Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The House Armed Services Committee brings before the House a bill reported out of committee by a vote of 61-0. This consensus was achieved after a great deal of hard work. Our mark lasted almost 17 hours. We considered 129 amendments; we adopted 107 of them. We had an excellent debate on the issues in the best traditions of our committee. I am confident we will have a similar experience here in the full House.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be joined in support of the bill by my friend and my partner, Buck McKeon. I am thrilled that he is our ranking member, and I commend him for jumping in head first on his first official day on the job, which of course was a full day for our markup. He has been a very able and constructive partner as well as, when required, a skilled opponent. I must, however, mention our esteemed colleague, John McHugh, who has agreed to become the Secretary of the Army, but who leaves our committee having established a lasting legacy, especially on issues of personnel.

In this debate we will consider, and I am confident that we will adopt, an amendment that is sponsored by both Mr. McKeon and me that is a tribute to the work of John McHugh on our committee.

Likewise, I must thank the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who contributed so much on this bill. They did their homework, and I am pleased with the outcome of our efforts. They solved almost every problem set out for them, and they accomplished a lot of good government at the same time.

They were ably assisted by our committee staff, the amazing professionals in the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and the Office of the Parliamentarian.

This bill authorizes $550.5 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. The bill also authorizes $130 billion to support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during fiscal year 2010. These amounts are essentially equal to the President's budget request for items in the jurisdiction of our committee.

H.R. 2647 reflects the Congress' deep commitment to supporting American servicemembers and providing the necessary resources to keep Americans safe. The bill provides our military personnel with a 3.4 percent pay raise, an increase of .5 percent above the President's request. The bill also includes a number of initiatives to support military families. In this, the Year of the Military Family, we provide funds to establish a Center for Care for military members and their families. We also increase the weight allowance for senior noncommissioned officers, and authorize the transportation of a second vehicle for members who are changing stations from or to a nonforeign area outside the United States. The bill also provides funding to enhance the Health Professions Scholarship program for mental health providers to support the troops and their families.

The mark fully funds the President's budget request for military training, equipment, maintenance, and facilities upkeep. By doing so, the committee continues its efforts to address readiness shortfalls that have developed over the past 8 years.

To address some of these concerns in this mark, we have added $1.6 billion to operation and maintenance, including $395 million for Navy aviation and ship depot maintenance, $762 million to achieve 100 percent of the requirement for sustainment of facilities, including the Department of Defense schools, which, by the way, are excellent, and $450 million to improve the quality of Army training barracks.

The war in Afghanistan is a critical mission that is finally getting the attention it demands, and I've been saying that for quite some time. To ensure our strategy in both countries is effective and achieves the intended goals within well-defined timelines, the bill requires the President to assess American efforts and regularly report on progress. It also authorizes the new Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Fund to allow our commanders to help Pakistan quickly and more effectively go after the terrorists in their safe havens.

On Iraq, the committee supports the President's policy while also upholding the Congress' 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 increases funding and creates new authorities to strengthen the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The bill also fully supports the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs, and adds substantial funding in support of the President's plan to secure and remove all known vulnerable nuclear materials that can be used for weapons.

The bill takes additional steps on acquisition reform beyond what we did in the bill on weapons acquisition which was enacted and signed into law by the President last month.

It also ensures that the Quadrennial Defense Review currently being undertaken by the Department of Defense both complies with the law and gives Congress the insight it needs to make judgments about force structure and programmatic changes.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill can be supported by every Member of this House. I recognize that some who have deep objections to current defense policy on various issues may feel compelled maybe to oppose the bill. That's their right, of course. But even in most of those cases, I believe that solid progress is made in this bill toward protecting our national security in the right way.

I ask Members to vote for H.R. 2647, for our troops and their families, and for a strong national defense for our Nation.

The object of our affection, Mr. Chairman, are the young men and young women in uniform who do professional, outstanding work for our country. This bill helps them in their efforts. All of us are proud of them, and I hope that the vote on this bill, when we vote tomorrow, will reflect that pride in the military of the United States of America.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Member I am about to yield to for 3 minutes will be giving her last presentation in this House, for she will be, very shortly, a member of the administration within the State Department with a high-ranking position. We wish her well, as well as wishing her well in her upcoming marriage.

