H.Res. 808

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billions in U.S. Aid Never Reached Pakistan Army

(By Kathy Gannon)

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

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

battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy

and other causes, such as fighting India.

Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming

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

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

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

Associated Press.

The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous

because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly,

was backed up by other retired and active generals, former

bureaucrats and government ministers.

At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a

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

making it easier to divert money intended for the military to

bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies.

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

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

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

why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing

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

Generals and ministers say the diversion of the money hurt

the military in very real ways:

Helicopters critical to the battle in rugged border regions

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

soldiers were trapped by insurgents in the tribal regions

without a helicopter lift to rescue them.

The limited night vision equipment given to the army was

taken away every three months for inventory and returned

three weeks later.

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

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

front-line force, for training.

The details on misuse of American aid come as Washington

again promises Pakistan money. Legislation to triple general

aid to Pakistan cleared Congress last week. The legislation

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

assistance to Pakistan, upon several conditions. The

conditions include certification that Pakistan is cooperating

in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that

Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating

terrorist groups and that Pakistan security forces are not

subverting the country's political or judicial processes.

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

reimbursing money spent. For example, Pakistan is still

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

States under a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse allies for

money spent on the war on terror.

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

it doles out.

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

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

Wright said in a telephone interview.

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

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

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

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

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

resigned in August 2008.

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

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

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

complains of inadequate equipment to battle Taliban

entrenched in tribal regions.

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

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last

year.

Pakistan has received more money from the fund than any

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

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

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

Yet by 2008, the United States had provided Pakistan with

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

all.

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

asked not to be identified because it is against military

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

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

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

reality--the army got peanuts.''

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

from the United States better suited to fighting India than

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

missiles, sophisticated surveillance equipment, air-to-air

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

16 fighter aircraft.

``Pakistan insisted and America agreed. Pakistan said we

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

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

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

against India.''

The army also suffered from mismanagement, Durrani said. As

an example, he cited Pakistani attempts to buy badly needed

attack helicopters.

Pakistan asked for Cobra helicopters because it knows how

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

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

company that had no experience with Cobras and took two

years, he said.

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

helicopter--a debilitating handicap in the battle against

insurgents who hide, train and attack from the hulking

mountains that run like a seam along the Afghan-Pakistani

border.

The army was also frustrated about not getting more money.

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

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

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

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

seriously.

The hospital and rehabilitation costs for the wounded have

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

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

their children and provides health care.

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

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

to the grieving families.''

Even while money was being siphoned off for other purposes

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

even had specific knowledge of what went where, according to

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

reports covered 2002 through 2008.

The reports found that the Pentagon often ignored its own

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

money without asking for an explanation.

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

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

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

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

without checking, according to the report.

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

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

government was being misused, but to no avail.

``They both deserved each other, Musharraf and the

Americans,'' he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts by providing the Defense Department the authority to require return of award and incentive fees. The bill prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a servicemember's death or severe injury. This, of course, is in response to the number of soldiers who were electrocuted by bad plumbing work.

To address concerns about the treatment of detainees, the bill bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan.

In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel and to make hearsay evidence harder to use in court. It improves procedures for the handling of classified information while also permitting military commissions to continue existing cases for 90 days or until revisions have been made to supporting court manuals and handbooks.

The bill matches the administration's request for $9.3 billion for missile defense programs and provides the resources necessary to meet threats facing the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies, and provides $2.2 billion to support the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs. It strengthens the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground testing.

Further, the bill provides technical and financial support to local law enforcement and prosecutors that they can more aggressively try violent crimes which are motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability; expands the ability of Federal prosecutors to try similar types of cases in Federal court if State or local officials are unable or unwilling to prosecute these cases; and criminalizes attacks against U.S. servicemembers because of their service to their country.

I want to address one last point. The bill includes new hate crimes legislation that will prohibit offenses based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. This kind of far-reaching protection is important for America, and I am proud to support it.

