Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Skelton and I agree that this amendment does more harm than good. This amendment sends the wrong signal at the wrong time for the government and people of Afghanistan, our military men and women deployed and deploying to Afghanistan, our NATO and non-NATO allies, and the enemy.

Focusing on an exit versus a strategy is irresponsible and fails to recognize that our efforts in Afghanistan are vital to preventing future terrorist attacks on the American people and our allies.

In March of 2009, the President rightly outlined a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan focused on disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its affiliated networks and their safe havens.

While we debate this amendment, our military men and women are deploying to the Afghan theater as part of an additional 21,000 forces being sent to fight the insurgency in the south and train the Afghan National Security Forces.

Instead of focusing on an exit, as the amendment calls for, Congress needs to provide the funding and resources required to support the President's strategy and allow our military commanders to succeed.

As the commander of U.S. Central Command, General Petraeus has consistently stated it will take sustained, substantial resources to implement our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and give our troops and the government of Afghanistan the opportunity to succeed.

Lastly, the Department of Defense opposes the amendment, and I also oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute at this time to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Chairman Skelton.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a young man who joined the Marine Corps the day after 9/11, served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and is a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think Mr. Hunter just stated it very clearly. The exit strategy should be to win, and then bring our forces home. It was stated earlier that General Petraeus made a statement that Afghanistan has been known over the years as a graveyard of empires, and we cannot take that history lightly. That was part of a speech that he gave.

I would like to say some other things that he mentioned in that speech:

``We have a hugely important interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for transnational terrorists. And to complement and capitalize on the increased military resources, more civilian assets, adequate financial resources, close civil- military cooperation and a comprehensive approach that encompasses regional states will be necessary. Our objectives are of enormous importance. We all need to summon the will and the resources necessary to make the most of it.''

It was just a couple of years ago when we were having a similar debate when we were being told by some that we needed to get out of Iraq, that there was no way we could win, and General Petraeus was called to lead the surge. And now he is telling us how we can win in Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, I think now is not time to be retreating. Now is not the time when we're sending 20,000 troops and are ready to embark on this surge to win, to help the people of Afghanistan and preserve our national interests there. Now is the time to let the forces know that we support them. We support their mission. We want them to be successful and return home safely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. While my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle will argue that disclosing the personal information of the students and instructors of WHINSEC is in the name of transparency and good oversight, what they're actually suggesting is that the United States does not respect the privacy of foreign citizens and, more specifically, our allies in the western hemisphere who are invited to attend the U.S. military schools.

What concerns me is that this amendment exposes WHINSEC's students and instructors, which includes U.S. citizens, to hostile personal hazards, such as identity theft and surveillance, intimidation or attack from foreign intelligence security and terrorist organizations.

In terms of oversight, Congress already receives the information. We just received a copy of the attendees for 2008, and we were able to keep our partners and their families safe. I think it's important to recognize that WHINSEC is an important tool for strengthening security cooperation with our key allies in the western hemisphere. This includes Mexico, our neighbor to the south. WHINSEC provides training to Mexican land forces in the Spanish language and builds their capacity to prevail in the fight against drug trafficking, organized crime and other transnational threats. Such training and cooperation is critical to our homeland security.

It baffles me that given the narco-fight on our border, some of my colleagues think that now is the right time to expose our past, current and future partners and deprive them of their safety and security. I will oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time to Mr. Turner, the gentleman from Ohio, subcommittee ranking member, 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

I yield, at this time, 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve, unless the chairman needs more time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Missouri requires no further time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to introduce this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to introduce this amendment that honors a good friend of mine, a good friend of the House of Representatives, a good friend of our Armed Forces and the American people, Congressman John McHugh.

Mr. Chairman, Representative McHugh has represented New York's 23rd Congressional District in the House of Representatives since 1993--we came here together--and he has done so with honor and integrity. Representative McHugh's district includes Fort Drum, the home of the outstanding 10th Mountain Division, for which he has been a tireless advocate. He is honored and respected by all members of the 10th Mountain Division, past and present.

Prior to his service in the House of Representatives, he served for many years in local, State and Federal government. Since coming to the House of Representatives, he has been a champion for the members of the Armed Forces. He is known by his colleagues as a leader on national defense and security issues and a relentless advocate for America's military personnel and their families.

