow our men and women in uniform to be used as cover to pass 
controversial social policies that cannot be enacted on their own. My 
constituents know how strongly I support our troops and our military 
efforts to prevent terrorists from striking in this country again like 
they did on 9/11.
  I hope the next time we consider a defense authorization bill we do 
so in a manner that reflects and upholds the very ideals that our 
troops are fighting for, unlike the shameful process that brought us to 
this point today.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Conference Report for 
H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
because it includes more than just the comprehensive annual defense 
policies and budget authority for the Department of Defense, which is 
the intended purpose of the bill.
  I continue to fully support the efforts of our troops on the ground, 
but have serious concerns about controversial hate crimes legislation 
added by the Senate. When the House voted on this legislation in June, 
I voted yes, because I supported the policies laid out in the House 
version of the bill. But the Senate's addition has no place in this 
bill.
  I was also disappointed to see that provisions to fix Concurrent 
Receipt that were included in the House version of the bill were 
removed in conference. This is a well deserved and long overdue benefit 
for our nation's veterans.
  I want to express my support for the provisions in this legislation 
which will improve the quality of life for military personnel and their 
families, strengthen commitments to military retirees, and bolster our 
national security. Without the hate crimes provision, this bill in 
total is good legislation for our troops and veterans. In addition to 
the pay raise for our military, it includes important TRICARE 
provisions that I continue to support. I have a long history of 
supporting our troops and veterans and will continue to work to support 
policies that benefit our military and hope that future defense related 
legislation can be considered without the inclusion of extraneous and 
inappropriate provisions.
  I also strongly support provisions included in this legislation with 
regard to federal employees that will improve the efficacy of the 
federal workforce and remedy historic inequalities in federal 
retirement benefits. These improvements will strengthen our national 
security workforce, including more than 700,000 civilians employed 
worldwide by the Department of Defense.
  I am particularly pleased that legislation I have introduced with 
Representative Jim Moran, which would credit unused sick leave for 
federal employees, has been included in this bill. According to a 
Congressional Research Service report, current inequities in sick leave 
policy result in a loss of productivity costing taxpayers more than $68 
million each year. This will remedy this and result in a more 
productive and cost-effective workforce.
  The other important federal workforce provisions included in this 
legislation will: change the computation of certain annuities based on 
part-time service; expand the class of individuals eligible to receive 
an actuarially reduced annuity under the Civil Service Retirement 
System; authorize the re-deposit of retirement funds under the Federal 
Employee Retirement System; change the retirement credit for service of 
certain employees transferred from the District of Columbia service to 
the federal service; alter the retirement treatment of Secret Service 
employees; and phase in the use of locality-based comparability 
payments to replace cost-of-living adjustments for certain federal 
employees, and include a provision from the Senate-passed bill allowing 
for the re-employment of federal retirees on a limited, part-

[[Page 24388]]

time basis without offsetting their annuity from salary.
  I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the 
last several months to advocate for the inclusion of these provisions 
from the House and Senate bills and I am pleased that they have been 
maintained in the conference agreement. Although I am disappointed that 
I cannot support this bill, I strongly support the inclusion of these 
provisions strengthening the federal workforce.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Defense 
Authorization bill. As we focus on slowing the rising cost of health 
care, we should be just as vigilant about ever higher levels of defense 
spending.
  No one on the international stage comes close to our military 
spending. The United States accounted for 41.5 percent of the entire 
world's military spending in 2008--the next closest country was China 
at 5.8 percent. To put this in perspective, if we spent only six times 
as much as the next closest country, instead of seven times as much, we 
would have more than enough money to completely pay for health care 
reform.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Defense 
Authorization bill. That said, there is an important provision in the 
bill that I support, extending hate crimes laws to cover sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. I have supported 
hate crimes legislation throughout my career in Congress, including as 
a co-sponsor of this legislation when it was approved by the House in 
April, and I am glad that the hate crimes provision in this bill will 
finally become law.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the 
recently enacted policies rammed through Congress in this defense bill.