There are still far too many incidences of violence in and around our schools and churches. During the last 10 years, 69 persons have been killed or injured at church and another 122 children have died in or around their school. The numbers are devastating. One has only to look at the beating death of Chicago teenager Derrion Albert outside his high school, an honor student, to see how devastating it is to see violence in our schools. I hope this bill can help bring an end to that sorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution and ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly that all men and women must be treated equally, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Hate crimes are real. They spread fear and intimidation among entire communities. This bill would strengthen local law enforcement's ability to prosecute hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the victim. It's long past time for Congress to pass this important legislation to help prosecute those who would commit these heinous acts.

Some have opposed this bill by saying it would legislate ``thought crimes.'' It is patently false to say that we're criminalizing thought. We are criminalizing the brutality that results when these thoughts lead to the death and serious injury of an innocent victim. This is no more about criminalizing thought than the antilynching laws were about criminalizing knot tying.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic and prosecutorial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime of violence that is motivated by prejudice based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim. It also authorizes the Department of Justice to award grants to state and local law enforcement to assist in hate crime prevention.

This bill is about hate crimes and giving law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute them. This bill has strong support from over 300 civil rights, religious, LGBT, law enforcement and civic organizations, and I'm particularly pleased to identify the support of the Garden State Equality, a group that has fought tirelessly to fight discrimination against all Americans, including discrimination based on gender identity.

The bill has in the past been approved by the House and the Senate only to fail to reach the president's desk. Yet, today we will finally pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Every year, this bill provides us with an opportunity to make sure we are doing right by the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647) would provide a 3.4-percent pay raise for our troops. It also would expand TRICARE health coverage for reserve component members and their families for 180 days prior to mobilization and prohibit fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care for one year. To help our wounded warriors with their recovery, the bill authorizes funding for travel and transportation for three designated persons, including non-family members, to visit hospitalized service members. It also authorizes funding to allow seriously injured service members to use a non-medical attendant for help with daily living or during travel for medical treatment.

H.R. 2647 also contains provisions designed to improve and rationalize our policy on detainees. I am especially pleased that the bill contains a provision I wrote that requires the videorecording of interrogations of detainees held at theater-level detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the first time, the Defense Department will have a uniform standard for collecting videorecorded intelligence from detainees through this mandatory program. Law enforcement organizations across our country use this technique routinely in interrogations, and it is past time the Defense Department adopted a common standard for videorecording interrogations to maximize intelligence collection and protect both the interrogators and the detainees.

I'm pleased that this bill contains strong hate crimes prevention provisions that I have supported for years. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which is included in this bill, would provide technical and financial support to local law enforcement and prosecutors so that they can more aggressively try violent crimes which are motivated by a victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability and expands Federal jurisdiction to cover such crimes. Additionally, the bill would make it a Federal crime to attack U.S. servicemembers or their property on account of their service to country. The bill also includes stronger protections for freedom of speech and association, including religious speech and association, than the House passed version of this legislation. These changes will ensure that religious leaders will not have to change the expression of their beliefs or how they serve their congregations, as a result of the enactment of hate crimes legislation.

I am also pleased to see that the Conference Report includes most of Senator Schumer's Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, which had been attached to the Senate-passed bill. That bill would facilitate the ability of military and overseas voters to request voter registration and absentee ballot applications by mail and electronically, the ability of election officials to transmit blank absentee ballots to military and overseas voters, and the ability of military voters to return their completed paper ballots safely, securely and free of charge by express mail, with generous pick-up and delivery time-frames. The latter provisions are similar to my own legislation on that topic, the Military and Overseas Voting Enhancement Act, which was the very first election reform bill I introduced in the House this session.

I would also like to commend my colleague Ms. Maloney, who I was pleased to collaborate with on her Overseas Voting Practical Amendments Act, which included provisions to facilitate the use of electronic transmission for outgoing applications and ballots similar to those in the Schumer bill that were not covered by my bill. I agree with Senator Schumer that facilitating the ability of our service men and women to vote conveniently, expeditiously, securely, and--to say the least--for free--should be our top priority. They put their lives on the line for us every day, and the electoral process should recognize their sacrifice accordingly.

