To authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a fellowship program regarding neuroscience.

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. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a member of the committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I think this is an outstanding bill. I think the chairman has worked very hard. I think the members of the committee--the subcommittee chairman and the ranking members--have all worked very hard, and the staff.

It is an excellent product as it stands right now. I think we will have, unfortunately, insufficient time to debate the Murphy amendment about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think that it is unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not give us the time that will be necessary to fully debate that, but we will take advantage of the time as we may.

I would like to say, as for many of the Members who have spoken today on our side, they do support the bill as it came out of committee. They hope that it will be improved, but if the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Murphy amendment passes, many of them will not be able to support the final passage, which is, indeed, I believe, a tragedy. None of us have ever before, to my knowledge, voted against the defense authorization bill, and we really don't do that lightly. We want to support all of this product, and we hope that we will be able to work this out as the day goes on.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Djou), a new Member that will be serving on our committee that we are really happy to hear from at this time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, many of the Members on our side have been talking about the Murphy amendment that will be coming up later today. We were concerned that we were only given 10 minutes to debate that amendment, something that will be very far-reaching, very important to all of the members of the armed services and to the country. I would like to talk just a little bit about the process that we have been going through this year.

Earlier this year, the President, in his State of the Union speech, told the Nation that he wanted to see Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed by the end of the year. The Secretary, in responding to the President's message, put a process in place, a process that would give to the Congress a report covering many items.

In March, the Secretary selected General Ham and Jeh Johnson, Defense Counsel for the Defense Department, two very good men, men of high integrity, men that have taken this responsibility very seriously. I met with them, and I talked to them about the process, about what they were going to do, how they would work to make it fair.

This month, just a couple of weeks ago, they have let a contract to Westat, a Rockville-based firm that has done survey work for the Defense Manpower Data Center to conduct surveys on military personnel, military spouses, and the comprehensive review working group. They have set their criteria on how they are going to move forward on this survey.

They will sample 350,000 members of the military and their families. They will survey 100,000 active duty military, 70,000 of their spouses, 100,000 of the Reserve component military, and 80,000 of their spouses. The sample size will be dictated by randomized statistically valid responses from various subelements of each component. Servicemembers will be asked to respond by mid-July, spouses by the end of August. They will develop and identify the sample of servicemembers and spouses.

I specifically asked them if they would reach out to make sure that all members were represented, which is what they are going to do. They are going to set up a system whereby members of the military who may be homosexual will be able to have their feelings known and keep their confidence. That report, as they have been set out now to work on, will reach out to the military.

They will then report back to us no later than the first of December, and at that point we are asked to move forward.

I have a letter here from Secretary Gates that says in part, 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.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the entire letter from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates.

The 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 rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, continuing my earlier comments, I was right in the middle of a letter by Secretary Gates. I will catch everybody up to speed.

The Secretary said, prior to any legislative action, the military should 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.

I'm inserting some of my own language now. I would like to say that we will be asked to vote on an amendment later today without having the value and the important information that would come from this, without being able to act in a most informed and effective manner.

The Secretary goes on to say a critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage our forces, their families and the broader military community throughout the 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.

Now, Mr. Skelton, chairman of the committee, spoke to the Secretary 2 days ago, and the Secretary said, I stand by my letter.

Next I have a letter from Admiral Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations. I spoke to each of the chiefs day before yesterday, I believe it was, on May 26, and he sent a letter, part of which says, I share the view of Secretary Gates that the best approach would be to complete the DOD review before there's any legislation to change the law. My concern is that legislative changes, at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters.

Obtaining the views and opinions of the force and assessing them in light of the issues involved will be complicated by a shifting legislative backdrop and its associated debate.

The admiral told me he was very concerned about what it would do in the force, the confusion that would be caused, and losing the credibility, actually, of him and his colleagues, because they have gone out. Based on what the President said, based on what the Secretary said earlier this year, they have gone to the force and told them they would be involved in this process; and it breaks faith with them and the things that they have tried to tell the force.

I will read General Schwartz's letter. General Schwartz is the Chief of the Air Force. He said, I believe it's important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commission review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, which is the Murphy amendment which we'll be discussing and voting on later today or tomorrow.

