Making corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2647.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 808 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without any intervening motion except 1 hour of debate and, if applicable, one motion to recommit.

The bill was introduced on June 2, 2009, by Chairman Ike Skelton and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The committee marked up the bill on June 16, 2009, and ordered it favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote June 16, 2009.

The Committee on Rules reported a structured rule making in order 69 amendments, which then passed the floor 222-202. And today we have the conference report that we have now concurred with the Senate.

Despite any differences about our ongoing missions in Afghanistan or Iraq, we all agree that funds that have already been approved as part of the annual spending plans should not be held up for any reason, not with our troops in harm's way.

The bill authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy and also authorizes $130 billion for overseas contingency operations for fiscal year 2010.

For our service men and women, it authorizes a pay raise of 3.4 percent for the military, expands TRICARE health coverage for Reserve members, bars fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care

for 1 year, and provides $2.2 billion for housing programs to improve the quality of life for our servicepersons' families.

On Afghanistan, the bill responds to concerns raised by Members of both parties and requires an assessment of progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan toward security and stability. It also bans permanent bases in Afghanistan and provides funds to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces, the ANSF.

There is also language in the bill that requires a reporting system to register and track all the U.S. defense items that are provided to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to help combat waste and fraud. This is especially important in light of recent news stories showing that millions of dollars destined for Pakistan to battle militants in al Qaeda have been diverted to either the domestic economy or ``for other purposes.'' In fact, between 2002 and 2008, while al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, according to two Army generals quoted in an Associated Press story from earlier this week. I will insert that story into the Record.

Billions in U.S. Aid Never Reached Pakistan Army

(By Kathy Gannon)

Islamabad, Pakistan.--The United States has long suspected

that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to

battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy

and other causes, such as fighting India.

Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming

clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaida regrouped, only

$500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually

made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The

Associated Press.

The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous

because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly,

was backed up by other retired and active generals, former

bureaucrats and government ministers.

At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a

Washington ally, served as both chief of staff and president,

making it easier to divert money intended for the military to

bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies.

``The army itself got very little,'' said retired Gen.

Mahmud Durrani, who was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.

under Musharraf. ``It went to things like subsidies, which is

why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing

the war on terror out of its own budget.''

Generals and ministers say the diversion of the money hurt

the military in very real ways:

Helicopters critical to the battle in rugged border regions

were not available. At one point in 2007, more than 200

soldiers were trapped by insurgents in the tribal regions

without a helicopter lift to rescue them.

The limited night vision equipment given to the army was

taken away every three months for inventory and returned

three weeks later.

Equipment was broken, and training was lacking. It was not

until 2007 that money was given to the Frontier Corps, the

front-line force, for training.

The details on misuse of American aid come as Washington

again promises Pakistan money. Legislation to triple general

aid to Pakistan cleared Congress last week. The legislation

also authorizes ``such sums as are necessary'' for military

assistance to Pakistan, upon several conditions. The

conditions include certification that Pakistan is cooperating

in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that

Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating

terrorist groups and that Pakistan security forces are not

subverting the country's political or judicial processes.

The U.S. is also insisting on more accountability for

reimbursing money spent. For example, Pakistan is still

waiting for $1.7 billion for which it has billed the United

States under a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse allies for

money spent on the war on terror.

But the U.S. still can't follow what happens to the money

it doles out.

``We don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we

have given it to them,'' Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark

Wright said in a telephone interview.

Musharraf's spokesman, retired Gen. Rashid Quereshi, flatly

denied that his former boss had shortchanged the army. He did

not address the specific charges. ``He has answered these

questions. He has answered all the questions,'' the spokesman

said. Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and

resigned in August 2008.

The misuse of funding helps to explain how al-Qaida,

dismantled in Afghanistan in 2001, was able to regroup, grow

and take on the weak Pakistani army. Even today, the army

complains of inadequate equipment to battle Taliban

entrenched in tribal regions.

For its part, Washington did not ask many questions of a

leader, Musharraf, whom it considered an ally, according to a

U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last

year.

Pakistan has received more money from the fund than any

other nation. It is also the least expensive war front. The

amount the U.S. spends per soldier per month is just $928,

compared with $76,870 in Afghanistan and $85,640 in Iraq.