However, whatever we do to facilitate the ability of our military personnel to vote, we must never do it at the expense of the security or privacy of their votes. The strong language included in the conference report requires that the privacy of our military and overseas voters be protected. And in providing only for the express mail return of completed hard copy ballots, it also recognizes that return of completed ballots by electronic means presents security risks. However, the bill calls for the study of ``new election technology'' to facilitate the ability of our military and overseas voters to vote. We must remember that ``new'' does not necessarily mean better, and that too often technology has been adopted before being

properly evaluated for the potential unintended consequences it may cause.

Chlorofluorocarbons were hailed as an innovation in refrigeration; we've since discovered that they damaged the ozone layer, so they are now banned. Asbestos was hailed for its insulation properties; we've since discovered that it causes lung disease, so it is now banned. DDT was hailed as a disease-fighting pesticide and its inventor was awarded the Nobel Prize; we've since discovered it causes serious harm to living organisms, so it is now banned. Electronic voting machines were hailed as making voting easier and more accessible; we've since learned that in most cases their results cannot be reliably and consistently verified. Whatever we do to enhance the ability of our military and overseas voters to vote, we must never implement anything that could compromise the accuracy, integrity, and security of the vote count.

One key provision in the House version of the bill that is not in this conference report is a requirement that the Secretary of Defense conduct suicide prevention outreach to every Individual Ready Reserve member who has done at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. I was astonished to learn that some in the Senate objected to this provision on the grounds of costs. How much would it cost the Defense Department to task the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to have his staff make phone calls to check up on IRR members who might be at risk of taking their own lives? If we can find tens of millions of dollars to buy extra engines for the F-35 fighter that the Pentagon doesn't want, there is no excuse for the Congress not to find the money to help prevent combat veterans from killing themselves.

Finally, this bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to ``submit to the congressional defense committees separate reports containing assessments of the extent to which the campaign plan for Iraq and the campaign plan for Afghanistan (including the supporting and implementing documents for each such plan) each adhere to military doctrine.'' Unfortunately, we need far more than a simple assessment as to whether our armed forces are fighting according to established doctrine. What we need is a critical examination of whether they should be fighting in Afghanistan at all. Some of us have asked for a plan of success or a plan of withdrawal before sending another wave of soldiers. We have received no such plan.

As I've stated previously, I will not support an endless military commitment in this region. If a year from now I do not see unambiguous indicators of success--fewer civilian casualties, Afghan and Pakistani security forces in the lead on the security mission, genuine progress in rebuilding Afghanistan's devastated infrastructure and civil institutions--I will not support further funding for operations and will support only measures that will bring our forces home, and quickly.

On balance, this is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today the House will consider the bipartisan conference report for the 2010 National Defense Authorization legislation. With this important legislation, I think we are sending the message to our men and women in uniform that we support them and that we deeply appreciate their service.

The conference report authorizes over $550 billion for the activities of the Department of Defense. It also provides approximately $130 billion to support our combat operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of the war on international terrorism.

I wish to commend both the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. Skelton, and the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, both good friends and admired colleagues, for their commitment that they have demonstrated in this legislation to put partisanship aside in order to get this important legislation to the President.

While I support the conference report, I know it is not perfect. No human endeavor is. But I believe that the conference report will strengthen our national security and help modernize our military. It will provide servicemembers and their families with improved health care, support, and quality-of-life programs. I'm pleased that it includes the House-passed 3.4 percent pay raise for our troops instead of the lower request that had come from the President.

Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE coverage 180 days before they go on active duty and will prevent increases in copayments for inpatient care at civilian hospitals under TRICARE. The bill provides over $2 billion for family housing programs to expand and improve the quality of military housing.

The legislation authorizes the expansion of our military by 30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, and over 14,000 Air Force personnel and approximately 2,500 members of the Navy.

