Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2009

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I will not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi contained in this bloc, I claim the time in opposition to express a concern I have about the amendment as drafted.

Mr. Taylor's amendment would authorize the Navy to use $35 million from procurement of lightweight torpedoes, known as Mark-46, to convert two commercial ferries for military uses as intratheater lift platforms. These two commercial vessels were built through a Maritime Administration title 11 loan guarantee, which may soon be in default.

A separate amendment in the base bill directs the Maritime Administration to consult with the Navy before disposing of these vessels should the Maritime Administration receive title to them through default on the loan.

The Navy has stated that they may have an interest in the vessels, but would likely have to make significant improvements to them to render the vessels appropriate for military use. This will require some study and planning on the part of the Navy.

Should the Navy determine that these vessels have military utility, I would not object to the Navy leasing and converting these commercial ferries. But I do ask the chairman and the gentleman from Mississippi to work with me in conference with the other body to find an alternate offset for this effort.

Although the GAO has indicated that there may be nearly $50 million in excess funds for the lightweight torpedo program, the Navy is currently in negotiations with the supplier to procure at least 38 more torpedo upgrade kits with $23 million of this money.

In addition, the Navy is moving to a full and open competition for these upgrade kits starting in fiscal year 2010. A $35 million reduction is more than a third of the fiscal year 2010 request and would substantially limit the Navy's ability to complete this program and continue to buy more upgrade kits.

The Navy is using the pressure of this future competition to get the best price possible on these additional upgrade kits this year. These upgrade kits are necessary to improve the capability of these torpedoes against quiet, diesel electric submarines.

Therefore, I will support the amendment, but hope we can work together to find a more suitable offset in the conference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, so I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while I will not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, I claim the time in opposition to express some reservations I have about the amendment.

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

The gentleman from Maryland's amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to place military personnel on U.S.-flagged vessels operating in high-risk piracy areas of the world's oceans. The gentleman's intention is good. All Americans are outraged about the recent outbreak of piracy and desire a comprehensive solution. But we also must recognize that commercial shipping lines bear responsibility to secure their cargoes and should not be given free protection by U.S. military personnel everywhere in the world. The solution to piracy cannot simply be a military one. Additionally, the sad fact is that the bulk of U.S. cargo and U.S. citizens travel on ships that are not U.S.- flagged vessels and would not be protected by this amendment.

Further, the Navy and Marine Corps do not have a sufficient number of Embarked Security Teams, known as ESTs, which receive specialized training, to protect even the relatively small number of U.S. flagged vessels. Based on operational tempo and dwell times, set by the Chief of Naval Operations, it's clear that expanding the deployment of ESTs would negatively impact other existing operational commitments. For this reason and others, the Navy does not support placing ESTs on U.S. flagged vessels for protection from pirates nor does the commander of Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral Gortney.

The Navy has also pointed out that embarking U.S. servicemembers on nonsovereign immune vessels presents legal issues, including possible criminal and civil liability for the servicemembers.

Therefore, while I will not oppose this amendment because the underlying purpose is good, I would ask the chairman and the gentleman from Maryland to work with me in conference with the other body to develop a lasting solution that protects United States' interests and does not place an undue burden on the Navy.

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

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

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

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

We have been down this road before. Last year Mr. Holt proposed a similar amendment to our bill. In response we received statements from the Army and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence stating their opposition to mandatory videotaping and interrogations. Today the Office of the Secretary of Defense has informed us that the Department strongly opposes this amendment.

According to DOD, the provision would cause three main problems: it would severely restrict the collection of intelligence through interrogations. It would undercut the Department's ability to recruit sources. And it would impose an unreasonable administrative and logistical burden on the warfighter. A provision like this would create a public record that would go straight into terrorists' counter- resistance training programs.

I strongly, as I said, oppose this amendment.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, just to again reiterate what the Department of Defense has told us, this is a statement that we received yesterday afternoon from the Department of Defense. I would like to read just a couple of things from it:

``The Department of Defense strongly opposes the provision because it would severely restrict the collection of intelligence through interrogations, undercut the Department's ability to recruit sources, and impose an unreasonable administrative and logistical burden on the warfighter.