While in the House, he has led the effort to increase Army and Marine Corps end-strength levels, increase military personnel pay, reduce the unfair tax on veterans' disability and military retiree pay, or concurrent receipt, and safeguard military retiree benefits for our troops.

Mr. Chairman, this work is always important, but it has never been more important than now, while our troops are in combat. Representative McHugh has done outstanding work to support our men and women in uniform and their families.

Representative McHugh has served on the House Armed Services Committee since the 103rd Congress. He was appointed as the chairman of the Morale, Welfare and Recreation panel and then as the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee. His leadership of these two subcommittees has advanced the support and recognition of the needs of the members of our armed services and their families to a greater level than ever before.

More recently, during the 111th Congress Representative McHugh was appointed ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. During his time as ranking member, he continued his tireless work to ensure the success of our Armed Forces, our national defense and our security.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this month President Obama announced his intention to nominate Representative McHugh to serve as the Secretary of the Army. I can say with confidence that our loss will definitely be the Army's gain. I am absolutely certain that Representative McHugh will serve the Army with the same commitment and dedication that he has provided to our men and women in uniform while he has been on this side of the river.

I want to thank him for his leadership on this committee. His passion for and dedication to the members of our Armed Forces will be sorely missed by this body. He is a great friend that we will miss working with here on the Hill, but I am sure we will have future opportunities to work with him in his new capacity.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just embarrass our friend a little bit. Maybe we could ask him to stand where we could all see him.

This sounds like a funeral service. This is not a funeral service, it is not a memorial service. We just want to thank you, John, for your work. He is a young man and will be doing a lot more in the service of his country and his State I am sure in the future.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In the last 2 months, North Korea has followed through on its provocative threat to conduct a nuclear test and launch missiles. Today we hear that Pyongyang is vowing to enlarge its nuclear arsenal and has warned of a ``fire shower of nuclear retaliation.'' These are grave and serious threats.

However, at a time when Iran and North Korea have demonstrated the capability and intent to pursue long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons programs, the defense bill endorsed reductions to capabilities that would provide a comprehensive missile defense system to protect the U.S. homeland, our forward-deployed troops and our allies.

This amendment is common sense. It is a sound measure that would reverse the administration's $1.2 billion cut to missile defense. It would restore a 35 percent reduction to the Nation's Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, located in Alaska and California, which is signed to protect the U.S. homeland. It would restore investments in vital research and development like the airborne laser program, which is the cusp of demonstrating breakthrough technologies.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill as it passed committee, and in particular of the Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces section of the bill.

Under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, the fleet has grown by seven ships since he became chairman to a total of 286. I guess it's in the direction, however slowly, of the 313 ships that CNO wishes to have. It also takes some far-reaching steps, one of which is directing the CNO that in the future, that in order to go to the fleet, he may only retire two ships for every three ships we commission. I think this is very important language. This is the third CNO who has said he wanted 313 ships, but ironically, they keep submitting budgets to Congress that actually shrink their fleet rather than grow it.

So I want to thank Chairman Skelton for working with us on that, my colleagues, on directive language that actually keeps some of those great vessels that would go to someone else's fleet in our fleet a bit longer.

Specifically the bill takes many steps to continue the work of the world's greatest Navy and the world's greatest Marine Corps. It authorizes the construction of nine battle-force vessels and one auxiliary oceanographic research vessel, along with 214 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps. It authorizes $5.1 billion to construct two Virginia-class submarines--the first time Congress has ever authorized two Virginia-class submarines; $950 million for the first increment of funding of the Marine Corp's amphibious assault vessel LHA-7; $3 billion to fully fund two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to work off of the Navy's surface fleet and the centerpiece of our Nation's missile defense; $1.5 billion to fully fund two littoral combat ships; $180.7 million to fund one Joint High Speed Vessel for the Navy; $380 million to fully fund the remaining construction costs for the first of the class maritime landing platform vessel for the Marine Corps; $3.3 billion for 30 F-18 Superhornet strike fighters, as well as 12 EA-18 Growler expeditionary electronic-warfare aircraft.