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

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

As a supporter of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I am pleased to see that it was included in the underlying legislation, though I wish that the provision would have been expanded to include also more serious penalties for crimes against members of the armed services and their families. There are people who hate our armed services for what they symbolize, and our armed services, I think, deserve the additional protection from crimes of violence.

There are aspects of this legislation, obviously, with which I disagree, Mr. Speaker. Since the beginning of military aviation, the United States has very wisely invested in our military air superiority. In recent military operations, we've clearly seen that our investments pay off. Our military air superiority saves the lives of our men and women in uniform, and it saves the lives of countless civilians. That's why I am very disappointed that the underlying legislation fails to include funding for the F-22, the world's most advanced fighter plane and one that we may very well need in future operations. Obviously not against ragtag terrorists, but against the superpowers of the future.

I hope and pray that this shortsighted decision will not hurt the long-term safety of our Nation and our men and women in uniform.

I also have deep reservations about the decision to block full funding restoration for missile defense. This unwise decision, in my opinion, comes at a time when the demented despot of North Korea continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and threatens the United States and our friends and allies with destruction.

The Iranian tyranny, while it continues to massacre its people in the streets perhaps today in a less public manner than a few months ago, nevertheless continues to massacre its people. It also threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map. It's clear to me that the world faces a grave and I believe imminent threat from the dictatorships in North Korea and Iran, and now is not the time to cut missile defense. Unfortunately, because of the request from the executive branch and

acquiescence here on the part of the leadership, it is occurring, and I think it is a mistake.

I would have liked to have seen included in this legislation section 1226 of the Senate version of the bill, which would have required a report to Congress on the Republic of China's--that's free China, Taiwan--defense capabilities. That report would have greatly enhanced the ability of Congress and the administration to assess their obligations to sell defense articles as required under the Taiwan Relations Act, ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''

The peace in that area has been maintained because this Congress, throughout the decades ever since the betrayal of Taiwan, this Congress has insisted on the United States selling, making available for purchase by the Republic of China, the military equipment and technology necessary to deter an armed attack. So I am sorry that that provision that was in the Senate legislation is not included in the final conference report.

Again, despite the aspects of the legislation with which I do not agree, I feel that overall this legislation is necessary and that we pass it. Obviously although it's not perfect, it helps modernize and it supports our military forces. It provides our men and women in uniform with support they need and deserve.

So I would ask my colleagues, as I have done, to look further than the aspects with which one may disagree within the legislation and pass it.

I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my friend, the great leader from Indiana, Mr. Pence.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people really were outraged, often finding out the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or really even to read the bills.

For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and- trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances, much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset.

A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe legislation should be posted online in final form and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would not be an issue, as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site; yet, time and time again, the distinguished Speaker and majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and the general public for 72 hours before they be brought to the House floor for a vote.

That's why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the Department of Defense Authorization Act. But I want to make clear, the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird- Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can pass the Defense authorization bill today and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 544.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and the extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 808, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report currently under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010. I especially want to thank my ranking member, my good friend, Buck McKeon, the gentleman from California, our partners in the Senate, Senator Carl Levin and Senator John McCain, and all the conferees from the Armed Services and 13 other committees who have made this conference report a reality.

Mr. McKeon, brand new as ranking member of our committee, hit the ground running and has done yeoman's work, and I particularly wish to single him out and express my appreciation for the work he has done to help bring this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a base of $550 billion for the United States military. This has $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, which total $680 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we are at war. This is a deadly serious moment in this body. This bill is critical for national security, and I am pleased to say this bill gets it right.

The conference report provides several major victories for our troops and their families, and the bill strikes a right balance between our focus on the immediate fights in Afghanistan and Iraq and the long-term needs of our military.

