Upon the adoption of the conference report the House shall be considered to have adopted the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 196) making corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2647.

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

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

H. Res. 808

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pays and
allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand
concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability
benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to
its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.

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

General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that
the previous question shall be considered as ordered without any
intervening motion except 1 hour of debate and, if applicable, one
motion to recommit.
The bill was introduced on June 2, 2009, by Chairman Ike Skelton and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The committee marked up
the bill on June 16, 2009, and ordered it favorably reported, as
amended, by voice vote June 16, 2009.
The Committee on Rules reported a structured rule making in order 69
amendments, which then passed the floor 222-202. And today we have the
conference report that we have now concurred with the Senate.
Despite any differences about our ongoing missions in Afghanistan or
Iraq, we all agree that funds that have already been approved as part
of the annual spending plans should not be held up for any reason, not
with our troops in harm's way.
The bill authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the
Department of Defense and the national security programs of the
Department of Energy and also authorizes $130 billion for overseas
contingency operations for fiscal year 2010.
For our service men and women, it authorizes a pay raise of 3.4
percent for the military, expands TRICARE health coverage for Reserve
members, bars fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care

[[Page H11116]]

for 1 year, and provides $2.2 billion for housing programs to improve
the quality of life for our servicepersons' families.
On Afghanistan, the bill responds to concerns raised by Members of
both parties and requires an assessment of progress in Afghanistan and
Pakistan toward security and stability. It also bans permanent bases in
Afghanistan and provides funds to train and equip the Afghan National
Security Forces, the ANSF.
There is also language in the bill that requires a reporting system
to register and track all the U.S. defense items that are provided to
Afghanistan and Pakistan, to help combat waste and fraud. This is
especially important in light of recent news stories showing that
millions of dollars destined for Pakistan to battle militants in al
Qaeda have been diverted to either the domestic economy or ``for other
purposes.'' In fact, between 2002 and 2008, while al Qaeda regrouped,
only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it
to the Pakistani military, according to two Army generals quoted in an
Associated Press story from earlier this week. I will insert that story
into the Record.

Billions in U.S. Aid Never Reached Pakistan Army

(By Kathy Gannon)

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

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

[[Page H11117]]

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

{time}  1030

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

[[Page H11118]]

acquiescence here on the part of the leadership, it is occurring, and I
think it is a mistake.
I would have liked to have seen included in this legislation section
1226 of the Senate version of the bill, which would have required a
report to Congress on the Republic of China's--that's free China,
Taiwan--defense capabilities. That report would have greatly enhanced
the ability of Congress and the administration to assess their
obligations to sell defense articles as required under the Taiwan
Relations Act, ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.''
The peace in that area has been maintained because this Congress,
throughout the decades ever since the betrayal of Taiwan, this Congress
has insisted on the United States selling, making available for
purchase by the Republic of China, the military equipment and
technology necessary to deter an armed attack. So I am sorry that that
provision that was in the Senate legislation is not included in the
final conference report.
Again, despite the aspects of the legislation with which I do not
agree, I feel that overall this legislation is necessary and that we
pass it. Obviously although it's not perfect, it helps modernize and it
supports our military forces. It provides our men and women in uniform
with support they need and deserve.
So I would ask my colleagues, as I have done, to look further than
the aspects with which one may disagree within the legislation and pass
it.
I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
bill. I would like to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for the time on the
rule as well as House Armed Services Chairman Skelton and Ranking
Member McKeon for their tireless work on this bill. Their job is not
easy.
Our Nation faces a war on two fronts and growing threats to our
security here and abroad. As our economy struggles to recover from a
meltdown, the resources we have available to devote to these problems
are under increasing pressure.
It's time we bring our troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I
commend President Obama and his efforts to end our military presence in
Iraq and look forward to helping him achieve this goal soon.
I am concerned, however, about the possible increase of troops in
Afghanistan. We cannot achieve peace through the occupation of an
entire country. The occupation of Afghanistan will not help us defeat
the very real threat of al Qaeda. We need to take a new look at our
policy, moving towards targeted operations against al Qaeda rather than
the occupation of an entire country. And this can only come about
through discussion and debate.
We need an exit strategy for Afghanistan, a plan for peace. This bill
promotes such a plan by requiring assessment of goals in Afghanistan
with timelines and by increasing numbers in the Afghan National
Security Forces to prepare for the transition.
Recognizing, however, that this authorization will inevitably
continue war efforts inherited from the previous administration, I take
great pause in deciding to support it. But at its heart, this
authorization is about more than our policy towards Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this authorization today because, in
doing so, Congress finally--after nearly a decade of debate--has the
opportunity to pass historic hate crimes legislation. My home State of
Colorado has long had hate crimes legislation on the books, including
gays and lesbians, and I am proud to stand before you as a
representative of the Second Congressional District and as an original
cosponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of
2009 which is included in this Defense authorization bill.
Our hate crimes legislation expands Federal jurisdiction to
investigate and prosecute hate crimes and provides law enforcement with
another means of ensuring that the safety and rights of all Americans
are protected. It offers Federal protection for victims of hate crimes
targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, as well as
protecting men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United
States from hate crimes. It also provides assistance to State and local
law enforcement agencies and amends Federal law to aid in the
prosecution of bias-motivated crimes.