  The so-called ``Hate crimes'' language in this bill contradicts 
Americans' First Amendment rights and sets a very dangerous precedent.
  We can all agree that any form of bigotry in America is unacceptable. 
Unfortunately, the ``hate crimes'' provisions in this defense bill not 
only have no business in this unrelated legislation, they are also so 
sweeping and broad that they may very well encompass legitimate 
religious beliefs.
  As a result, under this legislation, any pastor, preacher, priest, 
rabbi or imam who gives a sermon out of their moral traditions about 
sexual practices could be found guilty of a federal crime. This is far 
outside of the current of American freedom that flows through our 
history.
  These ``hate crimes'' provisions will have a negative effect on the 
ability of people of deep religious convictions to express those 
convictions freely. They will inevitably have a ``chilling effect'' on 
religious expression from churches, temples and mosques. The most 
responsible thing for Congress to do is to take steps to rein in this 
infringement on Americans' First Amendment rights.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day--a day in which a 
domestic social agenda has hijacked the Defense Authorization bill. The 
men and women in our armed services should be the first and foremost 
priority of this bill. Instead, this domestic social agenda is being 
strapped on the backs of our troops. We should not do it.
  Creating new ``hate crimes'' is controversial. A stand-alone bill has 
passed the House, but apparently its advocates do not believe they can 
get it through the Senate. So they have attached it to the Defense 
Authorization Bill.
  However one feels about hate crimes, it is wrong to include that 
provision in this bill. The hate crimes provisions have nothing to do 
with the Defense Authorization Bill, and it should not be here.
  There are a number of good things in this bill--provisions I support 
and issues I have worked on. But I cannot condone forcing a domestic 
political issue into a national security bill.
  And I worry that doing this makes it less likely than ever that 
national security will stay above domestic politics.
  We are faced with a serious situation in Afghanistan which requires 
our best efforts and our concentrated focus. Mr. Speaker, our troops 
and our nation expect better of us than this.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the 
National Defense Authorization Act. While this legislation addresses 
many important defense related matters, such as military readiness and 
pay raises for our troops. It also includes other provisions like 
reform of the Federal Employee Retirement System. Most important, from 
the perspective of my Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee and as 
author of the House legislation, it also touches on the issue of hate 
crimes by including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act.
  Some have objected loudly to the inclusion of hate crimes legislation 
in a defense authorization bill. However, hate crimes legislation is of 
critical importance to this nation and has passed with broad bipartisan 
support in the House for the last three (3) Congresses, only to fail in 
the other body by being stripped out at Conference. I hope that this 
year is different.
  As the names in the title of this provision demonstrate, hate crimes 
are a blight on this nation. Despite what some would claim, the number 
of hate crimes each year demonstrate that federal action is crucial to 
bringing these offenses under control. Since 1991, the FBI has 
documented over 118,000 hate crimes. In the year 2007, the most current 
data available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies 
across the country identifying 7,624 bias-motivated criminal incidents 
that were directed against an individual because of their personal 
characteristics. These offenses range from assaults to murder.
  This legislation will provide assistance to state and local law 
enforcement and amend federal law to streamline the investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes. It is important to note that states will 
retain primary responsibility for prosecuting these offenses, but with 
aid of the Federal government.
  In the cases of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard local prosecutors 
acknowledge the crucial role of federal investigative assistance in 
obtaining prosecutions. In the Shepard case in particular, the local 
officials could have used a key provision of the bill to help defray 
the costs of the prosecutions and thus avoid the furlough of law 
enforcement personnel.
  The key element of the bill is its expansion of federal jurisdiction 
to cover crimes motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual 
orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. I believe that the 
expansion of jurisdiction to cover additional groups is the key issue 
to those opposing this legislation. After all, our first hate crimes 
statute was enacted in 1968 and there has been no move to repeal that 
law (18 U.S.C.A. Section 245).