The vast majority of this bill has bipartisan support. The bill provides almost $20 billion combined for Army and Marine Corps reset and equipment shortfalls in the Guard and Reserves. It has $550 million for Army barracks and Guard and Reserve infrastructure. To boost readiness and reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of the military all across four services and authorizes an additional 30,000 Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

This bill reflects our effort to recognize 2009 as the Year of the Military Family by providing a 3.4 percent pay raise for all servicemembers. The bill also extends the authority of the Defense Department to offer bonuses and incentive pay. It expands TRICARE health coverage. It prohibits fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care for a year, provides for $2.2 billion for family housing programs and improves the benefits available to wounded warriors.

To ensure our strategy in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan is effective, this bill requires the President to assess U.S. efforts and report on the progress. The bill authorizes funds to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces and authorize the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund. The bill improves accountability and oversight of U.S. assistance. The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq.

On acquisition reform, the conference report supports the plan to increase the size of the acquisition workforce and reduce reliance on contractors for acquisition functions.

It eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse through better contract oversight. The bill also repeals the National Security

Personnel System, returning employees to the general schedule over 2 years while providing additional flexibility for hiring and personnel management.

The conference agreement prohibits the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States, its territories and possessions, and restricts detainee transfers until after the President has submitted a plan to Congress.

The conference report revises the Military Commissions Act to make military commissions fair and effective and ensure that convictions stick.

Let me briefly address two difficult aspects of the conference report.

First, I am disappointed, and so very disappointed, that we were not able to retain the House's provision implementing the President's proposal on concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. The Armed Services Committee fought hard with the assistance of our leadership and many other committees to pay for that proposal. The Senate's budget rules, however, would not support a solution. And I urge the President to work with us in a way to pay for this, which will meet the budgetary rules of both the House and the Senate.

Finally, regarding the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I have said several times that I would have preferred it to have been enacted as a stand-alone bill, not on this Defense bill. But it's important to note that the conferees included important sentencing guidelines for crimes against military servicemembers and added protections for the first amendment rights of preachers and ministers to that bill.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate passed its version of the bill with the hate crimes provision by a vote of 87-7, which is a strong bipartisan vote in the United States Senate.

Whatever one's position on hate crimes, I believe that the enormous good done in this legislation merits its support by every Member of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We should support the troops. We should support their families. We should make sure that they have the finest equipment and training possible. That's what this bill does. This bill will support our troops in the field and their families at home and meet our Nation's immediate military requirements and preserve the ability to deter and respond to future threats.

I urge the House to vote for this conference report and move it to the President's desk as soon as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his straightforward

commitment to the young men and women in American uniform. At this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

I wish to remind my fellow Missourian that the United States Senate voted for the Defense bill with the inclusion of the section that he objects to by 87 votes to 7, a strong bipartisan vote.

I now yield 3 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Mr. Langevin.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, my colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

May I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and chairman of the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

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

I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Does the gentleman from South Carolina have any additional speakers?

I prefer to close, Mr. Speaker, after the gentleman from Ohio speaks.

Mr. Speaker, in your mind's eye picture a young Army corporal preparing to drive down a road in his security vehicle to help in an ongoing firefight in the mountains of Afghanistan. Picture in your mind this young corporal dressed in the Army fatigue uniform, an M16A2 standard-issue rifle in his hand with bullets made in America for that M16A2, wearing body armor furnished him and in the latest security vehicle provided by the United States Army.

That M16A2 rifle was furnished by the Congress of the United States. The ammunition for that rifle was furnished by the Congress of the United States. The body armor on that soldier was furnished by the Congress of the United States, and the vehicle in which he rides, that security vehicle was furnished by the Congress of the United States.

As a young soldier, this young corporal goes down the road, look at that soldier and answer the question, Did you vote to support me as a Member of Congress of the United States?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the conference report increases active and reserve component end-strengths; provides a 3.4 percent pay raise; prohibits increases in TRICARE Prime and Standard cost shares; improves the ability of servicemembers to vote and have their votes counted; and provides numerous improvements to assist wounded warriors.

As a veteran myself and father of four sons serving in the military, I know this is an important bill. However, this conference report falls short of what should be done on behalf of our military and our military families. I am disappointed that the conference report fails to adopt a House provision to allow for concurrent receipt of military disability retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for all disability retirees regardless of disability rating percentage or years of service.