Such action allows me to provide the best military advice to the President and sends an important signal to our airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive, and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I will not oppose the amendment. I will support the amendment as a good member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, we do have other things we can talk about here today, and seeing how the Rules Committee didn't give us time to fully debate the Murphy amendment on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, we will use the time for that.

I yield 2 minutes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a member of the committee.

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

I thank the gentleman for his agreement with us on this issue, where we had a process set up. The process was set up by the Secretary in conformance with the President's wishes, and the thing that they thought was very important was having the input from those who would be most affected.

In talking to the Chiefs yesterday, one of them made the comment to me, in addition to the letters, he says, Hey, I understand the politics. I understand what's going on here. And he said, The amendment is very cleverly written. It says nothing will be done to implement this until the study is done. However, the headline will be ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed.'' He says, I understand how that works. But the guy that's out on an FOB in Afghanistan is going to get the headline and he is going to then, when somebody may send him a survey, he is going to say, What is this? I know this is already decided. I mean, we ought to treat this like it really is.

Many of your Members, I have been on the floor the whole day, I have listened to this debate, and I was also in the Rules Committee yesterday and heard it, and many of your Members say this repeals Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This is it. And then some of your Members are saying, Well, it doesn't really do anything. It just kind of moves the ball down the field. Then why are we doing the debate? I think be honest in what this really does. This precludes the study, the study we just hired that we are going to pay good money for and we are going to hear from the troops, but they are going to know that their wishes or their desires or their comments or their participation is folly because the decision's already made.

What it's supposed to be was we found out, we went out and did the study, then it comes back and came to us with the Chief's and the Secretary's recommendations, and then we do have a responsibility here. We do pass the laws. And we are giving up that responsibility today by voting on something without the complete information. And we're dissing the troops. That's what we're doing. We're disrespecting them.

And as some of the chairmen said to me yesterday, it's going to cause confusion in the force, and we don't keep faith with those who are putting their lives on the line every day for us. And especially this committee. This committee should stand for the force. This committee should stand for the troops. This should have been discussed in our committee before it came to the full floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

May I inquire as to how much time we have left.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, because we weren't given the opportunity to have more than 5 minutes to debate Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I would like to continue on with my diatribe.

I have a letter from General Casey, Chairman of the Army. He says:

``My views on the repeal of section 654 of title 10''--which is the Murphy amendment--``United States Code, have not changed since my testimony.''

He was opposed to that when he testified before our committee.

``I continue to support the review and timeline offered by Secretary Gates.

``I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our soldiers and families are on this issue and what the impacts on readiness and unit cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military advice to the President and the Congress.

``I also 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.''

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

I yield 1 minute at this time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to, again, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the committee.

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

I support this amendment; I think it's a good thing. I think that our whole country could use a little help in this area.

Now, back to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Again, I think it's very important that we do as Mr. Forbes said, a little common sense. When we tell the military we're going to get their viewpoint and then we say, never mind, we're going to move ahead, your viewpoint really doesn't matter, I think that that's a big mistake.

I think this amendment is a good one, but I think only giving us 10 minutes to debate Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a mistake.

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

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

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy), sponsor of one of the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the sponsor of one of the amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I strongly believe that a $110 billion noncompetitive sole source 25- 40 year contract should not be permitted.

Therefore, I strongly support the inclusion of funding to complete the development of the F-136 competitive engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), the vice chair of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Today, we as a Congress perform a duty in compliance with the Constitution of the United States. Article I, section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It also provides for and maintaining a Navy and making all rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces.

So today I rise in support of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011. I'm pleased to be joined here today with my friend, my colleague, the ranking member, Buck McKeon. Buck's been a true partner in this effort to bring forward a bipartisan bill that addresses the national security needs of our country.

The committee passed the Defense Authorization Bill by a vote of 59- 0.

Our Nation's been at war for nearly a decade. Our troops are worn, and their families are tired, and the Nation recognizes their sacrifices. The bill addresses many of the concerns that they've raised.

I'm proud that this bill is a result of the committee's engagement with the military community and our citizens to determine what issues were important to them as we developed the programs and policies that are included in this bill.

This bill authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. The bill also authorizes $159 billion to support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during fiscal year 2011. These amendments are essentially equal to the President's budget request for items in the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.