Yet by 2008, the United States had provided Pakistan with

$8.6 billion in military money, and more than $12 billion in

all.

``The army was sending in the bills,'' said one general who

asked not to be identified because it is against military

rules to speak publicly. ``The army was taking from its

coffers to pay for the war effort--the access roads

construction, the fuel, everything. . . . This is the

reality--the army got peanuts.''

Some of the money from the U.S. even went to buying weapons

from the United States better suited to fighting India than

in the border regions of Afghanistan--armor-piercing tow

missiles, sophisticated surveillance equipment, air-to-air

missiles, maritime patrol aircraft, anti-ship missiles and F-

16 fighter aircraft.

``Pakistan insisted and America agreed. Pakistan said we

also have a threat from other sources,'' Durrani said,

referring to India, ``and we have to strengthen our overall

capacity. ``The money was used to buy and support capability

against India.''

The army also suffered from mismanagement, Durrani said. As

an example, he cited Pakistani attempts to buy badly needed

attack helicopters.

Pakistan asked for Cobra helicopters because it knows how

to maintain them, he said. But the helicopters were old, and

to make them battle-ready, the Pentagon sent them to a

company that had no experience with Cobras and took two

years, he said.

As a result, in 2007, Pakistan had only one working

helicopter--a debilitating handicap in the battle against

insurgents who hide, train and attack from the hulking

mountains that run like a seam along the Afghan-Pakistani

border.

The army was also frustrated about not getting more money.

Military spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas said the U.S. gave

nothing to offset the cost of Pakistan's dead and wounded in

the war on terror. He estimated 1,800 Pakistani soldiers had

been killed since 2003 and 4,800 more wounded, most of them

seriously.

The hospital and rehabilitation costs for the wounded have

come to more than $25 million, Abbas said. Pakistan's

military also gives land to the widows of the dead, educates

their children and provides health care.

``These costs do not appear anywhere,'' he said. ``There is

no U.S. compensation for the casualties, assistance with aid

to the grieving families.''

Even while money was being siphoned off for other purposes

on Pakistan's end, the U.S. imposed little control over or

even had specific knowledge of what went where, according to

reports by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The

reports covered 2002 through 2008.

The reports found that the Pentagon often ignored its own

oversight rules, didn't get adequate documents and doled out

money without asking for an explanation.

For more than a year, the Pentagon paid Pakistan's navy

$19,000 a month per vehicle just for repair costs on a fleet

of fewer than 20 vehicles. Monthly food bills doubled for no

apparent reason, and for a year the Pentagon paid the bills

without checking, according to the report.

Daniyal Aziz, a minister in Musharraf's government, said he

warned U.S. officials that the money they were giving his

government was being misused, but to no avail.

``They both deserved each other, Musharraf and the

Americans,'' he said.

Within this bill is authorization for 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the continued development and procurement of the F136 Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine but does not authorize the advance procurement of F-22 aircraft.

It authorizes $6.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicles and fully funds the new MRAP all-terrain variant requirement for Afghanistan. We've seen far too many reports of our troops dying because their vehicles are ripped apart by roadside bombs. We can and will do better to protect them from these risks.

Under the provisions of this bill, the military will increase by 30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, 14,650 Air Force personnel, and 2,477 Navy sailors in 2010. It also authorizes an additional 30,000 Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

The bill provides support for the plan to increase the size of our civilian workforce so that we can reduce DOD's reliance on contractors for core acquisition functions. This is also a most important point to cut down on fraud and waste. The bill also provides DOD with the needed flexibility to reform the DOD hiring process to reduce the fraud and abuse through enhanced contractor oversight, which is long overdue.

The bill speaks to vessels carrying DOD cargo in high piracy risk areas by requiring that they be equipped with appropriate nonlethal defense measures. And it strengthens the DOD's

ability to face threats and vulnerabilities by improving research and promoting military and civilian cyber workforce development.

It improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts by providing the Defense Department the authority to require return of award and incentive fees. The bill prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a servicemember's death or severe injury. 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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

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.

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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished leader from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the great Texan, Judge Carter.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.