An amendment numbered 15 printed in House Report 111-182 to require the Defense Secretary to submit to Congress a report on any non-disclosure agreements signed by DoD employees regarding their official duties (except those relating to security clearances). The report would describe topics covered by the agreements, the number of employees required to sign such agreements, the duration of agreements, the types of persons covered, reasons for requiring such agreements, and the criteria for determining such information should not be disclosed.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

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

[[Page H7355]]

Gates and the Missile Defense Agency recommendations to have that
number of interceptors at 30.
  Secretary Gates has also said at the level of capability that North
Korea has now and is likely to have for some years to come, 30
interceptors, in fact, provide a strong defense against North Korea.
  But even more so, for the first time ever, combatant commanders were
part of developing this budget, and the combatant commanders have said
that this budget meets their needs as well.
  I also have to oppose this amendment because of where the offset is
coming from: $1.2 billion from the DOE's environmental cleanup. We had
this debate in committee in some respects, not over this amount, $1.2
billion, but over some amount. I think we need to understand that
cleaning up the nuclear legacy, the Cold War legacy in this country is
an obligation. Some people have called this an obsession. Is it an
obsession to clean up nuclear waste that is in the groundwater around
communities in this country?

                              {time}  1215

  It is not an obsession; it is an absolute obligation. And if we cut
these dollars, we are cutting away that obligation.
  Something more important as well. Even though the Recovery Act put up
to $5 billion in this budget, it's because we've neglected this
obligation in the past.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Cutting these dollars from environmental
cleanup continues to neglect that obligation that we have to
communities all over the country to clean up America's ultimate toxic
asset, the cold war legacy of nuclear waste in our communities.
  So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

[[Page H7356]]

stands now, cuts it 35 percent. This amendment would restore that money
to protect our children and families from such a threat.
  We need to protect this country from madmen like Mr. Ahmadinejad and
madmen like Mr. Kim Jong-Il. It is our first duty under the
Constitution to do so, and I adjure this body to pass this amendment.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I could not make a better argument for
rejecting the Franks amendment.
  Let's get it right. We are investing $9.3 billion for missile defense
because we believe what the President has said is right, that we need
to have defenses that are going to defeat long-range, short-range, and
medium-range systems that are raid against the United States, our
forward-deployed troops, and our allies. Don't take the money from cold
war legacies. We are going to lose 10,000 jobs of people that are
cleaning up sites around the country.
  We need to defeat this amendment because we want to invest money
smartly. We don't want to follow what we've done for the last 8 years,
which is just spend money and not have any oversight.
  Let's get this right. Let's have strong missile defense. Defeat the
Franks amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment
which restores $1.2 billion to the Missile Defense Agency's budget.
However, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the
misguided and downright dangerous priorities of this Administration and
the Democrat Majority with this Defense Authorization.
  For the past three years, the defense of our nation has been ranked
at the bottom of this Democrat Majority's agenda. Between FY 2007 and
FY 2009, the Democrats have increased non-defense funding by 85
percent; an increase of $358 billion. However, funding for our national
defense is found at the very bottom of the list with spending increases
of only 9 percent.
  With the increasing threats of nations like North Korea and Iran--
especially considering North Korea's preparations to launch a ballistic
missile in the direction of Hawaii on or around July 4th--it is
essential that Congress provides the U.S. with the appropriate defense
mechanisms to protect our country. Yet the Democrat Majority still has
the audacity to cut $1.2 billion from our missile defense systems.
  Mr. Chair, this Majority has a false set of priorities which is not
only misguided but endangers the security of our nation.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Franks-Cantor-
Sessions-Broun-Roskam Amendment and in support of the fundamental
obligation this body has to fully fund our Nation's Environmental
Management Program.
  I support my colleagues' efforts to increase funding to the Missile
Defense Agency. The decision to cut funding for this program is
dangerous and short-sighted, especially at a time when countries like
Iran and North Korea are seeking nuclear weapons programs that put our
country and its citizens at risk. However, while I support the efforts
to restore funding, I cannot support the offset and the repercussions
that cutting funding for our Nation's Environmental Management Program
would have.
  There is nothing conservative about cuts that the Franks-Cantor
Amendment would make or the impact they would have. These cuts
ultimately will slow the pace of cleanup at our Nation's nuclear
contaminated sites, thus costing taxpayers more money in the long-run.
  In sites across the country, including in my home State of Idaho as
well as in Washington State, South Carolina, Tennessee, and a number of
other states, rest the nuclear remnants of the Cold War. These sites
are contaminated with, and home to, some of the most dangerous
materials in the world. The people who work at these sites, and the
states that host them, have been through a great deal over the past
fifty years to accommodate the defense of our Nation.
  In return, they expect the Federal Government to make good on its
promise, and legal obligation, to clean up these sites and protect the
environment of future generations. Many of these states have legally-
binding agreements with the Federal Government that dictate when and
how these materials will be remediated and then disposed.
  The Franks-Cantor Amendment will slow the pace of work at these sites
and put the Federal Government at significant risk of missing legally-
binding deadlines. Those missed deadlines mean penalties which will be
paid for by the taxpayers. In addition, the cost of doing this work
goes up substantially each year it is delayed, again putting taxpayers
at risk.
  I recognize the argument that the EM program was recently awarded a
huge sum of money in the stimulus program and can easily withstand a
$1.2 billion reduction this year. I don't agree with the argument, but
I understand where my colleagues are coming from when they make it.
  Mr. Chair, their argument is one that gives me great heartburn. When
the Senate added $6 billion for the EM program to the stimulus bill, I
knew I would hear this argument used time and again to undermine the
base budget of the EM program that Members like Doc Hastings, Zach
Wamp, Gresham Barrett, myself, and others have worked so hard to
increase and stabilize over the past 10 years.
  I was worried when we passed the stimulus bill that my colleagues
would see the EM program as a slush fund, flush with stimulus cash,
from which they could seek offsets for increases to priorities
elsewhere. Sure enough, here we are, putting the base EM program at
risk because of the desire to infuse the program with one-time money
that may have short-term benefits, but will cause significant long-term
damage down the road.
  I have spent my career defending the EM program and seeking stable
funding so that our Nation can make good on its promise to our States.
I remain as committed as ever to protecting the base program and
keeping cleanup of these sites on track.
  Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, I strongly support my colleagues'
efforts to restore funding for the Missile Defense Agency. However, I
strongly oppose the funding reductions included in this amendment. In
the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to reject the
Franks-Cantor amendment and keep the EM program on track in Idaho,
Washington, South Carolina, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio and the other
States in which its work is so crucial.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Akin