H.R. 5136 continues Congress' deep commitment to supporting U.S. servicemembers and their families and to provide the necessary resources to keep America safe. The bill provides our military personnel a 1.9 percent pay raise, which is an increase of a half a percent above the President's request.

The bill also includes a number of initiatives to support military families, including extending health care coverage to adult dependent children up to the age of 26. We also have the single most comprehensive legislative proposal to address sexual assault in the military.

The bill also fully funds the President's budget request for military training, equipment, maintenance and the facilities upkeep, which continues the committee's efforts to address readiness shortfalls that have developed over previous years.

The bill provides an increase of $12 billion above the fiscal year 2010 budget for operations and maintenance, including $345 million to fully fund the

first increment of construction necessary to modernize Department of Defense schools. There is 13.6 billion for training of an all active- duty Reserve force to increase readiness; an increase of $500 million for day-to-day operations of Army bases, which is a direct impact on our soldiers. It also provides an increase of $700 million above the administration's budget to address the equipment shortfalls on National Guard and Reserve units.

The war in Afghanistan is a critical mission that is essential to our national security. To ensure that our strategies in both Iraq and Afghanistan are effective and achieve the intended goals within well- defined timelines, the bill requires the President to assess U.S. efforts and regularly report on progress, including providing timelines by which he plans to achieve his goals.

It also extends the authorization of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund through fiscal year 2011 to allow commanders to help Pakistan quickly and more effectively go after terrorist safe havens. The bill also provides $1.6 billion for Coalition Support Funds to reimburse nations that are providing logistical, military, and other support to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Iraq, the bill upholds Congress's responsibility to provide oversight to the process of drawing down the mountain of material purchased, transported, and built up in Iraq at tremendous expense to the taxpayer.

In the area of nonproliferation, the bill continues our focus on keeping weapons of mass destruction and related materials out of the hands of terrorists and strengthens our nonproliferation programs and activities. The bill increases funding for the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs and adds funding to continue the administration's plan to secure and remove all known vulnerable nuclear materials that could be used for weapons.

There are other good things in this bill, which my colleagues will cover.

I want to recognize the members of the Armed Services Committee for their contributions in making this bill one of the best that the committee has put forward in recent years.

I also, Mr. Chair, want to brag about the wonderful staff that we have on the Armed Services Committee. They make it all work well.

Mr. Chair, our committee has been and will continue to be strong proponents of our Nation's security and the people that it defends. We will continue to do what is right and necessary to ensure that our country is safe and secure. We must continue to work with the President to ensure that our citizens are safe and our Nation's security is paramount.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and their families and vote for the defense authorization bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my friend from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who's the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, my colleague, a former marine, and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, and as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that, during further consideration of H.R. 5136 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 111-498, the following amendments be considered: en bloc No. 1; amendment No. 13; en bloc No. 2; en bloc No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining, please.

Would the gentleman from California care to proceed?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee who is also a member of our Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the available time.

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the chairman of the acquisition reform task force.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendment Nos. 80 and 82 may be offered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

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

Mr. Chairman, picture in your mind an American soldier, a corporal, patrolling in Afghanistan, wearing his American-made uniform, carrying his American-made M4 rifle, having been transported in an MRAP security vehicle to his place of patrolling, with a radio on his back which was made in America--all of these items furnished by the Congress of the United States and under our duty and the duty to train and to allow him to be fully prepared to fight the fight that he is.

That is what is important in what we do today. That is the purpose of an authorization bill. It is required by the Constitution of the United States. It is paramount. It is the most important job that we have to do--to provide for the security of those who fight and who protect us in their line of duty.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendments number 21, 42, 47 may be offered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, I offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

The gentleman from Indiana spoke about the challenge of those returning from the Gulf and facing the depression that often ends in suicide. The gentleman from Rhode Island did the same.

The tragedy of a serviceman or woman and suicide came home to many of us in the State of Missouri not long ago when a young marine from Sedalia, Missouri, suffered that tragedy. It breaks the heart of not just the family but of all who knew him.

I think it's up to us to do our very best to continue to study this issue and make preparation for those who come home so that these tragedies can be put behind us that they can come back to a grateful Nation and warm and loving home and fit in and continue to

perform their duties in uniform and duties at home. So those of us who knew this young marine from Sedalia understand fully the comments of the gentleman from Rhode Island and the comments of the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, I offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield 1 minute to a friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).

Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of the committee position, which is to have an alternate engine for the F-35. If one looks at the graph of the F-16 alternate engine program, one will clearly notice that from the mid-1980s, the cost of the engines went down because of the competition. Competition is important. Single source often causes a steep increase in price.

Last year, this House passed the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act, which requires more competition in Department of Defense programs, not less. What this position of the Armed Services Committee does is live up to that reform act, requiring more competition. It is as simple as that.

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 rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011.

I want to first thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Skelton, for his outstanding leadership of this committee. He has once again put together a bill that reflects the priorities that should be in place for national defense: first and foremost, support our troops. I know nobody on that committee cares more about that issue than Mr. Skelton. He has once again made sure that this bill reflects that. It gives them a higher pay raise than was recommended by the Department of Defense and, across the board, makes sure that our troops and our families get the support they need to continue to do the amazing job that they are doing of defending this country. It is a great privilege to serve on this committee with Mr. Skelton and with Mr. McKeon and to have the responsibility for supporting our troops who have

served us so well. I thank him for his great leadership and for this bill.

On the Air and Land Subcommittee, I want to thank Mr. Bartlett, the ranking member on the committee. We have truly worked together in a very bipartisan fashion on this bill. That's one of the great things about being on the Armed Services Committee. We have a lot that we disagree on on a partisan basis in this body, but on the Armed Services Committee we work in a bipartisan way to make sure that we have a defense bill that protects our national security and supports our troops. And Mr. Bartlett certainly upholds that standard, and it's been a great pleasure working with him.

On our subcommittee, our top priority is to support our soldiers and airmen in the fight they are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want to make sure that they have the equipment they need to fulfill the mission that we have asked them to do. Towards that end, we have $3.9 billion in the bill to upgrade and improve our helicopters, which are so critical to the mission that they are fighting; $3.4 billion to fully fund the MRAP, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles that have done such an amazing job at improving the survivability of our troops when hit by IEDs; $3.4 billion for the JIEDDO account, which continues to find more and better ways to protect our troops from improvised explosive devices; $3.7 billion to fund intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, which is critical to make sure that our troops get the information they need when they need it to be in the best position to protect themselves on the battlefield; a billion dollars for new Strykers, a vehicle that has been critical for our combat infantry brigades and their ability to be maneuverable enough to survive in the fight.

We are making sure in this bill that our troops in the field get the equipment they need to fulfill the mission we have asked them to do. We also set aside an additional $700 million in this bill for the Army and Air Force Guard and Reserve equipment accounts. As we all know, Guard and Reserve members have been asked to do far more than they ever have in the history of this country. They are stressed and strained, and their equipment is being used at a far greater pace than anyone anticipated. We want to make sure that they have the funds available to replenish that equipment and make sure that they get the training they need so that they are able to do the job here in the U.S. we ask them to do, and also the job that we ask them to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are also concerned in this bill and continue to be concerned about our procurement and acquisition process. We passed acquisition reform again under Chairman Skelton's great leadership, but we have a fair number of programs, certainly the Joint Strike Fighter, future combat systems that have not delivered on time and on budget. We have to make sure that we get every penny that we spend, and it is spent efficiently and effectively. We need to continue to work to make sure the programs that we procure meet that standard.

That is why I, too, along with Mr. McKeon, am strongly supportive of the second engine program. And it has been our committee's position for a long time to support that program. We believe that it is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for your great leadership. I believe this bill gives us a very strong national security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment regarding military family leave. This committee and this body has, in the past, taken great steps to make sure that our military families, when they're deployed, they have and do qualify for the Military Family Leave Act. Unfortunately, there are some specifics of the military family--sorry, of the Family Leave Act--that leave out some of our military personnel when they are deployed because of the jobs that they have. They do not qualify for the existing Family Leave Act.

What this amendment does is it makes sure that all military personnel, even if they don't qualify for the Family and Medical Leave Act, will have the ability to take at least--I'm sorry, the spouses, children and parents of our military personnel, will have the ability to take at least 2 weeks of unpaid leave when a servicemember receives a notification or order to active duty in support of a contingency operation or is deployed in connection with such an operation.

