of $500 million for our day-to-day operations of army bases which is a direct impact on our soldiers. it also provides increase of $700 million above the administration's budget to address the equipment shortfalls of the national guard and reserve units. . >> the war in afghanistan is an essential mission to ensure our national security. to ensure the wars are effective and achieve the intended goals within well-defined timelines, the bill requires the president to assist u.s. efforts in regularly report on progress, including providing timelines about which he plans to achieve his goals. it also extends the authorization the pakistan counterinsurgency fund through fiscal year 2011, to low them to quickly and more effectively

go after terrorists' safe havens. the bill also provides $1.6 billion for coalition support funds to reimburse nations that are providing logistical military and other support to our troops in iraq and afghanistan. the bill upholds congress' responsibility to provide oversight to the process of drawing down the mountain of material purchase transport and built up in iraq at tremendous expense to the taxpayer. in the era of nonproliferation, the bill continues our focus on keeping weapons of mass destruction and materials out of the hands of terrorists and strengthens our nonprolifetion programs and activities. the bill increases funding for the department of energy's nonproliferation programs and adds funding to continue the administration's plan to secure and remove all known nuclear

materials that can be used for weapons. there are other good things in this bill, which my colleagues will cover. i will recognize the armed services committee for their contributions in making this bill one of the best that the committee has put forward in recent years. also, mr. speaker, i want to brag about the wonderful staff that we have in this armed services committee. they make it all work well. mr. speaker, our committee has been and will continue to be strong proponents to our nation's surity and the people that it defends. we will continue to do what is right and necessary to ensure that our country is safe and secure. we must continue to work with the president to ensure that our citizens are safe, that our nation is secure -- our nation's security is paramount. i urge my colleagues to support our troops and their families and vote for the defense authorization bill. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the the gentleman from californ. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself as muctime as i can consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> we need to address the wide range of national security activities undertaken by the department of defense and the department of energy. we all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. this is especially true during a time of war, and it's always true of my good friend a colleague, our armed services committee chairman ike skelton. as a result of chairman skeleton's teless efforts to put forward this bill, our committee reported out the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011 last wednesday. the vote was unanimous, 59-0. consistent with the long staing bipartisan practice of the armed services committee, this bill reflects our committee's continued strong suort r the brave men and women of the united states armed

forces. the defense authorization bill authorizes $567 billion in budget authority for the fiscal year011 base budget of the department of defense and national security programs of the department of energy, and authorizes $139 billion in funding to support operations in iraq, afghanistanand elsewhere in the global war on terrorism. this bill does an admirable job in dealing with some of our greatest national security challenges, addressing the wars in iraq and afghanistan, h.r. 1536 authorized the fiscal year 2011 overseas contingency operations. mr. mckeon: with respect to afghanistan, this bill updates reporting requirements, including asking for the conditions and criteria that will be used to measure progress. instead of allowing the ticking washington political clock to determine our end state. i am very pleased that the chairman and our colleagues on

the committee joined us in euring that life saving combat enablers such as forest protection, medical evacuation, and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance capabilities are deployed in time to fully support the 30,000 additional troops scheduled to arrive in afghanistan by this summer. building on the acquisition reform act this body passed in april, this legislation takes a number of important steps on major weapons programs. we strongly believe that $110 billion non-competitive sole source 25-year contract should not be permitted. therefore we strongly support the inclusion of funding to complete development of the f-6 competitive engine for the joint strike fighter. as a facing, we owe more than our gratitude to brave men and women in uniform and their families pastnd present. for the sacrifices they makand have made to protect our

freedom. we're pleased that this legislation includes pay raise, which is half a percentage point above the president's request. a major disappointment is once again the committee and house leadership were unable to find the mandatorspending offsets needed to eliminate the widow's tax, a tax that occurs because survivorsust forfeit most or all of their survivor benefit plan annuity to receive dependency indemnity compensation. nor were we able to proinvite for con insurgent receipt of retired pay and v.a. disability pay. i know that chairman skeleton has amendmented to define the offsets, but so far, despite this house approving trillions in spending that is not offset, thisody has been unable or unwilling to find the means to support widows and disabled veterans. one of the areas where there's disagreement between the aisles

is detainee policy. we need to keep terrorists off our soil, not fight to get them here. we're disappointed that the bill does not prohibit the transfer of guantanamo bay detainees to u.s. soil. finally, for the last eight years, we've asked our men and women of the armed forces and their families to make repeated sacrifices while serving this nation. they have unhesitatingly and selflessly responded in a magnificent manner, without hesitation, putting mission and nation ahead of self and family. now the proponents of repealing don't ask, don't tell want to rush a vote to the floor that disrupts the processhat was put in place earlier this year to give the troops the opportunity to make their view known on this most important issue. after making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two yes over the course of eight years, the -- the two wars over e