  At the core of this bill is its protection of First Amendment rights, 
while protecting communities from bias-based violence. The bill 
contains a provision that protects the First Amendment rights of the 
accused at trial and provisions that protect freedom of speech and 
conduct generally. Despite argument to the contrary, no person can be 
prosecuted under this act for mere speech or belief. This legislation 
sanctions violent conduct and the Constitution does not protect speech, 
conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, 
or committing an act of violence.
  These hate crimes prevention provisions are supported by a long list 
of groups (more than 300), including law enforcement groups, religious 
groups, civil rights groups, disability groups, and numerous other 
organizations. Behind each of the statistics is an individual or 
community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, 
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or 
disability. Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned 
that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a 
seemingly isolated incident to fester into wide spread tension that can 
damage the social fabric of the wider community.
  After more than a decade, it is time to send hate crimes legislation 
to the President.
  While I strongly support certain provisions of the bill, I remain 
concerned about the military commission system despite the reforms that 
are included in Title XVIII of the Conference Report. Those changes 
undoubtedly improve existing law in several important ways. For 
example, the bill prohibits the admission of statements that have been 
obtained through cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation methods. 
It also expands the scope of appellate review of military commission 
trial decisions to allow the reviewing court to consider issues of fact 
as well as law. Congress previously restricted all appeals to issues of 
law only, an unprecedented departure from how our existing military 
justice and Article III courts operate. So these changes are positive. 
In many respects, however, the reforms simply do not go far enough. 
Several recommendations made by the Judiciary Committee--including a 
sunset provision for the law, limiting the use of military commissions 
for trial of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; requiring a 
voluntariness standard for all statements; adopting a different appeals 
structure; and prohibiting the trial of child soldiers in military 
commissions--should also have been adopted.
  In July, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held two hearings on military 
commissions and possible reforms. Though I voted against the Military 
Commission Act of 2006, I participated in those hearings with an open 
mind to determine why military commissions are necessary and whether we 
can create a system that complies with our laws and our Constitution. 
After hearing from

[[Page 24389]]

several witnesses, including representatives from the Departments of 
Justice and Defense, I am not convinced that we need military 
commissions or that, even with these reforms, the military commission 
system is lawful. The last administration seemed to believe that 
military commissions were desirable because they made it easier to 
obtain convictions, regardless of the evidence. President Obama has 
assured us that he seeks a system that is fair, legitimate, and 
effective. We have just that in our existing Article III courts and 
courts-martial system. Our efforts to create an alternative system 
already have proven unwise and unconstitutional. We should work toward 
retiring, not reforming, this system. In the meantime, however, I 
cannot in good conscience oppose changes that will improve the existing 
system.
  I urge a vote in support of the rule.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the inclusion of hate 
crimes legislation within the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 
2647). Throughout my 15 years in Congress, I have always been a 
passionate supporter of our military and their families. I stand on my 
strong record of support for our brave service men and women. 
Regrettably, however I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  Using the broad admiration for our military, the majority has 
hijacked this Defense Authorization bill to pass a hate crimes 
provision that could not pass on its own merits.
  Every jurisdiction in the United States prohibits battery and murder. 
If we prioritize crimes based on the victim's status, we threaten the 
very notion of equal protection under the law that is the foundation of 
our legal system. Instead, all violations of the law should be dealt 
with in a manner that delivers justice on behalf of victims and their 
families. As a society, we must do what we can to prevent all crimes.
  The use of violence against any innocent person is wrong, regardless 
of that individual's race, religion, nationality, or sexual 
orientation. Crimes of violence should be prosecuted to the fullest 
extent of the law.
  With two wars waging overseas, now is not the time to be playing 
politics with the lives of our brave service men and women. They 
deserve a clean defense bill, but today's vote sends the wrong message 
to all those who stand in defense of our Nation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
  Every year, this bill provides us with an opportunity to make sure we 
are doing right by the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647) 
would provide a 3.4-percent pay raise for our troops. It also would 
expand TRICARE health coverage for reserve component members and their 
families for 180 days prior to mobilization and prohibit fee increases 
on TRICARE inpatient care for one year. To help our wounded warriors 
with their recovery, the bill authorizes funding for travel and 
transportation for three designated persons, including non-family 
members, to visit hospitalized service members. It also authorizes 
funding to allow seriously injured service members to use a non-medical 
attendant for help with daily living or during travel for medical 
treatment.