Hate crimes are not limited to the LGBT community. They occur every
day in every State and perpetuate a climate of fear throughout minority
communities. What makes these crimes so odious is that they are not
just crimes against individuals; they're crimes against entire
communities and create environments of fear in entire communities.
There is a difference between burning a cross on the lawn of an
African American family and an act of simple arson. This legislation
clarifies that our country has zero tolerance for hate crimes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.
Mr. POLIS. I rise in support today--despite my opposition to the
war--of the 2009 reauthorization bill. And I thank Chairman Skelton and
Ranking Member McKeon for including the hate crimes bill and bringing
this historic legislation to the floor of the House and to the desk of
the President of the United States of America.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished leader from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule, for the first
time that I am aware of, allows the Defense authorization bill to
become a vehicle where other social legislation is finalized, where the
country's laws are changed, where those of us who have always voted for
the Defense authorization bill now have a choice of voting for a bill
that includes something that we've always voted against. And even if it
was something that I was for, I don't think this rule should move
forward in a way that changes the law so that we would, in the future,
have two classifications of criminals and two classifications of
victims.
Criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Victims should be protected to the fullest extent of the law, and it
should not, Mr. Speaker, happen in the Defense authorization bill. To
use this bill in this way is a step in the wrong direction, and I am
afraid it's the first step in that wrong direction where every bill to
defend the country, every bill to find out what our enemies are up to,
every bill to fund our troops, every bill to take care of their
families will become a vehicle for other social legislation that has
nothing to do with defense. That should not be in this bill.
This rule should allow a vote that takes it out of the bill, at the
very least, and it sets a very terrible preference, Mr. Speaker.
I urge this rule be rejected so we can move forward with a Defense
authorization bill like every Defense authorization bill for at least a
decade that dealt with defense and those who defend our country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady for her courtesy and the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 2647, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
In addition to the bill's robust support of our national defense and
national security programs, H.R. 2647 includes several key Federal
employee initiatives which will come under my jurisdiction as the
chairman of the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of
Columbia Subcommittee. I am pleased to report that the bill
significantly enhances the Federal Government's recruitment and
retention capabilities, as well as further bolstering agency management
and worker productivity.
The underlying bill will now allow the Federal Employees Retirement
System to provide employees with retirement credit for unused sick
time. Under the current system, we have half of our employees that are
allowed to get credit for unused sick time, and the

[[Page H11119]]