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--Not later than 14 days after the date on
     which an employee of the Department of Defense is required to
     sign a non-disclosure agreement in the carrying out of the
     official duties of such employee (other than as such non-
     disclosure agreement relates to the granting of a security
     clearance), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
     congressional defense committees a report on such non-
     disclosure agreement, including--
       (1) the topics that are prohibited from being discussed
     under such non-disclosure agreement;
       (2) the number of employees required to sign such non-
     disclosure agreement;
       (3) the duration of such non-disclosure agreement and the
     date on which such non-disclosure agreement terminates;
       (4) the types of persons to which the signatories to such
     non-disclosure agreement are prohibited from disclosing the
     information covered by such non-disclosure agreement,
     including whether Members or staff of Congress are included
     in such types to which disclosure is prohibited;
       (5) the reasons employees are required to sign such non-
     disclosure agreement; and
       (6) the criteria used to determine which matters were
     included as information not to be disclosed under such non-
     disclosure agreement.
       (b) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsection (a)
     shall apply with respect to any non-disclosure agreement
     entered into by an employee of the Department of Defense on
     or after January 1, 2009.
       (2) Initial report.--The report required under subsection
     (a) (as applied in accordance with paragraph (1)) with
     respect to non-disclosure agreements entered into on or after
     January 1, 2009, and before the date of the enactment of this
     Act, shall be submitted not later than 120 days after the
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 572, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we're bringing to the
floor

[[Page H7357]]

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

                              {time}  1230

  The amendment will result in the reporting of thousands of
transactions to Congress, each requiring an individual report
containing large volumes of information and justification. Due to the
administrative burden and the chilling effect of this amendment, the
Department of Defense may be forced to reduce efforts to assist wounded
warriors and otherwise help servicemembers solve their problems.
  I commend them for their worthy goal, but in the lesson taught me by
my professor, Mr. Fratcher, reading it just makes it impossible for the
Department of Defense to comply with it.
  So, consequently, I seriously am strongly opposed to this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AKIN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment would
require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress on the use
of nondisclosure agreements within the DOD. The use of nondisclosure
agreements is a new and troubling way of gagging our military and DOD
civilians. Congress should be aware of any effort by the Department to
restrict information.
  This amendment is about transparency. Congress cannot sit back and
let the Department of Defense stiff-arm us. Congress has a
constitutional duty to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a
Navy, to make rules for the government, regulation of the land and
naval forces. We can't allow the Department of Defense to prevent us
from exercising our constitutional duty.
  I understand the chairman has concerns about the language, but I
would urge him to support the amendment and work with us in conference.
We have lots of time left to work on this. I think, together, we can
strengthen this. I think we're in agreement on concept. We need to know
what we need to know to do our duty.
  With that, I ask support of the amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman. I rise in opposition. Here's the
concern that we have about this amendment. Let's say that we have a
servicemember who is suspected of sharing sensitive information with
another country or someone they shouldn't share it with, and those
investigating the alleged offense enter into a confidentiality
agreement not to share any information about the investigation because
it would impair the investigation.
  As I read this amendment, within 2 weeks of entering that agreement
it would have to be reported to the committees of the Congress
substantial information about it. I don't see any protections in the
amendment that would say that the disclosure of the agreement would
have to be done in such a way so as not to impair the investigation.
  Look, there's a difference between transparency and redundancy.
There's a difference between transparency and paralysis. We need to
have transparency so we can do our constitutional job. But if we have
paralysis, we impair the executive branch from doing its job.
  We share the goal of this amendment, but we reject the means, and we
would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. AKIN. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) has 1 minute
remaining. The other gentleman from

[[Page H7358]]

Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. AKIN. I very much appreciate the tremendous cooperation that so
existed on the Armed Services Committee. I'm sensitive to your concerns
about this being overly broad in its drafting. I hate redtape and
paperwork and am very open-minded to work along these lines. I think
our concerns are very much the same on this issue. And I look forward
to working with you.
  Unfortunately, in trying to get the thing drafted the way we wanted,
we ran out of time today. So we're just going to go ahead and offer the
amendment, but I look forward as we have time in the weeks ahead.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. The bill that we sent to the Senate and subsequently
sent to the President for his signature is supposed to mean exactly
what it says. It's in English language, it's clear, and we expect the
Department of Defense to follow it to the letter, and those we direct
duties to, to fulfill those duties correctly. And to send them a
message that cannot be fulfilled, sadly, that this amendment requires,
is just wrong.
  So, consequently, I oppose this and hope that it will not pass.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
will be postponed.


            Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Skelton

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

                          ____________________