  H.R. 2647 also contains provisions designed to improve and 
rationalize our policy on detainees. I am especially pleased that the 
bill contains a provision I wrote that requires the videorecording of 
interrogations of detainees held at theater-level detention facilities 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the first time, the Defense Department 
will have a uniform standard for collecting videorecorded intelligence 
from detainees through this mandatory program. Law enforcement 
organizations across our country use this technique routinely in 
interrogations, and it is past time the Defense Department adopted a 
common standard for videorecording interrogations to maximize 
intelligence collection and protect both the interrogators and the 
detainees.
  I'm pleased that this bill contains strong hate crimes prevention 
provisions that I have supported for years. The Local Law Enforcement 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is included in this bill, would 
provide technical and financial support to local law enforcement and 
prosecutors so that they can more aggressively try violent crimes which 
are motivated by a victim's race, color, religion, national origin, 
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability and expands 
Federal jurisdiction to cover such crimes. Additionally, the bill would 
make it a Federal crime to attack U.S. servicemembers or their property 
on account of their service to country. The bill also includes stronger 
protections for freedom of speech and association, including religious 
speech and association, than the House passed version of this 
legislation. These changes will ensure that religious leaders will not 
have to change the expression of their beliefs or how they serve their 
congregations, as a result of the enactment of hate crimes legislation.
  I am also pleased to see that the Conference Report includes most of 
Senator Schumer's Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which 
had been attached to the Senate-passed bill. That bill would facilitate 
the ability of military and overseas voters to request voter 
registration and absentee ballot applications by mail and 
electronically, the ability of election officials to transmit blank 
absentee ballots to military and overseas voters, and the ability of 
military voters to return their completed paper ballots safely, 
securely and free of charge by express mail, with generous pick-up and 
delivery time-frames. The latter provisions are similar to my own 
legislation on that topic, the Military and Overseas Voting Enhancement 
Act, which was the very first election reform bill I introduced in the 
House this session.
  I would also like to commend my colleague Ms. Maloney, who I was 
pleased to collaborate with on her Overseas Voting Practical Amendments 
Act, which included provisions to facilitate the use of electronic 
transmission for outgoing applications and ballots similar to those in 
the Schumer bill that were not covered by my bill. I agree with Senator 
Schumer that facilitating the ability of our service men and women to 
vote conveniently, expeditiously, securely, and--to say the least--for 
free--should be our top priority. They put their lives on the line for 
us every day, and the electoral process should recognize their 
sacrifice accordingly.
  However, whatever we do to facilitate the ability of our military 
personnel to vote, we must never do it at the expense of the security 
or privacy of their votes. The strong language included in the 
conference report requires that the privacy of our military and 
overseas voters be protected. And in providing only for the express 
mail return of completed hard copy ballots, it also recognizes that 
return of completed ballots by electronic means presents security 
risks. However, the bill calls for the study of ``new election 
technology'' to facilitate the ability of our military and overseas 
voters to vote. We must remember that ``new'' does not necessarily mean 
better, and that too often technology has been adopted before being 
properly evaluated for the potential unintended consequences it may 
cause.
  Chlorofluorocarbons were hailed as an innovation in refrigeration; 
we've since discovered that they damaged the ozone layer, so they are 
now banned. Asbestos was hailed for its insulation properties; we've 
since discovered that it causes lung disease, so it is now banned. DDT 
was hailed as a disease-fighting pesticide and its inventor was awarded 
the Nobel Prize; we've since discovered it causes serious harm to 
living organisms, so it is now banned. Electronic voting machines were 
hailed as making voting easier and more accessible; we've since learned 
that in most cases their results cannot be reliably and consistently 
verified. Whatever we do to enhance the ability of our military and 
overseas voters to vote, we must never implement anything that could 
compromise the accuracy, integrity, and security of the vote count.