That will make a total of 186 of these fine aircraft built on Chairman Skelton's watch. $4.1 billion for 20 Navy and Marine Corps F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; $4.6 billion for 180 Marine Corps rotary-winged aircraft; $359 million for the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, including $100 million for the Merchant Marine Academy.

The bill strongly supports funding for our Overseas Contingency Operations, authorizing $3.4 billion to build the life saving Mine Resistant Vehicles. This is on top of the $16.4 billion under Chairman Skelton's watch that was allocated in 2007 for a total of 16,000 of these vehicles that have been built as we continue to build 1,000 of them a month to protect our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Marine Corps programs, this bill fully authorizes the $3.1 billion for a request for Marine Corps procurement, with an additional $126 million for unfunded requirements that will protect our Marines.

Mr. Chairman, I fully support the bill as recommended by the committee.

I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Akin for all of his help on this and all of the Seapower Subcommittee, and in particular I want to commend our great staff: Ms. Jenness Simler, Captain Will Ebbs, Heath Bope, Jesse Tolleson, and Liz Drummond.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Since 2007, the House Armed Services Committee under

Chairman Ike Skelton has continued to grow our nation's air,

land and sea forces to address the threats facing the United

States from both foreign nations and terrorist organizations.

Chairman Skelton's predecessor, Duncan Hunter, deserves

credit for leading House Armed Service Committee member's

efforts to provide up-armored Humvees, Improvised Explosive

Device (IEDs) Jammers, and other initiatives to counter the

IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the game

changing improvement in the IED effort was the rapid

development and fielding of the Mine Resistant Ambush

Protected Vehicle (MRAP) that occurred under the leadership

of Chairman Ike Skelton, The actions of the Democratic

majority speak much louder than words when it comes to our

national defense.

The Mississippi National Guard's 155th Heavy Brigade Combat

Team returned home to Mississippi in March 2010 after

completing their second tour of duty in Iraq. During their

deployment they encountered more than 80 attacks from IEDs

without suffering any fatalities or serious injuries compared

to their 2005 deployment where they suffered 28 fatalities

from lED attacks. During their most recent deployment, their

unit was equipped with MRAPs. Prior to 2007, the demand for

MRAP's was ignored for four straight years by Secretary of

Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The Republican majority in Congress

did not prod Secretary Rumsfeld to build these vehicles at

the rate our forward deployed commanders were requesting.

In 2004 military officials in Iraq began requesting MRAPs

from the Pentagon to counter the enemy's most successful

means of attack--the IED. At the time, 60% of U.S. fatalities

in Iraq were the direct result of IED attacks. Secretary

Rumsfeld and top leaders at the Pentagon originally ignored

these requests from the forward deployed commanders to make

fielding MRAPs a priority. By the end of 2006 the Department

of Defense's (DoD) established requirement for MRAPs for the

Iraq war effort was an absurdly low amount--4000 vehicles.

Before MRAPs were available in Iraq or Afghanistan,

military patrols were conducted in up-armored Humvees. The

enemy quickly discovered this vehicles vulnerability to

under-bottom explosions. Since Secretary Rumsfeld had refused

to provide MRAPs despite the requests coming from the theater

of combat, the result of continuing to use up-armored Humvees

was unnecessary American injuries and deaths. The MRAP is

designed with a ``V'' shaped bottom that provides an

effective defense against bottom exploding IEDs by forcing

the impact of the explosion away from the bottom of the

vehicle, unlike the Humvees.

When I became Chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary

Forces Subcommittee in January 2007, under the new Democratic

majority, the very first hearing I chaired focused on the

need to rapidly get MRAPs to

our troops in Iraq. I worked with Chairman Skelton and my

colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to provide an

additional $16.4 billion in 2007 for procurement, building

and transporting 15,374 MRAPs to Iraq. This effort continues

today, and we currently have approximately 16,000 MRAPs in

Iraq and Afghanistan. We also continue to work with DOD on

providing vehicles that provide the same type of protection

as the MRAP but are more suitable for the hazardous terrain

and conditions in Afghanistan. There are approximately 2300

of these vehicles in operational units in Afghanistan, with

6,800 working their way through the pipeline to get to the

theater of combat. We continue to produce about 1000 of these

life saving vehicles a month.