``A statutory video recording requirement will be a matter of public record. Detainees will, therefore, know through counter-resistance training that anything they say will be recorded and may be used against them publicly, in a courtroom, or to gain leverage with other detainees. This will inhibit detainees from cooperating with interrogators and undercut the interrogators' most effective technique, establishing rapport with the detainees. Moreover, if a video recording is, in fact, released to the public and it becomes known that a detainee has collaborated with U.S. intelligence, the safety of the detainee and his family would be jeopardized.

``Even if a detainee agrees to be recorded, there is a tendency for both the detainee and the interrogator to `play to the camera,' creating an artificiality to the questioning, thereby degrading the quality of the intelligence information.''

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the mid-level official is a lieutenant colonel. I think that is fairly high-ranking, field officer, and I think the record, as he stated, stands for itself. He is a legislative officer with the department.

The lieutenant colonel will not state on the record something that opposes his higher rank. I think we all know that.

With that, I urge all us to defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I won't oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish an overseas advisory board.

Now, that will not be to tell people how to vote?

Reclaiming my time.

This will work to improve the process by which our men and women in uniform who are serving outside the United States register and vote in State and local and Federal elections.

I understand that Congress is already working to improve this process. I also understand that the Federal Voting Assistance Program, which is responsible for assisting our troops with the voting process, has a newly appointed director who will begin his duties next month.

With that, I support efforts to increase the opportunities for our servicemembers to vote. I congratulate the gentlelady from New York for bringing forth this amendment, and especially while they are serving in combat.

I know we have had questions during elections whether their votes were counted, whether they got back in time. So I really appreciate the effort she makes on their behalf and, therefore, I support and urge all of our Members to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

I yield, at this time, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield now 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield now to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) 2 minutes.

We have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is probably the last time where I have enough time to thank the staff. I would like to thank all of the members of the staff.

I said when I was on the Education Committee, we used to have everybody's names written out; and so I turned to Tom, and he said, We don't do that, sir. We give all of the credit to the Members. So rather than list all of their names on both sides, I would like to thank you en bloc, all of the staff, for doing such a tremendous job to get me ready in very short time to do this work. They have done a yeoman's job, and it has been a real pleasure working with the chairman and working with the staff on this bill. I look forward to many more years to do it. Hopefully, we will change off chairman, but I won't get into that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim this time, but I am not in opposition to Mr. Connolly's amendment. Although I do support the gentleman's amendment to clarify the purported intent of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, I believe it does not do enough.

The Department is aggressively seeking alternative fuel sources for their aircraft, vehicles, and naval vessels, and section 526 poses a serious barrier to these efforts. We need to encourage the Department to continue these efforts, not shackle them with greenhouse gas emission limits that are set from arbitrary and ambiguous standards.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) such time as he may consume.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I would just like to second what the chairman was saying and thank all of those men and women in uniform and the civilian employees. He was very sincerely wanting to thank all of them.

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

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, who is on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).

At this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent series of amendments that we have placed en bloc, and I want to express my appreciation not only to the staff but to the minority, to the ranking member on the work that they have done, agreeing to these amendments and making this effort today move forward very, very smoothly.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 572, I request that following consideration of amendments en bloc No. 4 that amendment No. 20 be considered.

Parliamentary inquiry.

What was the ruling on the previous recommendation?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Cummings

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. There may be a requirement to redraft part of it at a future date, but I think the purpose and the intent are correct.

Piracy is here. It's an age-old problem. From the Marines' hymn the phrase ``to the shores of Tripoli,'' that was a successful antipiracy effort on behalf of the United States Marines.

We have to do our very best to protect America, American vessels, Americans that are sailing the ships, and particularly the government cargo that's on them. So I applaud Mr. Cummings for making this substantial step in the right direction in combating piracy.

Mr. Chairman, as a former prosecuting attorney, I speak in favor of this amendment.