I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and my friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 572 and as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 2647 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of amendment No. 1, printed in House Report 111-182, the following amendments be considered: amendment No. 3, printed in House Report 111-182; amendment No. 4, printed in House Report 111-182; en bloc amendment No. 1; amendment No. 2, printed in House Report 111-182; amendment No. 9, printed in House Report 111-182, as modified; amendment No. 15, printed in House Report 111-182, as modified; en bloc amendment No. 2; amendment No. 20, printed in House Report 111-182, as modified; amendment No. 24, printed in House Report 111-182; amendment No. 34, printed in House Report 111-182; amendment No. 39, printed in House Report 111-182; en bloc amendment No. 3; en bloc amendment No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

As the gentleman knows, I support the VAE. At the same time, I know it can be improved. I would be happy to work with the gentleman to address the issues that you have so aptly raised.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side, please.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

I certainly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein) for bringing this issue to the floor. As the gentleman knows, the bill under consideration calls for a report on military working dogs. Mr. Klein's legislation would surely take the next step with a grant for therapy dogs for disabled soldiers and veterans. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Florida to ensure that Congress stands behind our soldiers as well as our veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, let me first express my gratitude and admiration to the new ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon. He hit the ground running, a veteran of our committee, and his first baptism of fire was in the markup of the some-17 hours of this bill in committee, and we thank him for his leadership and for his diligence in making this a success.

Tomorrow, under the rule, Mr. Chairman, we will consider the various amendments, four groups of en bloc amendments and several by themselves, according to the rule that's been set forth and the time limits set thereon.

This is an important piece of legislation. It deals with the security of our country, the security of our citizens. It deals with those young men and young women in uniform wherever they may be. It's our job to do our best to support them and this bill does just that.

I thank the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. They have been magnificent to work with.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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 issues undertaken by the Departments of Defense and Energy.

We all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. This is especially true during a time of war, and it is always true of my good friend and colleague, Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton.

I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, without saying a word about the outgoing ranking member, John McHugh. I know we all agree that this committee, this Congress, and the 23rd District of New York will all miss the leadership of John McHugh. I look forward to speaking more about John later in our debate.

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 2010 last Wednesday. The vote was unanimous, 61-0.

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.

This legislation acknowledges that the United States has a vital national security interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists, supports a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by Congress, and calls on the President to provide our U.S. military commanders with the military forces they require in order to succeed.

In Iraq, the committee ensures the Congress will support the President's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our commanders on the ground the flexibility to hold hard-fought security gains and ensure the safety of our forces.

Mr. Chairman, we owe our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines the very best available equipment, training and support in order to provide them with the best possible tools to undertake their missions and return safely. The provisions that are already in this bill go a considerable way in demonstrating this support, but we can, and should, improve it.

Congress, and particularly the Armed Services Committees in both Chambers, has the unmistakable obligation to ensure that the Department of Defense develops and deploys defensive capabilities that protect the American people, our forward-deployed forces, and our allies. This includes promising programs in the areas of missile defense.

In a year where Iran and North Korea have demonstrated the capability and intent to pursue long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons programs, elements of genuine national security threat, this bill endorsed reductions to capabilities that would provide a comprehensive missile defense system to protect the U.S. homeland, our forward- deployed troops, and our allies.

We need to take steps that would reverse the administration's 35 percent reduction to a critical component of the national missile defense system located in Alaska and California, which is designed as a last line of defense to protect the U.S. homeland. It's unfortunate that we've been forced to trade national missile defense capabilities for more theater missile defense. Both are necessary, and both could have been adequately funded without such deep cuts.

Building on the Weapons Acquisition Reform bill that the President signed in May, this legislation takes a number of important steps on major weapons programs. I am pleased that this bill provides $368.8 million in advance procurement funding for 12 additional F-22s. Keeping the F-22 production line open is not only necessary to meet military requirements, but also sustains a critical sector of the defense industrial base and provides over 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at a time when our economy is struggling through a recession.