One of the things that we've really struggled to deal with is the amount that we have asked of the members of the Guard and Reserve. They have been deployed far more since 9/11 than they ever were before, and that has a tremendous impact on their families.

Now, the Guard and Reserve has performed an unbelievable service to this country. Every time I travel abroad, go to Iraq and Afghanistan and meet members of the Guard and Reserve who are serving over there, I come away enormously impressed with their immense dedication and the job they're doing on our behalf. They continue to do it. They continue to sign up. Recruitment and retention are at all-time highs. They are absolutely committed to serving this country.

But they also need our help and support because members of the Guard and Reserve typically have families and jobs here at home, and that is disrupted every time they're called up and sent overseas. This is one small way that we can help them deal with that disruption, by making sure that their loved ones qualify for the Family Medical Leave Act.

This would be unpaid leave, but it would make sure that they have the time to help support their loved one who is being deployed.

I ask the body to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will assume that there is support for my amendment. I just want to quickly address what Mr. McKeon has said on two levels. First of all, the amendment that we will be voting on later today on Don't Ask, Don't Tell specifically leaves it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the one who will chair the policy. The policy will not be changed as a result of the amendment that we are passing. It will meet, absolutely, the requirement that the Secretary of Defense and others have put out to get input from the Armed Forces. And it will not, let me repeat, will not be changed until the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that change. They will have to certify it before we go forward.

Second of all, this policy, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, this ridiculous policy that has driven people out of the military who are only too anxious to serve, has been in existence for 16 years.

And I cannot speak for the gentleman from California, but I have spoken to many members of the Armed Forces during the course of that 16-year period about this policy, as I'm sure others have. So the main thing I object to is the characterization that the men and women of our Armed Forces have been left out of this debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. We've had 16 years, and a year and a half since President Obama said that he felt the policy should be changed, to have those conversations, and we're having them. And again, we will continue to have them, even after Congress pulls itself out of this policy. We're the ones who inserted ourselves into the debate by passing it in the first place 16 years ago. This will now go back to the Secretary of Defense to have precisely those conversations that Mr. McKeon wants them to have. And I'm sure that they will.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, the second engine is all about fiscal responsibility and saving the taxpayers money. The Pentagon themselves funded this program for 10 years, and they funded it because they knew that competition mattered.

One thing has already been said in this debate that simply isn't true: The first engine was not competitively bid. It was the engine that Lockheed had when they won the bid. There was no competition. They didn't win that. That is why the Pentagon originally created the second engine program, to make sure that over the 30- to 40-year lifecycle of a $100 billion program, they had options.

A GAO study on the competitive engine program for the F-16 from the early 1980s showed savings of almost 20 percent over the lifetime of that program. Those of us who for years have supported this second engine program, have support it precisely because we want to save the taxpayers money.

The simple argument is competition works, and being penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't. We have already spent $3 billion. To save $2 billion on the front end, we risk a $100 billion program. Please oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the minute. I have a longer statement which I will submit to the Record.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to adopt the sense of Congress in this amendment which would recognize Father Vincent Robert Capodanno, a decorated hometown hero from my district in Staten Island, in Brooklyn, New York, for his military accomplishments and his commitment to faith. We would like the Department of the Navy to commission a Navy destroyer in his name.

Father Capodanno, to put it in summation, received a Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism in the line of fire in Vietnam. He was sent there as a chaplain, but he quickly became much more than a chaplain as he became the friend and accompanier of every soldier on the battlefield.

He could have come home after a year's service, but instead he stayed and earned the name of ``the grunt padre,'' because with his fellow Marines, he raced into battle and was at their side all the way.

On the morning of September 4, 1967, during Operation Swift in the Thang Binh district of the Que Son Valley, the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines encountered a large North Vietnamese unit of approximately 2,500 men.

On that day, Father Capodanno lost his life. He could have come home. But as a great priest, as a great man of faith, he stayed by his fellow soldiers and gave his life that day. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor. We are asking the Navy to name a ship after him. I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt a sense of Congress recognizing Father Vincent Robert Capodanno, a decorated hometown hero from my district for his military accomplishments and commitment to his faith. We would like the Department of Navy to commission a Navy Destroyer in his name.