  One key provision in the House version of the bill that is not in 
this conference report is a requirement that the Secretary of Defense 
conduct suicide prevention outreach to every Individual Ready Reserve 
member who has done at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. I was 
astonished to learn that some in the Senate objected to this provision 
on the grounds of costs. How much would it cost the Defense Department 
to task the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to have 
his staff make phone calls to check up on IRR members who might be at 
risk of taking their own lives? If we can find tens of millions of 
dollars to buy extra engines for the F-35 fighter that the Pentagon 
doesn't want, there is no excuse for the Congress not to find the money 
to help prevent combat veterans from killing themselves.
  Finally, this bill requires the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to ``submit to the congressional defense committees separate 
reports containing assessments of the extent to which the campaign plan 
for Iraq and the campaign plan for Afghanistan (including the 
supporting and implementing documents for each such plan) each adhere 
to military doctrine.'' Unfortunately, we need far more than a simple 
assessment as to whether our armed forces are fighting according to 
established doctrine. What we need is a critical examination of whether 
they should be fighting in Afghanistan at all. Some of us have asked 
for a plan of success or a plan of withdrawal before sending another 
wave of soldiers. We have received no such plan.
  As I've stated previously, I will not support an endless military 
commitment in this region.

[[Page 24390]]

If a year from now I do not see unambiguous indicators of success--
fewer civilian casualties, Afghan and Pakistani security forces in the 
lead on the security mission, genuine progress in rebuilding 
Afghanistan's devastated infrastructure and civil institutions--I will 
not support further funding for operations and will support only 
measures that will bring our forces home, and quickly.
  On balance, this is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that I must vote 
against the conference report for H.R. 2647, the FY2010 National 
Defense Authorization Act, because it includes ``hate crimes'' 
provisions of H.R. 1913. The provisions were added by the Senate in an 
effort to facilitate the social engineering and partisan political 
agenda of the Democrat leadership in Congress. The ``hate crimes'' 
language has absolutely nothing to do with the funding and equipping of 
our servicemembers, and it is especially unfortunate that such a 
blatant partisan action would be taken during a time of war when our 
nation's sons and daughters are in harm's way. My no vote supports the 
values, goals, and mission of the United States military.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 2010 Defense 
Authorization Conference Report.
  This conference agreement reflects our commitment to the national 
security objectives of the country and demonstrates our support for our 
servicemembers and their families.
  The bill authorizes $680 billion for military personnel, equipment 
and global operations. To improve the quality of life for our troops 
and their families the report provides a 3.9 percent military pay raise 
for personnel and preserves important health benefits including 
prohibiting fee increases in TRICARE and the TRICARE pharmacy program 
and creating new preventive health care initiatives.
  The National Defense Authorization Act covers a large number of 
federal employees and this conference report includes important benefit 
improvements for many of them. The report includes a provision to allow 
employees under the FERS system to use unused sick leave when computing 
their annuities upon retirement; a provision to allow CSRS workers to 
phase-down to part-time status at the ends of their careers without 
reducing their final annuities; and a provision I introduced that 
permits a small number of returned CSRS employees to receive a reduced 
annuity rather than being forced to repay interest on their required 
deposit to the civil service trust fund.
  This FY10 Defense Authorization Conference Report promotes our 
national security priorities, provides for our troops and their 
families, and improves oversight, and accountability.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, providing for the common defense is one 
of the federal government's most important duties. I take my duty to 
rigorously review the Defense budget very seriously, supporting defense 
spending that is smart and sustainable and speaking out against funding 
that is wasteful or misdirected. As such, I support the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  My first priority remains the protection of our forces already on the 
ground, including the Oregon National Guard's 41st Combat Brigade, and 
equipping our military to face current threats. I have been pleased 
with the Obama administration's willingness to begin a tough review of 
the U.S. military, requesting additional equipment and healthcare 
support for our service-men and -women--especially our Guard and 
Reserve, while requesting cutbacks on outdated programs. Although 
difficult in the short-term, cutting unnecessary programs to orient our 
military to face today's threats is the right thing to do and keeps us 
safer in the long run.