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 to protect our freedom. I am pleased that this legislation includes a 3.4 percent pay raise, which is half a percentage point above the President's request. I commend and thank Chairman Skelton for working to address the concurrent receipt in the suspension bill addressed earlier today. However, I remain concerned that we were not able to fund payments to military surviving spouses by repealing the ``widow's tax'' and allowing access to TRICARE for Guard and Reserve members who receive earlier retirement. If this is truly to be the Year of the Military Family, we must make it a priority to fund these programs, too.

One of the few areas where there is disagreement within our committee is detainee policy. These are differences that I believe need to be debated and given a vote within the full House. As you know, many Members believe the American people do not want detainees in Guantanamo brought to the sovereign territory of our country. I am disappointed we will not debate amendments dealing with the transfer or release of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into the United States.

Finally, I strongly agree with many Members who believe that Congress should do everything possible to ensure that the detainee pictures presently subject to the Freedom of Information Act are not released. The President and our military commanders determined that these photos, if released, would risk the safety of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the overwhelming support for this language in the Senate, I regret that we could not address this issue on the House floor today.

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 look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and pass H.R. 2647.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) the ranking member on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee such time as he may consume.

I yield now to the gentleman from Virginia, the subcommittee ranking member on the readiness committee, Mr. Forbes, 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

I yield, at this time, 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Utah, the one that led us in that great debate on the F-22 that saved the day.

(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield now 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Austria for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

You are correct, the Defense Department is moving toward reshaping its workforce by reducing the number of service support contractors and replacing them with government employees. We have been told this effort will hire over 13,000 government civilians to replace support contractors at a proposed savings of $900 million.

As you know, Chairman Skelton and I included in our committee report language that stresses our belief that these insourcing initiatives should not be driven by random goals or arbitrary budget reductions. In the language we also note that these insourcing initiatives should give appropriate consideration to the impacts on the contractor workforce. I'm also very concerned that the estimated cost savings will never be realized.

That said, I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Ohio and any other interested parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important issue of how to balance the defense workforce: military, civilian employee, and contract.

Mr. Chairman, we have had, I think, a lot of good input tonight on the bill. I ask that all of our Members tomorrow support the bill.

In the morning we will move into the amendment process. The chairman and his staff have done a tremendous job of helping put the 60-plus amendments that were approved out of the Rules Committee into a process that I think will help us in moving forward in an expeditious manner in the morning. I look forward to that.

Again, I thank the chairman for his graciousness and his leadership in moving the bill to this point.

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

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in war zones, we, in Congress, need to support them. I am proud to once again support the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to honor and support the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

I also wish to commend and congratulate both the Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their commitment to put partisanship aside in order to get this important bill to the floor.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee, authorizes $550.4 billion for the activities of the Department of Defense. It also provides $130 billion to support our combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts of the war on terror.

Our men and women in uniform and their families have sacrificed dearly to protect the United States, and that is why I am pleased that the bill will provide our troops with a 3.4 percent pay raise.

Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE coverage 100 days before they go on active duty and provides almost $2 billion for family housing programs to expand and improve the quality of military housing.

The bill authorizes the expansion of the size of the military by 15,000 Army troops, 8,000 Marines, over 14,500 Air Force personnel, and approximately 2,500 sailors in the Navy.

I would like to thank the committee and the distinguished chairman for including my request for funding, authorization obviously of funding, for the construction of a new, permanent headquarters for the United States Southern Command that is located in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Currently the Department of Defense is leasing the land for SOUTHCOM from a private individual. The funds authorized by this bill will be used to build a new headquarters on land adjacent to the current location and lease it from the State of Florida for the grand sum of $1 per year.

This provision is extremely important to my community because SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida's economy.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying legislation, I have deep reservations about the majority's decision to block full restoration of missile defense funding. This comes as North Korea's demented despot continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and threatens the United States and our friends and our allies with mass destruction.

Just today an official from the North Korean Central News Agency, a mouthpiece for the dictatorship said, ``If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and the people of Korea will wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all.''

At the same time, the Iranian tyranny, while it massacres its own people in the streets, continues to threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the map. It is clear to me that the world faces a grave and, I believe, imminent threat from both of those dictatorships in North Korea and Iran. Now is not the time to cut missile defense.