It serves two purposes. First, it protects our men and women in uniform who are conducting interrogations of detainees from frivolous claims of alleged abuse or coercion. Second, the videotapes will act as a deterrent for private contractors or other agencies who are conducting interrogations of the Department of Defense detainees from straying from those requirements of the Army field manual in the treatment of detainees. It is a way to ensure that it is done right. And when you have a correctly conducted interrogation, in all probability the results will be positive. I certainly think this is a major step in the right direction. Videotaping is good.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 3.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) wishes to propose a colloquy, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. It's fair to say that much has happened since the law was adopted back in 1993, and I propose that the committee will continue to engage in a deliberative process to hear perspectives from all sides of the debate, but particularly to understand the perspectives of the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense and the perspectives of ordinary servicemembers.

If we conclude that repeal is the appropriate course, the success of the change will hinge on our full understanding of the implications of the change and the development of a law and policy that will preserve the readiness and morale of our military forces. Certainly hearings will be at the heart of the committee's effort to determine those necessary facts.

Our Military Personnel Subcommittee has already held one hearing with outside experts. We will clearly need to hear the perspectives of the Department of Defense as well. Since the civilian leadership responsible for personnel matters within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not yet been announced, I don't believe it would be appropriate to begin a formal reassessment process until the new Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness has been allowed to settle into the position. But the committee will continue to hold hearings.

Mr. Chairman, let me flash back to a previous amendment, the Akin-Forbes amendment. I just received a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, dated today, regarding that amendment, which reads in part, While the Department supports transparency in government, we find the amendment as written directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on every employee covered under a nondisclosure agreement as overly burdensome and counterproductive in meeting the security challenges of today.

I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I certainly thank the gentleman for that. I yield 1 minute to my friend, a very special lady, the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, the time remaining, please.

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney)

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on this en bloc amendment. I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 572, I offer amendments en bloc entitled No. 4.

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.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Griffith).

I yield one minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize several of our staff who, after wonderful service, are going on to new challenges in their careers:

Loren Dealy, who will handle communications for the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Defense; Frank Rose who is off to work on strategic weapons and missile defense issues at the State Department; Bill Natter, who recently left to be the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy; Sasha Rogers, who is off to get a master's of public policy; Christine Lamb, who is off to get an MBA; and Ben Glerum, who will be working on a law degree.

In addition, I wish to recognize those unsung heroes who allow our staff to put together a bill of this enormous size and complexity. Those staff members who are called staff assistants: Andrew Tabler, Zach Steacy, Liz Drummond, Megan Putnam, Rose Ellen Kim, Caterina Dutto, Kathleen Kelly, Mary Kate Cunningham, Scott Bousom, Trey Howard, Cindi Howard, Derek Scott and Katy Bloomberg all deserve a special thanks.

And I also want to thank Joe Hichen for a long effort with us, as well as Alicia Haley. Without their hard work, coordination, and patience, we would not be as successful as we are today.

A final thanks to the team in the Office of Legislative Counsel led by Sherry Chriss, and the Parliamentarians who provide such excellent support. We thank them, and we are very grateful for their hard work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me say a special word of thanks to our ranking member, Buck McKeon. As we welcome you and you are off and running, you are doing an excellent job, and we thank you for your first-class efforts in making this come to pass. You've done wonderfully, and we should all be very grateful to you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. And I stand in support of the Connolly amendment to section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which provides an exception for certain generally available fuels while retaining the greenhouse gas emission standard that 526 sets for new alternative fuels.

Let me, Mr. Chairman, say a word of thanks. We have thanked the staff, under the leadership of Erin Conaton. They have just done so very, very well. And we thank the members, Buck McKeon, who is doing so well, and the subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members all made their excellent statements. But there is one group we need to give a special thanks to, and that's the young men and young women in uniform as well as the civilian employees of the Department of Defense. They are very special, and we are appreciative and very grateful for their efforts.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding and for his help and the chairman's help in making this amendment, my amendment, part of the en bloc amendment.

This amendment requires the Department of Defense, Mr. Chairman, to report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with their children, suffer from intrafamilial international child abduction. The international movement of our servicemembers make them especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction.

Attorneys familiar with this phenomenon estimate that there are approximately 25 to 30 new cases of international child abductions affecting our servicemembers every year. One man, Commander Paul Toland, recently came into my office largely because of the publicity about David Goldman and his son, Sean Goldman, the Brazilian case that I have been working on. He heard about it, and he came in and said, You have got to hear my story. And it is a heartbreaking story.