For years the House Armed Services Committee has voiced

concerns over the concurrent and high-risk development of the

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which in turn, has caused a

several years delay in its operational fielding. Because of

this issue, coupled with the planned F/A-18 production line

drawdown, our Naval Air Forces face a significant strike-

fighter shortfall peaking at over 250 aircraft in 2017.

Realizing this significant issue over the last two years, the

committee has added 17 F/A-18s to the Department's request to

help mitigate the shortfall. The Committee, under Chairman

Skelton's leadership, also included candid language within

the FY11 NDAA report stating that ``barring a complete

reversal'' of the F-35 program failures, the Committee

expects the Navy to ``continue production of F/A-18s to

prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our

nation's arsenal,''

I have made the commitment to my colleagues on the

Committee and to Chairman Skelton to get our shipbuilding

back on track. The United States Navy's goal is to maintain a

313 ship fleet capable of transporting troops around the

world, providing support for military operations, along with

a global U.S. presence. The Navy's fleet is currently at 286

ships, Starting in 2003, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

shifted our defense needs primarily to the Army, the National

Guard and our Reserves. During this time, the Navy's

shipbuilding program went stagnant, lacked direction, and had

no plan in place to reach the Navy's stated goal of a 313

ship fleet.

This all changed starting in 2007. The Armed Services

Committee began addressing the Navy's acquisition reform

process, the cost overruns as a result of Secretary

Rumsfeld's outsourcing of shipbuilding to contractors and

lead system integrators. We have provided the Navy real goals

to meet each year in order to build the Navy back to a 313

ship fleet.

This reformation includes a proposed authorization of 10

ships in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. We

have worked to bring the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) back

under control. These ships had been previously authorized,

but the program spun wildly out of control. It got to the

point where the contractors wanted $600 million for a ship

they originally said could be built for $220 million in

fiscal year 2005. This cost increase prevented the Navy from

building the amount of LCS' originally approved by Congress

which seriously affected the Navy's ability of reaching its

goal of a 313 ship fleet.

Chairman Skelton and the Democratic majority also prevented

another costly over run from occurring by capping the DDG

1000 program at three ships at approximately $3 billion per

ship. This program was running billions of dollars over

budget. By capping this program at three ships, we allowed

the Navy to shift funds into a much more successful

shipbuilding program--the DDG 51 program. This maximizes the

Navy's budget by providing them with a ship that has a proven

track record for success and providing the funds to a proven

shipbuilding program that has already produced 58 ships for

the United States Navy,

The Navy has also received authorization for 15 ships not

including the additional 10 ships in the proposed FY 2011

NDAA, to be built from fiscal years 2009 through 2011, Since

2007, the Navy's fleet has grown by 7 ships to 286 ships.

Prior to this, the Navy's fleet was the smallest it has been

since the 19th century at 279 ships. The progress made by the

Navy's shipbuilding program is the direct result of a clear

and consistent plan and new leadership at the Department of

the Navy. It is by no means a coincidence that the fleet has

grown and continues to grow under Chairman Skelton's

leadership during this Democratically controlled Congress.

While men and women in the United States military continue

to be put in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan we must

continue providing them the real support necessary to allow

them to successfully carry out their mission. It is clear

that the House Armed Services Committee under Chairman

Skelton, has provided much more than mere words or rhetoric

and has acted loudly to ensure that the Department of Defense

and our men and women fighting overseas constantly have what

they need to succeed in protecting and defending the United

States of America.

Gene Taylor,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as legislators, we meet once again to address the wide range of important national security activities undertaken by the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. We all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. This is especially true during a time of war. And it's always true of my good friend and colleague, our Armed Services Committee chairman, Ike Skelton.

As a result of Chairman Skelton's tireless efforts to put forward this bill, our committee reported out the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 last Wednesday. The vote was unanimous, 59-0. Consistent with the longstanding bipartisan practice of the Armed Services Committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong support for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

The defense authorization bill authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the fiscal year 2011 base budget of the Department of Defense and national security programs of the Department of Energy, and it authorizes $139 billion in funding to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism.