On June 7, 1957, Father Capodanno was ordained by the late Cardinal Spellman and shortly after, fervently devoted eight years of Catholic Missionary service to the needy peoples of Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Volunteering his services as Navy Chaplain on December 28, 1965, Father Capodanno received his commission as a Lieutenant in the Chaplain Corps of the United States Naval Reserve.

After completing orientation at the Naval Chaplain's School, Newport, Rhode Island, Lieutenant Capodanno requested duty with the Marines in Vietnam.

His first assignment was the First Marine Division in 1966, where he immediately began making his presence in the combat operation of Chu Lai a regular part of his duties as Battalion Chaplain.

To stay with his men, Chaplain Capodanno relinquished thirty days of Christmas holiday leave and after serving one year, he extended his tour of duty for six months as the condition that he be allowed to remain with the infantry.

Father Capodanno's greatest desire was just that--to remain with his troops and to give them moral support.

Then on the morning of September 4, 1967, the decision was no longer his to make. During Operation Swift in the Thang Binh District of the Que Son Valley the 1st battalion, fifth Marines encountered a large North Vietnamese unit of approximately 2500 men.

Father Capodanno went among the wounded and dying, giving last rites and taking care of his Marines. Wounded once in the face and having his hand almost severed, he went to help a wounded corpsman only yards from an enemy machinegun and was killed.

For his selfless acts and bravery beyond the call of duty, a man fellow marines referred to on the battlefield as the ``the `grunt' padre,'' Father Vincent R. Capodanno was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously.

In 1973, Father Capodanno had a ship commissioned in his honor. The USS Capodanno's lifespan was just as decorated as her namesake's, being the only naval vessel to be blessed by the Pope and saving approximately 22 lives in her first deployment as a search and rescue vessel in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, this ship was decommissioned and then sold to Turkey in 2005:

Today, Father Capodanno's legacy in the Navy goes untold. The people of New York's 13th District and I would be incredibly honored if the Department of Navy the recognize these amazing accomplishments by commissioning the next Navy Destroyer in the memory of Father Capodanno, an American Hero.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt a sense of Congress recognizing Father Vincent Robert Capodanno, a decorated hometown hero from my district, for his military accomplishments and commitment to his faith. We ask that Department of Navy commission the next Navy Destroyer in the memory of Father Capodanno.

On June 7, 1957, Father Capodanno was ordained by the late Cardinal Spellman and shortly after, fervently devoted 8 years of Catholic Missionary service to the needy peoples of Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Volunteering his services as Navy Chaplain on December 28, 1965, Father Capodanno received his commission as a Lieutenant in the Chaplain Corps of the United States Naval Reserve. After completing orientation at the Naval Chaplain's School, Newport, Rhode Island, Lieutenant Capodanno requested duty with the Marines in Vietnam.

His first assignment was the First Marine Division in 1966, where he immediately began making his presence in the combat operation of Chu Lai a regular part of his duties as Battalion Chaplain. To stay with his men, Chaplain Capodanno relinquished 30 days of Christmas holiday leave and after serving one year, he extended his tour of duty for 6 months on the condition that he be allowed to remain with the infantry.

Father Capodanno's greatest desire was just that--to remain with his troops and to give them moral support. Then on the morning of September 4, 1967, the decision was no longer his to make. During Operation Swift in the Thang Binh District of the Que Son Valley the 1st battalion, fifth Marines encountered a large North Vietnamese unit of approximately 2500 men.

Father Capodanno went among the wounded and dying, giving last rites and taking care of his marines. Wounded once in the face and having his hand almost severed, he went to help a wounded corpsman only yards from an enemy machinegun and was killed. For his selfless acts and bravery beyond the call of duty, a man fellow marines referred to on the battlefield as the ``the 'grunt' padre,'' Father Vincent R. Capodanno was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously.

In 1973, Father Capodanno had a ship commissioned in his honor. The USS Capodanno's lifespan was just as decorated as her namesake's, being the only naval vessel to be blessed by the Pope and saving approximately 22 lives in her first deployment as a search and rescue vessel in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, this ship was decommissioned and then sold to Turkey in 2005.

Today, Father Capodanno's legacy in the Navy goes untold. The people of New York's 13th district and I would be incredibly honored if the Department of Navy would recognize these amazing accomplishments by commissioning the next Navy Destroyer in the memory of Father Capodanno, an American Hero!