Commander Toland was deployed to Yokohama, Japan. He and his wife, regrettably, had a split.

She is now tragically deceased. And yet for approximately 6 long years, he has been trying to get his daughter back and has been unable to. The custody of his child is with the maternal grandparents. Again, he has not been able to get his own child back. Commander Toland received poor advice from the Naval Legal Services Officer on how to adjudicate the case. Have others?

Be advised, The amendment will not entangle the Department of Defense in custody disputes. Rather it will instruct the Department of Defense to study and produce a comprehensive report to Congress about what they are doing to ensure that our servicemembers are receiving preventive education, legal protections and other assistance needed to avoid and, when necessary, resolve the international abduction of their children. This is the least we can do for those who serve our nation.

Our servicemen and women risk much in the service of our Nation. We must do all that we can to mitigate the risks to their families. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, especially the ranking member and the distinguished Chair.

I rise in support of the amendment to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the plight of our service members who, along with their children, suffer from intra-familial and international child abduction. The international movements of our service men and women make them especially vulnerable to the risks of international child abduction. This amendment will require a study to pinpoint the extent of the problem within our armed services and what the DOD is doing to prevent and remedy international child abduction within the armed services.

The particular issue of international child abduction came to my attention with the Sean Goldman case. As many of you know, Sean Goldman was abducted to Brazil by his mother for a family vacation when Sean was four years old. His mother divorced his father and refused to return the child to the United States, which was Sean's country of habitual residence and consequently should have been the legal jurisdiction in which custody was decided. Sean's father has been fighting for the return of his son for five years. Sean's mother is now deceased, and Sean's father still cannot get him back.

Since my involvement with this case, I have been receiving calls from parents left behind in an international child abduction--the particular plight of military parents caught my attention. Military parents are at heightened risk because they often marry when they are serving this country abroad, and may live in numerous countries, including the United States, while they build a family with their spouse. Upon divorce, one parent sometimes whisks the child away to a legal jurisdiction unfavorable to the left behind parent.

Such was the case of Commander Paul Toland, whose infant daughter was abducted by his estranged wife while he was stationed on our naval base in Yokohama, Japan. When he sought help from the Naval Legal Services Office on base, he was told to hire a local lawyer and deal with the issue himself in Japanese courts.

Whether through lack of training by the DOD or lack of attention by the personnel, this very wrong advice from the Naval Legal Services Office directed Commander Toland to

give up the legal jurisdiction of his home state and engage with a foreign legal jurisdiction that has NEVER returned a child to the United States. Commander Toland's former wife is now deceased, his daughter lives with her ailing grandmother in Japan, and he still cannot get her back. The fight has been six long years, and it continues with little hope.

Attorneys familiar with this phenomena estimate that there are approximately 25-30 new cases of international child abductions affecting our service men and women every year. Our service men and women risk much in their service to our nation. The DOD must do what it can to minimize their risks.

This amendment would not entangle the Department of Defense in custody disputes. Rather, this amendment will instruct the DOD to share with Congress what they are doing to ensure that our service men and women are receiving the preventative education, legal protection, and other assistance needed to avoid and resolve the international abduction of their children. This amendment asks the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the following items:

The total number of children abducted from military parents;

The total number of children who were later returned to left behind military parents;

What the DOD did to facilitate any of the returns, and what sorts of assistance the DOD offers to military parents--such as psychological counseling, financial assistance, legal services, and leave for travel;

The means through which available services, information, and activities relating to international child abductions are communicated to left behind military parents;

The training provided to those who supply legal assistance to the left behind military parents;

Measures taken by the DOD to prevent abductions;

Which of the Status of Forces Agreements negotiated with host countries are written to protect the military parent's ability to adjudicate abduction cases in the parent's state of legal residence;

The feasibility of including in present and future Status of Forces Agreements a framework for the resolution of child abduction;

Identification of potential strategies for engagement with host countries with high incidence of international child abductions;

Whether the DOD coordinates on abductions with other departments, such as the U.S. Department of State;

Whether the DOD currently partners with, or intends to partner with, civilian experts on international child abduction;

Whether the DOD has engaged in joint efforts with the U.S. Department of State to provide a forum, such as a conference, for left behind military parents to share experiences, network and develop best practices for securing the return of abducted children;

An assessment as to how international child abductions impact the force readiness of our service members.