This bill does an admirable job in dealing with some of our greatest national security challenges. Addressing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, H.R. 1536 authorizes the fiscal year 2011 overseas contingency operations. With respect to Afghanistan, this bill updates reporting requirements, including asking for the conditions and criteria that will be used to measure progress, instead of allowing the ticking Washington political clock to determine our end state.

I am very pleased that the chairman and our colleagues on the committee joined us in ensuring that lifesaving combat enablers such as force protection, medical evacuation, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities are deployed in time to fully support the 30,000 additional troops scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by this summer.

Building on the Acquisition Reform Act this body passed in April, this legislation takes a number of important steps on major weapons programs. We strongly believe that a $110 billion noncompetitive, sole source, 25-year contract should not be permitted. Therefore, we strongly support the inclusion of funding to complete development of the F-136 competitive engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

As a Nation, we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the sacrifices they make and have made to protect our freedom. We are pleased that this legislation includes a pay raise which is half a percentage point above the President's request.

A major disappointment is that once again the committee and House leadership were unable to find the mandatory spending offsets needed to eliminate the widow's tax, a tax that occurs because survivors must forfeit most or all of their Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. Nor were we able to provide for concurrent receipt of military disability retired pay and VA disability pay, as proposed by the President. I know that Chairman Skelton has attempted to find the offsets, but so far, despite this House approving trillions in spending that is not offset, this body has been unable or unwilling to find the means to support widows and disabled veterans.

One of the areas where there is disagreement between the aisles is detainee policy. We need to keep terrorists off our soil, not fight to get them here. We are disappointed that the bill does not prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. soil.

Finally, for the last 8 years, we have asked our men and women of the Armed Forces and their families to make repeated sacrifices while serving this Nation. They have unhesitatingly and selflessly responded in a magnificent manner, without hesitation putting mission and Nation ahead of self and family. Now the proponents of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell want to rush a vote to the floor that disrupts the process that was put in place earlier this year to give the troops the opportunity to make their view known on this most important issue.

After making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of 8 years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard. Congress acting first is the equivalent to turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying your opinion, your views do not count.

Yesterday I spoke to and received letters from all four service chiefs. I will include copies of those letters in the Record. Let me read a couple of excerpts, Mr. Chairman.

General Schwartz, the Air Force Chief of Staff, writes, ``I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Such action sends an important signal to our airmen and families that their opinion matters.''

General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, writes, ``I believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward.'' Similar views are expressed by Admiral Roughead and General Conway.

Mr. Chairman, I planned on addressing this matter in detail when we debate Mr. Murphy's amendment. Unfortunately, the leadership deemed this debate, this issue so critical to the morale and welfare of our military worthy of only 10 minutes of debate. Ten minutes. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't

Tell will get as much time for debate today as the manager's amendment. This is an outrage.

I'd like to make one last point. If this body were to adopt Mr. Murphy's amendment, then this House would breach the trust of 2.5 million men and women in uniform and their families by saying to them that their voices don't count. We owe our military personnel better.

In order to allow this House the time it needs to hear from our military forces through the process that was set up earlier this year, and their families, before we make a decision, I would encourage Members to vote against the Don't Ask, Don't Tell compromise and against final passage if my Democratic colleagues refuse to wait to hear from our troops.

As in years past, I believe that this legislation reflects many of the Armed Services Committee's priorities in supporting our Nation's dedicated and courageous servicemembers. I thank Chairman Skelton for putting together an excellent bill and helping us to stay focused on delivering a bill that protects, sustains, and builds our forces. I support H.R. 5136 as passed by the House Armed Services Committee.

We never, in the committee, in our markup, we never held a full committee hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We never included it or discussed it in our debate in the Armed Services Committee.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve H.R. 5136.

Secretary of Defense,

Washington, DC, April 30, 2010.

Hon. Ike Skelton,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter

of April 28 requesting my views on the advisability of

legislative action to repeal the so-called ``Don't Ask Don't

Tell'' statute prior to the completion of the Department of

Defense review of this matter.