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

{time}  1045

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
my friend, the great Texan, Judge Carter.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honor and privilege to
represent 52,000 fighting American soldiers, men and women. As we stand
here on the floor of this House today, 25,000 of my soldiers that I
represent from Fort Hood, Texas, are engaged in combat against an enemy
of the United States. And we have lost hundreds of soldiers from Fort
Hood; and we have had thousands of soldiers, men and women, injured
from Fort Hood fighting for freedom and doing their duty and
accomplishing their mission.
I have always supported the United States military in every form or
fashion, and I have always been a crusader for the authorization bill
that gives those tools that gives my fighting men and women that fight
for Fort Hood and fight for Texas and fight for America the opportunity
to do their mission, accomplish their goals and maintain freedom.
But I'm in a dilemma today, as are many, many of my colleagues
because we seem to be following a code of secrecy that seems to be the
new mode in this Congress. When you have something you don't want to
talk about out in public, you hide it somewhere. And so we're looking
today on the fact that we've added to the bill that's designed to
protect the men and women of the United States military and keep them
safe, we've added a criminal justice issue having to do with hate
crimes.
In 20 years on the bench as a criminal judge, at a felony level in
Texas, I've spent an inordinate amount of time protecting the rights of
the individual and protecting the rights of the defendant. I believe
that we have created a justice system in America that blindly treats
everyone equally. There are those who disagree, and I understand that
debate.
But that debate should be resolved in a one-on-one confrontation
between those who think the justice system treats all fairly and those
who do not, and if hate crimes is the solution to that bill, if we
thought crimes are what we want in America, then I think we should go
forward independently on a hate crimes bill. And I think those who
support hate crimes should have the courage to come out from underneath
the cover of the United States serviceman and step up and say, this is
a problem in America and it needs to be solved, and here's how we solve
it.
Let us discuss it as men and women who represent the American people,
and let us vote as our constituents would have us vote on the issue
before us, hate crimes. Let's not hide that issue behind that American
soldier who, at this very moment, is patrolling over in Iraq and
putting his life on the line. This is an awful thing to do to the
American soldier because it is taking him and having his Representative
have to be in a quandary to support the military because someone is
plugging in a bill that they might disagree with.
I believe every victim is entitled to be protected by the law. No
matter who they are or what they do, they are entitled, as a victim, to
be protected under the law and their rights to be part of the criminal
justice system. And I believe the sentencing process that we give to
our judges and our juries it is very important that they have choices
to make and they can take into consideration evidence of why the event
occurred, whatever that why may be.
But I think, to stick in here a controversial issue, which goes
farther than just what the crime is, but what was that person thinking,
or what are we going to presume that person was thinking, and if
anybody ever talked to him on this subject, do we presume that they
shall be considered aiding and abetting in this criminal offense. And
it has issues that affect the religious freedom of the United States.
These are issues that should be talked about independently. It's time
for the United States Congress to address this type of thing and other
things openly and forthwith, and not hide them in another bill and
force people to vote against their conscience. I'm ashamed of what
we're doing here today, Mr. Speaker. I think we can protect these
innocents that we're talking about using the fact that our Constitution
tells us to and demand that kind of behavior from our justice system
without going into thought crimes, hate crimes, and infringement upon
States' rights.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, as one of the House conferees of this
report, I have no confusion in terms of why I'm here and what we're
doing to support the troops. I rise in strong support of this rule and
the conference report of H.R. 2647, and I will submit my full statement
for the Record.
I thank Chairman Skelton for his continued skillful leadership, for
the Speaker appointing me as a conferee, and Mr. Oberstar for
recommending me. What is the report about? There's no covers here. The
report is clear. It's about restoring and enhancing the readiness of
our troops and the equipment. It's about taking care of our military
personnel, and it also authorizes needed investments to keep our Nation
strong.
So let's talk about what that means. Troops, enabling that the
Department of Defense would have 213 C-17s so we can support our men
and women; that our military families would not have to wait on a 3.4
percent military raise that they've long deserved. But let me focus my
final moment on why and what my specialty is and what I think is so
important in this bill, talking about port security as national
security.
When we consider the provision that is in this bill, port security,
infrastructure, development program, it will enable our ports to
finally come up to speed where we can be competitive, as well as the
economic engine that we reside in.
Now, let's talk about the ports. The role of our ports is not just
economics. It's to connect the ports. That's the point. And when you
look at 14 commercial ports currently in the United States, two of
which are in my area, they are called strategic ports for that very
reason. When you look at Operation Enduring Freedom, that was the
largest area where we had the sealift tonnage and troops that were
moved through the ports to enable us to respond.
So when we talk about this Defense authorization bill, it's quite
clear why