We all want to do right by our service men and women. The study called for by this amendment will give us a window into what we are already doing, and what we can do better to protect our service men and women from the frustration and anguish of international child abduction.

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

I particularly want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, our friend, Mr. Skelton, for his support of this amendment. It is identical to the amendment passed by the House during consideration of the 2009 Defense Authorization last year with the exception of some changes in the findings which I think strengthen the case for this amendment. A similar intelligence-focused, CIA-focused detainee video recording provision was included in the fiscal year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act that was voted out of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last week.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment's purpose is simple. It is to improve the intelligence operations of our Armed Forces by ensuring the video recording of each strategic interrogation of any person who is in the control or detention of the Department of Defense.

Let me be clear: this amendment does not impede combat operations. The bill explicitly states that troops in the field in contact with the enemy shall not be required to videotape or otherwise record tactical questioning.

It does require the Secretary of Defense to promulgate and provide to the Congress guidelines under which video recording of detainees shall be done. It does require that the recordings be properly classified and maintained securely just as any foreign intelligence information should be. It does require that the recordings be maintained for an appropriate length of time. What is the reason for this amendment? Because multiple studies have documented the benefits of video recording or electronically recording interrogations. Law enforcement organizations across the United States routinely use the practice both to protect the person being interrogated and the officer conducting the interrogations. It is the standard of best practice.

Some U.S. attorneys are on record as favoring this requirement for the FBI. And the Customs and Border Patrol does routinely videotape or electronically record key interactions and interrogations with those in their custody. Video recording is the standard within the United States for interrogations of all types in all agencies and for prosecutors.

Well, what about the Department of Defense? Is it appropriate there? Earlier this year a task force convened by Secretary of Defense Gates to review our detainee policies issued its report. This is known as the ``Walsh Report.'' The report was unequivocal. It said: ``We endorse the use of video recording in all camps and for all interrogations. The use of video recording to confirm humane treatment could be an important enabler for detainee operations. Just as internal controls provide standardization, the use of video recordings provides the capability to monitor performance and to maintain accountability.''

But more than this, more than maintaining the standards for behavior in the interrogation room, it strengthens our ability to collect intelligence and understand what's going on. The amendment would strengthen previous laws passed by Congress regarding the treatment of detainees, and it would maximize our intelligence collections from such interrogations.

In fact, the origin of this amendment came from my questioning of interrogators. When I asked how they get maximum information of nuances of language, languages that the interrogators might not have real fluency with. Who reviews the tapes? I said. And they said, There are no tapes. By having tapes, we can get the maximum benefit of the interrogation.

This amendment is endorsed by major human rights organizations. It's been certified by CBO not to result in additional spending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield, if he wishes, such time as he may consume to the distinguished Chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

The communication which you speak of came from a mid-level official at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense has not spoken on this. This is not a statement of administration policy against this. The only formal statement comes from the Walsh report, which I quoted from earlier, which said, We endorse the use of video recordings in all camps for all interrogations.

Perhaps this mid-level official at the Pentagon has not received the word that currently there are being developed improved procedures for detention and interrogation in this new administration.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.

I have an amendment as part of this en bloc that would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the Individual Ready Reserve who have served at least one tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan receive a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than once every 90 days to look at emotional, psychological, medical and career needs.

Mr. Chairman, the military personnel from the Secretary on down, and certainly the chairman of our committee, have devoted a great deal of attention to suicide prevention recognition and treatment. This is necessary because the IRR is one place where it is just too easy to fall through the cracks.

Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey, enlisted in the Army in 2001, attended Fort Benning, served with the 173rd Airborne. He served in Iraq. Afterwards, he sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Maybe the VA diagnosis should have been accepted by the Army. In any case, after he was discharged, like other Army members, he still had 4 years of Ready Reserve commitment. He was called back to Iraq, served, returned to New Jersey in May of 2008 and committed suicide in September of 2008. He fell through the cracks. He had no advocate, no Army machinery to help him find his way through the system. He was literally on his own.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to address what I think is a gap in our suicide treatment efforts to deal with the Individual Ready Reserve. I urge passage of this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of a great bill, the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I'm proud that the language I offered to ensure that the National Guard and Reserve components are represented in the overall composition and scope of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission has been included in the en bloc.

By including the National Guard and Reserves, we ensure that the DOD does not present Congress with incomplete recommendations regarding the representation of gender- and ethnic-specific groups within the armed services.

My passion is to ensure that our armed services are representative of America and that the leadership pipeline reflects our Nation's diversity. And this amendment simply ensures that when the study and composition of this Commission is formulated, that the National Guard and Reserve components are included.

No component should be left behind in the DOD's shift to increase diversity in the Armed Forces. We can and we must do better for the sake of future gender- and ethnic-specific groups that will join the ranks to ensure minority representation, leadership and promote equality.

I have an amendment at the desk that was made in order by the rule.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also extend my deep thanks to Chairman Skelton for working so closely with me on this amendment, and I applaud his leadership of the House Armed Services Committee.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I have convened two hearings to examine maritime piracy, including one in May after two U.S.-flagged vessels, the Maersk Alabama and the Liberty Sun, both of which were carrying U.S. food aid, were attacked by Somali pirates. The attack against the Maersk Alabama left American Captain Richard Phillips hostage to the pirates. He was freed only through the decisive intervention of U.S. military forces.

Incidents of piracy in the Horn of Africa region are increasing. According to the International Maritime Bureau, in 2008 there were 111 actual and attempted Somali pirate attacks, resulting in the hijackings of 42 vessels. By mid May of this year, there had already been 114 actual and attempted Somali pirate attacks, resulting in 29 successful hijackings. Nonetheless, despite the obvious threat to United States mariners, the Department of Defense has been inexplicably reluctant to directly secure U.S.-flagged vessels transiting the Horn of Africa region, even when they are carrying government-owned cargoes.

While I have no doubt that our military would respond immediately if another U.S.-flagged vessel was attacked, the timeliness of their response could be hindered if Navy assets are far from the scene. Further, it is truly preferable to prevent an incident from occurring rather than to respond to a hostage situation. However, the DOD has repeatedly argued, including in the testimony before my subcommittee, that the area in which Somali pirates operate is so vast the Navy simply cannot prevent every attack by conducting patrols and, therefore, essentially merchant vessels should protect themselves. This perspective assumes that the only way the military can protect merchant shipping from pirates is to stage vessels across the entire million- square-mile theater of operations. Frankly, there are other ways to protect our merchant fleet.

The United States Maritime Administration estimates that approximately 54 U.S.-flagged vessels transit the Horn of Africa region during the course of a year. Of these, about 40 will carry U.S. Government food aid cargoes, and 44 have the ability to carry U.S. military cargoes. Only a handful of these vessels, fewer than 10 in a 3-month period, are estimated to be at serious risk of attack by pirates due to their operating characteristics.

Given these figures, my amendment would require the Department of Defense to embark military security personnel on U.S.-flagged vessels carrying United States Government cargoes when they transit pirate- infested waters if they are deemed to be at risk of being boarded by pirates.

Mr. Chairman, U.S. maritime labor unions collectively testified before my subcommittee in support of the immediate provision to U.S.- flagged vessels by the government of ``the force protection necessary to prevent any further acts of piracy against them.'' In keeping with that position, the Transportation Trades Department of The

AFL-CIO; the Masters, Mates and Pilots Union; the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association and others support this legislation. The maritime unions also wrote in their testimony, ``When a vessel flies the United States flag, it becomes an extension of the United States itself, regardless of where in the world the vessel is operating.''

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just before I yield to our chairman, I want to just say to the gentleman we are talking about only providing security to U.S. flagged vessels carrying United States Government cargoes operated by United States citizens. Surely we can provide that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Chairman, I would urge the body to pass this amendment. I think it's a very important amendment. We have heard the testimony in our subcommittee and this is an appropriate way to address it. It's a reasonable way.

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