Since the beginning of military aviation, the United States has wisely invested in our military air superiority, and in recent military operations we have clearly seen our investments pay off. Our military air superiority saves the lives of our men and women in uniform and also saves the lives of countless civilians. Unfortunately, the Obama administration feels that it is not necessary to continue our long history of investment in air superiority and is calling for the termination of the F-22 fighter aircraft production, even though the chief of staff of the Air Force publicly called for continued production of F-22s.

Now, thankfully, the Armed Services Committee successfully reinstated over $300 million to at least keep alive F-22 production. Unfortunately, I am shown at this time a statement of administration policy where it reads that if the final bill presented to the President contains this provision keeping alive the F-22 production line, that the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto. Mr. Speaker, I think that's most unfortunate.

I am also concerned that the majority failed to support a repeal of the so-called widow's tax. This provision penalizes surviving spouses of servicemembers who die on active duty or from service-related conditions by forcing them to accept a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their military survivor benefit plan payments in order to receive tax- free dependency and indemnity compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I have cosponsored two-pieces of legislation introduced by Mr. Buyer and Mr. Ortiz to remedy this injustice, and I am hopeful that Congress will soon address it.

Now, as supportive as I am of the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule brought forth by the majority.

Prior to the consideration of the rule, Members from both sides of the aisle submitted 129 amendments to the Rules Committee. The vast majority of amendments, 79, were introduced by members of the majority party. Last night, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to make in order for discussion on this floor two-thirds of the majority amendments and one-third of the minority amendments.

Last week, when members of the minority submitted a number of amendments to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill, the majority claimed the minority were using dilatory tactics and shut down the ability of Members to offer amendments. This week, when the majority party offered a large number of amendments, the majority rewarded them for doing their jobs and representing their constituents by allowing 51 of their amendments for debate by the House.

At the same time, minority party members who were also representing the interests of their constituents were once again punished by the majority for doing their jobs and were only allowed 11 amendments.

In the end, the majority gets about five times the number of amendments made in order as the minority, and I think that's unfair. I think it's petty and unfair. What does the majority gain by using such an unfair process? In reality, nothing more than ending comity and diminishing the stature of this House and its Members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to point out to my friend that despite the fact that we support the committee having maintained the production line for the F-22, we made a motion in committee for an open rule that would have permitted the gentleman's amendment.

I will yield.

I thank the gentleman for his debate. Despite the fact that we're in disagreement on this issue, he is a great parliamentarian and it's an honor to serve with him.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

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

I thank my friend from Maine and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy, and I want to thank all who have come to participate in this debate. This legislation enjoys extraordinarily wide bipartisan support.

It's unfortunate that the rule that brings it to the floor is not fair. As I pointed out, it makes about two-thirds of the amendments that were introduced to the Rules Committee from the majority party in order and only about one-third of the amendments presented or introduced, proposed for debate by Members of the minority party. That's not fair. And it maintains a pattern that obviously we have seen deepened, augmented significantly in a very worrisome way in the appropriations process, where for the first time all of the appropriations bills are being brought to the floor under restrictive rules. We have had significant debate, but that's something that is also unfair and unfortunate, and it diminishes the rights of each of the Members of this House.

So I do think it's important we get to debate on legislation, in this case, this authorization of the Armed Forces legislation that enjoys such widespread bipartisan support.

So once again, opposing the rule and opposing the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2647. This bill contains significant policy and funding initiatives that address important issues for our military personnel and quality of life.

I was honored to serve with Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Davis, who I have seen firsthand promote our servicemembers, their families, and veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton and the professional staff for their efforts; particularly John Chapla and Jeanette James.

To that end, the bill contains many important initiatives, including a military pay raise of 3.4 percent. The raise is 0.5 percent above the President's budget request.

Mindful of the challenge the Army is having with large numbers of nondeployable personnel, we have recommended continued growth in Army end strength. The bill would allow the Army to increase by 30,000 in 2011 or 2012. I am particularly pleased that we changed the matching fund requirement to a 75-25 percent ratio between the Department of Defense and the States for the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program.

In addition, the bill protects child custody arrangements for deployed parents, championed by Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio. With all these good things in the bill, I must again raise my disappointment that we were unable to even debate my amendment in full committee dealing with concurrent receipt; the elimination of the survivor benefit plan; the dependency and

indemnity compensation offset, more sadly known as the widows tax; the extension of health care to early retiring Reserve component members; and the use of the misnamed Reserve fund in the budget resolution.