There are numerous explanations for why we did not adopt this paid- for provision, including that the President did not provide the proper offsets, or that the Senate objected to the proposed offsets for the mandatory spending.

In my view, these reasons do not justify inaction on this issue. It sends the wrong message to our military and veterans that this provision was kept out of the conference report.

It is past time we stop talking about support for concurrent receipt and repeals of the offset in the Survivor Benefit Plan-Dependency Indemnity Compensation SBP-DIC offset, the tragic widow's tax. It is time for action to do the right thing now to remove these unfair burdens on widows and disabled military veterans. Sadly, billions of dollars for Cash for Clunkers but lack of consideration for widows and disabled veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, has many provisions that improve the strengths and quality of life of active duty and reserve personnel and their families. It increases active and reserve component end-strengths; provides a 3.4% pay raise; prohibits increases in TRICARE Prime and Standard cost shares; improves the ability of service members to vote and have their votes be counted; and provides numerous improvements to assist wounded service members. As a veteran myself, and a father of four sons today in the military, I know this is an important bill. I am the ranking Republican serving on the Military Personnel Subcommittee led by Chairwoman Susan Davis who I know is devoted to our troops and families.

There are, however, areas where this conference report falls short of what should be done on behalf of our military and their families. I am disappointed that the conference report fails to adopt a House provision, based on the President's proposal, to allow for concurrent receipt of military disability retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for all Chapter 61 disability retirees regardless of disability rating percentage or years of service.

There are numerous explanations for why we did not adopt this paid- for provision, including that the President did not provide the proper offsets, or that the Senate objected to the proposed offsets for the mandatory spending. There are also concerns that the Senate could not muster enough votes on this veterans' issue to overcome a budget point of order against the provision on the floor.

In my view, all these reasons do not justify inaction on this issue. It appears that if this provision had been given the level of priority it demands, leadership both in the House and in the Senate would have found a way to adopt it in the conference report. Just as they found $3 billion of borrowed money for cash for clunkers in a matter of hours.

The House proposal, based on President Obama's budget request, was paid for, even though it was a flawed proposal to start with. It provided only nine months of concurrent receipt benefits which means they would have expired before the House and Senate could have completed another defense authorization bill to extend the benefit.

If the House Democratic leadership had wanted to, it could have found the funding necessary to offset a fully funded benefit ($5.2B over 10 years), or, as a minimum, to fund at least 12 to 18 months of benefit to ensure Congress had time to act again.

It sends the wrong message to our military and veterans that this provision was kept out of the conference report. It sends the wrong message in particular when the objection is a procedural matter--a budgetary point of order--that has been ignored by the Senate in previous instances. In fact, the last time it did arise was when we passed TRICARE for Life and there were votes necessary to defeat the budget point of order.

It should be noted that we had avenues that could have been pursued to address this budgetary concern--namely allowing House repeal of the deepwater drilling to stand as a spending offset. Unfortunately, that option and this opportunity to take action on this issue were not supported.

The bottom line is this. The failure to adopt this provision sends the wrong message to our disabled military veterans that we would not take a modest first step in providing concurrent receipt for all disabled military personnel.

It is past time we stop talking about support for concurrent receipt and repeals of the offset in the Survivor Benefit Plan--Dependency Indemnity Compensation, (SBP-DIC offset) the so-called tragic widow's tax. It is time for action to do the right thing to remove these unfair burdens on widows and disabled military veterans. Sadly, billions for cash for clunkers, but lack of consideration for widows.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), the former mayor of Dayton, Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Congressman Wittman who represents America's historic First District of Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully reserve my time on behalf of the Republican leader who will be here shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader, for when he arrives.

We are reserving our full time for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) as soon as he arrives.

Mr. Speaker, as we close on the Republican side, indeed, this is such an important bill for the military of our country. As has been indicated by so many of my colleagues, with the highest regard that we have for the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, there is great distress over the additional language that should not have been added to this bill.

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