I believe in the strongest possible terms that the

Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed

the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and

systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change;

develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan, and

provide the President and the Congress with the results of

this effort in order to ensure that this step is taken in the

most informed and effective manner. A critical element of

this effort is the need to systematically engage our forces,

their families, and the broader military community throughout

this process. Our military must be afforded the opportunity

to inform us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions if

we are to carry out this change successfully.

Therefore, I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to

change this policy prior to the completion of this vital

assessment process. Further, I hope Congress will not do so,

as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women

in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and

perspectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct

impact and consequence for them and their families.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen,

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Robert M. Gates,

Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). He's the ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana, a member of the committee, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time we have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I was not aware of it in its earliest authorship. I became aware of it, in addition to the issue which I was aware of, only when it began to move toward our committee. As I looked at both the legislation and those affected, who had worked so valiantly for 17 years to try to bring justice to an unjust occurrence in the history of Iraq, I discovered that we had a large group of men and women who had been used as human shields, a relatively small group of people who had been tortured at Saddam's hands, Americans.

But what I also discovered was that these people had no other way to focus the injustice of what had happened to them than by seeking a remedy in the courts, and that had been denied them for so long. Now they have that remedy from the courts, and they're being denied the opportunity to avail themselves of it.

Mr. Speaker, if this were just about money, I wouldn't be standing here. This is not. This is about a much larger cause. Throughout our history, we have endeavored to compensate our men and women when we send them to war. We've endeavored to compensate them when they're prisoners of war, but we will never be able to compensate them for the torture that they've received at the hands of barbarians.

The very barbarian who ordered this misconduct, Saddam Hussein, has been executed by the new government of Iraq. The new government of Iraq every day is seeking to reenter the world of justice and civilized nations. They're doing so in a myriad of ways, including settling the wrongful acts of the Saddam regime. This is no different.

The amendments that I asked for, and on a bipartisan way were granted, in the Judiciary Committee sought to make it clear America wants no compensation from the new Iraq government unless it is consistent with other compensation for similar acts of the Saddam Hussein regime. As Mr. Scott has already said, the administration of Iraq is making those efforts today, and I know they will negotiate in good faith with the victims of torture if, in fact, they have standing to do so.

That's why we're working on a bipartisan basis to grant the President the ability, if there are not similar settlements, to withhold this capability until or unless there are. I don't want this to be about every past war, but it wouldn't be fair to ask for this if we hadn't previously seen Libya make settlements finally but only after the State Department had withdrawn their objections.

And to most people here on the House floor, World War II is but a memory or a piece of history they've read about. The men and women who were taken at Bataan and other places were tortured. Most of them died. Then, too, we felt that we shouldn't burden the new Japanese Government with the sins of the past government. I think that's a bad precedent.

I believe that the making whole of people for whom you have done more

than just conduct war is, in fact, the responsibility on an ongoing basis of a government if they have the ability and certainly if they grant similar compensation to people from other countries or, in the case of Japan, Libya and post-Saddam Iraq, if they grant money damages to companies who often lost nothing but money.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this legislation wholeheartedly. I know my Republican colleagues will. I note that this is, in fact, a good message to the administration to facilitate the settlement rather than to stand aside on it.

Mr. Speaker, many members of our armed forces faced horrible abuse and torture at the hands of Iraq's former dictator, Saddam Hussein, during the first Gulf War. We owe those members of the armed forces not only our sympathy, but our deepest thanks for enduring immense pain and suffering for a larger cause that helped keep all of us safe here at home. We also owe those members of the armed forces justice. And that's why we're here today to pass H.R. 5167, the Justice for Victims of Torture and Terrorism Act.

In the closing hours before the most recent House recess, I was very pleased to see the House, and the Senate, send legislation to the President that statutorily approved an agreement that was reached between the State Department and Libya regarding the compensation of Americans injured by Libyan-sponsored terrorism. That legislation was passed by both bodies under unanimous consent. It not only approved the negotiated agreement, which provides for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, but it also protected the agreement from being undone by lawyers and judges who would have otherwise interfered with its implementation.

The agreement with Libya shows that State-to-State negotiations for the compensation of victims of terrorism can work. It is a far more effective means of compensating victims than lawsuits, as domestic court judgments are always difficult to enforce, and foreign entities have many ways of moving their funds offshore to avoid collection. Negotiations worked to provide fair compensation for the victims of Libya, and they can work to provide fair compensation to the victims of the torture and terrorism perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's former regime.