[[Page H11120]]

we're here today. We're here to talk about our troops, to prepare them
and to give them the resources that they so richly deserve. Currently,
our ports are struggling without enough money for the Army Corps to do
the proper dredging.
I urge my colleagues to support this, and I stand in support of Ms.
Slaughter as we move forward on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the House conferees on this report, I rise in
strong support of the rule and the underlying Conference Report on H.R.
2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
which provides $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of
Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
I thank Chairman Skelton for his skillful leadership in shepherding
this legislation to the floor. I also wish to express my appreciation
to Speaker Pelosi for appointing me as a conferee. And I cannot say how
much it means to me to have the confidence of my chairman, Mr.
Oberstar, who recommended me to the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I support the
conference report for three reasons: (1) it restores and enhances the
readiness of our troops, equipment, and defense infrastructure; (2) it
takes care of our military personnel and their families; and (3) it
authorizes the needed investments to keep our nation strong, safe, and
respected in the world.
Let me briefly highlight some of the key provisions. This
legislation:

Troop and Equipment Readiness

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

Help for Military Families

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

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

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

Port Security and National Security

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

ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF AMERICAN PORTS

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

NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

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

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF PORT INFRASTRUCTURE TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Commercial ports are a linchpin of the economy and a critical
component of our national defense. But Mr. Speaker, there is a problem.
It is simple and it is stark: Our ports are increasingly less capable
of fulfilling their vital functions because we have not invested
sufficient resources to maintain and modernize them. Port
infrastructure is rapidly falling into a dangerous state of disrepair.
For too long we have neglected to make the critical investments
necessary to ensure the United States remains the world leader in goods
movement. Consequently, today in Long Beach and other ports around the
country we find growing congestion, dangerous roads and safety hazards,
increasing levels of pollution and other environmental problems in our
communities, especially those near freight corridors like the Alameda
Corridor in my home district.
The situation is not much better when it comes to the dredging of our
ports and harbors. Global competition has led to the deployment of
larger vessels capable of carrying increased tonnage but requiring
deeper ports and harbors. That means frequent and better dredging.
However, according to the Army Corps of Engineers only 160 dredging
contracts were awarded last year to dredge 146,747,977 cubic yards of
sediment. This is not nearly enough. According to the Department of
Transportation, in several strategic ports dredging must be increased
as much as 45 to 50 feet to accommodate the larger commercial vessels
dominating the shipping industry.
Instead of using funds to maintain and dredge our harbors, we have
used more than half the funds collected for that purpose by the Harbor
Maintenance Fund to support the budget deficit instead of eliminating
the port infrastructure deficit. Currently, the HMT Fund has a surplus
of approximately $4,600,000,000. In fiscal year 2009, more than $1.6
billion was collected by only $710 million, 43.7 percent, was
appropriated for dredging operations.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to port infrastructure the current states
of affairs is simply intolerable. We are placing our commercial
enterprises at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. Worse,
we are putting our national security at risk.
That is why I have been working to correct this problem since I have
been in the Congress. Recently, I introduced three bills:

[[Page H11121]]

1. H.R. 3447, ``Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Reform Act,'' which
would provide a reliable and guaranteed source of funding for harbor
dredging;
2. H.R. 3446, the ``Clean Low-Emission Authorization Nationwide
(CLEAN) Ports Act of 2009,'' which will lead to a reduction in
pollution levels plaguing port communities by establishing a grant
program to assist port authorities to acquire fuel efficient and low-
emission vehicles, equipment and systems; and
3. H.R. 2355, the ``Making Opportunity via Efficient and More
Effective National Transportation Act of 2009'' (``Movement Act''),
which provides funding for infrastructure projects that will improve
the movement of goods, mitigate environmental damage caused by the
movement of goods, and enhance the security of transported goods.
I will discuss these proposals in more detail at another time. But it
suffices for now to say that what each of my bills has in common with
the provision we have included in the Conference Report is that they
all recognize the critical importance of making the necessary
investments in port infrastructure to ensure that ports are capable of
moving goods efficiently, absorbing new capacity, remaining
competitive, and fulfilling its national defense function.