  Part of this also involves empowering the military to clean up its 
widespread environmental legacy. In every state, communities must deal 
with former training grounds contaminated with live bombs, leftover 
shells, and leaking chemicals. I'm frankly disappointed that in the 
past there has been a distinct lack of political will needed to clean 
up our backyards within our lifetime, and I will continue to support 
increased Environmental Restoration funding. However, I'm pleased that 
two bipartisan amendments I offered with my colleague Ginny Brown-Waite 
remain in this bill. These provisions will increase the transparency of 
programs responsible for clean-up and require the Department to start 
thinking strategically about ways to lessen the longer-term health and 
environmental consequences of war and training. I thank the Chairman 
and the Committee staff for working with me on these points.
  In addition, I am proud to support the inclusion of the Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention provision in this 
bill. This bipartisan, long-awaited legislation will help prevent 
violence and ensure that justice is served for perpetrators of these 
hateful acts, chipping away at violent intolerance and protecting all 
our citizens.
  I am continually mindful of the fact that today's threats--extremism, 
economic upheaval, pandemics, and environmental devastation--cannot be 
addressed by military force alone. In addition to supporting this 
legislation, I will continue to advocate for national security 
strategies that also address issues of poverty, intolerance, and 
mismanagement.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that H.R. 2647 contains 
provisions of H.R. 3403, the Supporting Military Families Act, a bill 
that I introduced in the House earlier this year.
  In the 110th Congress, we passed and the President signed into law 
the first-ever changes to the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, 
permitting ``next of kin'' of seriously injured and ill servicemembers 
to take up to twenty-six weeks of unpaid leave to care for these 
injured and ill servicemembers. In addition, the legislation provides 
up to twelve weeks of leave to workers when their family servicemembers 
are about to be deployed overseas to attend to certain ``exigencies'' 
relating to deployment, such as arranging for alternate child care or 
going to a lawyer for a will.
  The legislation passed in the 110th Congress was a good start, 
however, it has some gaps in coverage, which H.R. 2647 addresses. Under 
these new provisions, a next of kin can take up to twenty-six weeks of 
unpaid leave to care for a seriously injured or ill veteran, so long as 
that veteran incurred the injury or illness while on active duty and 
the injury or illness manifests itself within five years of the 
veteran's discharge from active duty. In addition, the twelve weeks of 
leave for ``exigencies'' relating to deployment includes not only leave 
for families of National Guard or Reservists in support of a 
contingency operation, but also leave for: (1) families of regular 
active duty servicemembers; and (2) families of those who have been 
deployed overseas.
  The FMLA is intended to help individuals balance their family and 
work obligations. So far, working people have used FMLA more than 100 
million times to care for themselves and their family members. When the 
Act was first passed in 1993, it was a giant step and, while we need to 
pass legislation to provide paid leave, FMLA is still of great 
importance to working families.
  Since a majority of military spouses work, they too must balance work 
and family. They work to put food on the table and support their 
families. But they face additional challenges because their lives are 
disrupted by multiple deployments, involving not only active 
servicemembers but those in the National Guard and Reserves as well.
  Over 35,000 servicemembers have been injured--many seriously--in the 
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These injured warriors need 
substantial support and care from their families, often for long 
periods of time, and some permanently.
  In addition, veterans of both conflicts are developing serious 
illnesses and injuries after they are discharged from active service. 
Brain injuries such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress 
syndrome are disabling conditions but often do not materialize until 
well after servicemembers have been discharged from active duty. A 
recent study by the Department of Defense estimates that 11 percent of 
Iraq veterans and 20 percent of Afghanistan veterans suffer from post-
traumatic stress syndrome as a result of their service.
  No matter where we come down on the merits of these conflicts, we 
must support families whose loved ones put their lives and their 
futures on the line for our nation. The provisions of H.R. 2647 will 
certainly help.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to 
House Resolution 808, the previous question is ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further proceedings on the 
conference report are postponed.

                          ____________________