I was very pleased to have been able to craft a bill with Chairman Conyers that not only facilitates, but encourages, State-to-State negotiations with the new democracy in Iraq that is the surest means of providing ultimate compensation for deserving victims. An amendment I offered at committee with Chairman Conyers, and which is now part of this bill, provides that the negotiations process will be allowed to continue as long as ``the President has certified to the Congress . . . that . . . negotiations are ongoing with the Government of Iraq to settle the claims in the [covered] cases . . . and the President believes that those negotiations are being conducted in good faith and could lead to a satisfactory settlement of those claims . . .''

Under this provision, the President must, on a regular basis, provide Congress with a status report attesting to the continuing good faith negotiations between the parties, and to the prospect that those negotiations could lead to a satisfactory settlement. That provision is necessary to help balance several worthy goals.

One of those goals is the maintaining of a stable, free, and democratic Iraq that will help ensure horrors the likes of which were seen under Saddam Hussein will not be seen again. To that end, earlier in this Congress, Congress passed H.R. 4986, which authorized the President to waive lawsuits against the new democracy in Iraq if the President determined that the waiver is in the national security interest of the United States; that the waiver will promote the reconstruction of, the consolidation of democracy in, and the relations of the United States with, Iraq; and that Iraq continues to be a reliable ally of the United States and partner in combating acts of international terrorism. On the day the President signed that provision into law, he signed a waiver and issued a statement justifying the exercise of the waiver authority.

But H.R. 4986 also included a Sense of Congress that provides as follows:

``[T]he President, acting through the Secretary of State, should work with the Government of Iraq on a state-to-state basis to ensure compensation for any meritorious claims based on terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Hussein regime against individuals who were United States nationals or members of the United States Armed Forces at the time of those terrorist acts and whose claims cannot be addressed in courts in the United States due to the exercise of the waiver authority.''

It is now time to provide the statutory requirements necessary to implement that Sense of Congress. We do that here today by passing H.R. 5167, which gives our policy of encouraging good faith negotiations to provide fair and tangible compensation to victims of torture the force of statutory law. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time while again urging support for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is drawing to a close. I think that so much has been said, not nearly enough. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have done such a good job of making this a bipartisan piece of legislation.

Additionally, I would like to echo the last speaker because the gentleman from Pennsylvania, rightfully so, reminded us that the men and women in our Armed Forces, in which he served and in which I served, know the rules; they know the rules that we operate under, and we know the penalty if we break those rules. We know that if our country were to, in fact, torture somebody, we would both punish those who did it and compensate those who were treated in any inconsistent way with the rule of law. We only ask that the post-Saddam Iraq, if they're paying compensation and apologizing to others, they do the same to the men who suffered at their hands.

So I think that for all the men and women serving in the Armed Forces today and those who have served in the past, this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is taking a giant step toward saying we will hold others accountable as we have always held our own accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress by the end of the year with an outline of our exit strategy for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. This bipartisan amendment, offered by Representatives Walter Jones, Chellie Pingree, Barbara Lee, and me, does not demand a timeline for withdrawal or a halt to the deployment of the 21,000 additional troops called for by the President. It simply asks the administration to present its plan for beginning, middle, and end of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

For over 8 long years, our uniformed men and women have done all that we have asked them to do in Afghanistan. We are now asking them to do more. And we are giving them more resources and more boots on the ground to accomplish their mission. What we have not told them is how to tell when their contribution to the political solution is done and they can begin to transition out of Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, I want President Obama to succeed in Afghanistan. I stand by our commitment to provide the necessary resources to help the Afghan people take charge of their own future. But as Congress authorizes and appropriates billions and billions of dollars for a new strategy in Afghanistan, is it too much to ask how we will know when our troops can finally come home to their families?

Certainly, we need to hold the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan accountable for governing their own nations. But it is incumbent upon us in Congress to hold ourselves accountable--and before we can even do that, the administration must clearly articulate and outline how it envisions completing its military operations in Afghanistan.

Eleven months into its term is not too soon for that outline to be provided. We are asking the Congress be a proper check and balance. We are asking for Congress to do its job. The people of this country want clarity. They are tired of endless wars.