Had the Democratic leadership seen eliminating these injustices as a priority, they could have allocated the small percentages necessary in the $15 trillion they provided for government spending in 2010 to 2014. This is less than one-sixth of 1 percent of mandatory spending for this period.

In addition, I was disappointed by the fact that for the second year in a row, we were unable to include my amendment to extend early retirement credit for service for National Guardsmen and Reservists back to September 11, 2001, retrospectively. The prospective retirement credits since January 28, 2008, is a start; but as a 31-year veteran of the Army National Guard, I know more needs to be done. As a Nation, we owe more than our gratitude for the brave men and women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the sacrifices they make to protect our freedom.

With that, Mr. Chair, H.R. 2647 is a strong defense authorization bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of H.R. 2647.

Congratulations to our dedicated colleague Congressman John McHugh of New York for his selection to serve as Secretary of the Army.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2647, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This bill contains significant policy and funding initiatives that address important issues for military personnel and quality of life.

I was honored to serve with Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairwoman Susan Davis who I have seen firsthand promote our servicemembers, their families, and veterans.

Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton and the professional staff of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts, particularly John Chapla and Jeanette James.

To that end, this bill contains many important initiatives, including: A military pay raise of 3.4 percent. The raise is .5 percent above the President's Budget request which reduces the pay gap to 2.4 percent from 13.5 percent in fiscal year 1999, culminating ten years of enhanced pay raises.

Mindful of the challenge the Army is having with large numbers of non-deployable personnel, we recommend continued growth in Army end strength. The bill would allow the Army to increase by 30,000 in 2011 or 2012. Such growth would significantly improve the Army's ability to deploy fully manned units.

I am particularly pleased that we changed the matching fund requirement to a 75-25 percent ratio between the Department of Defense and the states for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program. Other initiatives I would mention are:

The statutory mandate for the Department of Defense to account for all the missing from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and other conflicts designated by the Secretary of Defense, and increase the number of identifications from the current 70 per year to 350 per year by 2020; and

Extending TRICARE Reserve Select to members of the Retired Reserve who qualify for a non-regular retirement but have not reached age 60, otherwise known as ``grey area retirees.''

Continuing our commitment to support our wounded warriors, the bill would:

Establish a database to track service members who have been exposed to blasts to further enhance the care provided to for blast-related health issues, and;

Require medical examinations before service members with post- traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury may be involuntarily separated from the service.

In addition, the bill protects child custody arrangements for deployed parents championed by Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio.

With all the good things in this bill, I must again raise my disappointment that we were unable to even debate my amendment at full committee dealing with concurrent receipt, the elimination of the Survivor Benefit Plan and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation offset, more sadly known as the widow's tax, the extension of health care to early retiring reserve component members, and the use of the misnamed Reserve Fund in the Budget Resolution.

I would note that since the introduction of my amendment, the Democratic leadership has found a way to fund for nine months a very limited concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. That is a step forward to eliminating some of the injustice inflicted on disabled retirees. It however does nothing to cure the injustice still being suffered by most persons losing their rightly earned benefits because of the remaining concurrent receipt prohibitions.

Had the Democratic leadership seen eliminating these injustices as a priority, they could have allocated the small percentages necessary in the 15 trillion dollars they provided for government spending in 2010 to 2014. This is less than one-sixth of one percent of mandatory spending for this period. Or, they could have used the Reserve Fund authority as proposed in my amendment.

Instead we must settle for a small pittance for a small group of retirees.

I hope that since the authority for this limited concurrent receipt is for only nine months, that the Democratic leadership makes resolving all the concurrent receipt and the Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation injustices a real, not symbolic priority, next year. We should focus on eliminating the widow's tax.

In addition, I was disappointed by the fact that, for the second year in a row, we were unable to include my amendment to extend early retirement credit for service for National Guardsmen and Reservists back to September 11, 2001, retrospectively. The prospective retirement credit since January 28, 2008, is a start, but as a 31 year veteran of the Army National Guard I know more needs to be done.

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 to protect our freedom.

With that, Mr. Chair, H.R. 2647 is a strong defense authorization bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of H.R. 2647.