CONCLUSION

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

{time}  1100

Let's remember what our soldiers are fighting for. Let's remember why
they put on the uniform. They wear the uniform to defend freedom. So
let's take a stand for freedom today and let's take a stand for a
legislative process that has genuine integrity to purpose.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, and I sadly urge my
colleagues to vote against the Defense authorization bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Klein).
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Thank you to the gentlelady from New York. I
rise today to strongly support the rule and the underlying bill, the
conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act. I'm
grateful to Chairwoman Slaughter for the time to speak, and Chairman
Skelton and the ranking member for crafting a bill that protects our
national security in a fiscally responsible way.
This morning, I would like to focus on section 1077, which allows the
Department of Veterans Affairs to provide veterans with service dogs
that can facilitate treatment of their physical and mental
disabilities.
I first introduced the bipartisan Wounded Warrior K-9 Corps Act in
July, and I'm proud to have worked out this language in this bill to
help keep

[[Page H11122]]

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms.
Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentlewoman and I thank her for her hard
work on this and every other piece of legislation that this body votes
on.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report of the
National Defense Authorization Act. I'm pleased to see that the
conference report includes an important provision which would require a
study on providing Federal retirement benefits to former Air America
employees.
From 1950 to 1976, Air America was a government corporation owned and
operated by the CIA that supported America's missions during the cold
war. The corporation conducted flight operations in various countries,
including China, Korea, and Vietnam, on behalf of the Department of
Defense and the CIA.
The CIA conducted Air America operations in secret and did not
acknowledge that Air America was a government corporation. Therefore,
those Air America employees have never received their government
retirement benefits.
This noncontroversial Air America provision included in section 1057
of the

[[Page H11123]]

conference report simply requires a report from the Director of
National Intelligence on the visibility of correcting this oversight
and retroactively giving these employees Civil Service Retirement
System benefits. It is only right. It is only fair. Air America
employees served their country with distinction, often at great risk to
themselves. They earned these benefits.
This, in addition to so many other parts of this bill, make it well
worth voting for, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Over the last few months, the American people have written and called
their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town
hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read
bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people really
were outraged, often finding out the majority leadership forced
Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills
without giving Members time to understand or really even to read the
bills.
For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called
``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and-
trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances,
much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our
constituents are rightly upset.
A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe
legislation should be posted online in final form and available for
everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would not be an issue, as the
distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at
least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor
consideration.'' It's even on her Web site; yet, time and time again,
the distinguished Speaker and majority leadership have refused to live
up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have
signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that
all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of
Congress and the general public for 72 hours before they be brought to
the House floor for a vote.
That's why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider
that legislation, H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues,
Representatives Baird and Culberson.
I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the
Department of Defense Authorization Act. But I want to make clear, the
motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-
Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can pass the Defense authorization
bill today and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 544.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and the extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my
time.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 808

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

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

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

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution and
ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the amendment and the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.

[[Page H11124]]

The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on the
amendment and the resolution will be followed by 5-minute votes on the
amendment to H. Res. 808, if ordered; adoption of H. Res. 808; motion
to suspend the rules on H. Res. 650, H.J. Res. 26, and H.R. 3590.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 187, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 764]

YEAS--237

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

NAYS--187

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

NOT VOTING--8

Carney
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Maloney
Neugebauer
Oberstar
Sutton
Tsongas

{time}  1146

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

Recorded Vote

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 188, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 765]

AYES--234

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

NOES--188

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus

[[Page H11125]]

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

NOT VOTING--10

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

{time}  1153

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

____________________