Please support the McGovern-Jones-Pingree-Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, a military strategy that has no exit is no strategy at all.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, President Obama on a recent ``60 Minutes'' interview said he favors an exit strategy. This shouldn't be controversial. We are told that there's a political solution ultimately to be had in Afghanistan. All we are asking is: When does our military contribution to that political solution come to an end so that we know when we can think about bringing our troops back home?

That's all this amendment does. This should not be controversial at all. What we are asking is simply a clearly defined mission, and nothing more.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to a cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

All we are trying to do is fill in the holes of the strategy that President Obama has already articulated. I think the American people would welcome that. I think the Afghan people would welcome that. The notion that we are sending our men and women into harm's way without a clearly defined mission, which includes a beginning, middle and end, to me, is a mistake.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I am the final speaker on my side so I will let the gentleman proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, everyone acknowledges that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, only a political solution; but we are putting billions of dollars into building up our military presence without a clear vision of how to bring our troops home, an exit strategy, for lack of a better term. Every military mission has a beginning, a middle, a time of transition and an end. But I have yet to see that vision articulated in any document, speech or briefing.

We're not asking for an immediate withdrawal. We're surely not talking about cutting or running or retreating. Just a plan. If there's no military solution for Afghanistan, then please, just tell us how we will know when our military contribution to the political solution has ended. Requiring an outline for how our military operations are to proceed in Afghanistan so that Congress can effectively weigh the level of investment, both human and financial, is called doing our job, something this body neglected to do throughout the past 8 years.

I welcome the reports, the time frames, the matrixes included in H.R. 2647. But once again, we're trying to define what the administration has failed to articulate for itself. When I first ran for Congress, I promised my constituents that I would never, ever send our servicemen and -women into a war without a clearly defined mission and a clear vision of how we would bring them home safely to their families and to their loved ones. I am sticking to that promise. Please support the McGovern-Jones-Lee-Pingree amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

This amendment is identical to the amendment approved by the House last year. Its purpose is quite simple: for over 40 years, the names of students and instructors at the former U.S. Army School of the Americas and now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation were available to the public. All you had to do was make a phone call, write a letter, file a FOIA request, and the names were provided.

Suddenly in August 2006, the names became classified. The only reason cited by the Defense Department for denying the names was that the list includes personal information, but nothing about the request had changed. No one had asked for new information and certainly none of a personal nature. So for the past 3 years, the names of graduates and instructors at WHINSEC have remained secret. Well--almost secret. Names constantly pop up in WHINSEC PR materials, sometimes with a photo; but the public is still denied access.

In over four decades of public access, not once has there ever been a whisper that the military officers attending WHINSEC were targets. And those were some pretty turbulent years with coups in the southern cone, civil wars in Central America, drug lords, drug cartels and armed groups in the Andes, especially Colombia and Peru. Not a hint that attending the school was dangerous.

The WHINSEC is supposed to be a model for transparency, accountability, and respect for civil society and human rights. What signal does the school send to its Latin American counterparts about our democratic values when it denies access to information that has been available for decades? Vote to restore public access to this amendment. Vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, who represents WHINSEC in his district (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) talked about the fact that the names were being released by WHINSEC. The fact he didn't mention is they're being released to us in a classified form so that no one in the public can see them. And it is not unique for this information to be made public. Other Army, Air Force and Navy military schools and training schools still provide the public with the names of Latin American students. I have a pile of them right here. Each one asserts the needs of the public interest outweigh any consideration for privacy. And I believe that standing up for transparency, accountability, and our own democratic values strengthens our national security and U.S.-Latin American relations. The danger comes when democratic values and transparency are viewed as detrimental.

Mr. Chairman, the House approved this amendment last year; it should approve it again. The cosponsors of this amendment do not agree on the fate of WHINSEC, but we all agree that we need to restore public access to these names.

Look at these lists, Mr. Chairman, all blacked out. Does this look like transparency? Is this democracy at work? Is this the model we want Latin American militaries to copy? The names were public for decades until August 2006. Openness was the norm, not secrecy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and restore public access, restore transparency, restore accountability. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.