course of eight years, the men and women of our military deserve to be heard. congress acting first is the equivalent to turninto our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, your opinion, your views do not count. yesterday, i spoke to and received letters from all four service chiefs. i asked the copies of those letters be included in the record. the chairman: so ordered. mr. mckeon: let me read a couple experts, mr. chairman. general schwartz writes, i believe it's important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the armed forces, that the secretary of defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the don't ask, don't tell law. such action sends an important signal to our airmen and families that their opinion

matters. general casey, the army chief of staff writes, i believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward. similar views are expressed by admiral roughheaand general conaway. mr. chairman, i planned on addressing this in detail when we debate mr. murphy's amendment. unfortunately, the leadership deemed this debate, this issue so critical to the morale and welfare of our military worthy of only 10 mites of debate. 10 minutes. the repeal of don't ask, don't tell will get as much time for debate today as the managers amendment. this is an outrage. i'd like to make one last pot. if this body were to adopt mr. murphy's amendment, then this house would breech the trust of

2.5 million men and women in uniform and their families by saying to them that their voices n't count. we owe our military personnel better. in order to allow this house the time it needs to hear from r military forces through the process that was set up earlier this year and their families, before we make a decision, i would encourage members to vote against the don't ask, don't tell compromise. and against final passage if my democratic colleagues refe to wait to hear from our troops. in years past, i believe that this legislation reflects many of the armed service committee's priorities in supporting our nation's dedicated and courageous service members. i thank chairman skeleton for putting -- skelton and helping us to stay focused on delivering a bill that protects, sustains, and builds our forces. i support h.r. 5136 as passed by

the house armed services committee. we never in the committee, in our mark-up, we never held a full committee hearing on don't ask, don't tell. we never included it or discussed it in our debate in the armed services committee. i look forward to working with my colleagues to improve h.r. 5136. i reserve the balance of my time. the chairman: the gentleman reserves his time. the the gentleman from-month. mr. skelton: i yield three minutes to my distingshed colleague, the the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. the chairman: the the gentleman from is recognized for three minutes. >> i asked unanimous content to revise and extend my remarks. the chairman: ordered. >> i rise for the national defense act of 2011. i want to first thank mr.

skelton for his outstanding leadership of this committee. he has once again put together a bill that reflects the priorities that should be in place for national defense. first and foremost, support our troops. i know nobody on that committee cares more about that issue than mr. skelton. he has once again made sure that this bill reflects that. it gives them a higher pay raise than was recommended by the department of defense. mr. smith: and across the board makes sure that our troops and our families get the support they need to continue to do the azing job that they are doin of defending this country. it is a great privilege to serve on this committee with mr. skelton and with mr. mckeon, to have the responsibility for supporting our troo who have served us so well. i thank him for his great leadership and forhis bill. on the air-land sub committee, i want to thank mr. bartlett, the ranking member on this committee. we have uly worked together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill. we have a lot that we disagree on on a partisan basis in this body, but on the armed services committee, we work in a

bipartisan way to make sure that we have a defense bill that protects our national security and supports our troops, and mr. bartlett certainly upholds that standard and it's a great pleasure working with him. on our subcommittee, our top priority is to support our soldiers and airmen in the fit that they are now fighting in ir and afghanistan. we want to make sure they have thequipment they need to fulfill the mission that we have asked them to do. towards that end, we have $3.9 billion in the bill to upgrade animpre our helicopters, which are so critical to the mission that they are fighting. $3.4 billion to fully fund the mine resistant vehicles that have donsuch an amazing job of proving the survivability of our troops when hit by i.a.d.'s. $3.4 billion for the jido account, which continues to find more and better ways to protect our troops from improvised explosi devices.

$3.7 billioto fund intelligence and reconnaissance, which is critical to make sure that our troops get the information they need when they need it, to be in the best position to protect themselves on the battlefield. $1 billion for new strikers, a vehicle that has been critical for our combat by -- bring grade. we are making sure in this bill that our troops get wh they need to fulfill thmission we have asked them to do. we also s aside an additional $700 million in this bill for the army and air force guard reserve and equipment accounts. guard and reserve members have been asked to do far more than they ever have in the history of ts country. they are stressed and strained, and their equipment is being useat a farreater pace than anyone anticipated. we want to make sure that they have the funds available to replenish that equipment and make sure that they get the training they receive so that they're able to do the job here in the u.s. we ask them to do and also the job we ask them to do infghanistan and iraq. we are also concerned in this

bill -- ntinue to be concerned about our procurement and acquisition process. we passed acquisition reform again under chairman skelton's great leadership, but we have a farme number of programs, certainly the joint sike fighter, future combat systems that have not delivered on time and on budt. we have to make sue get every penny that we send and it is spent efficiently and effectively. we need to continue to make sure that the programs we procure et that standard. that is why i, too, along with mr. mckeon, am strongly supportive of the second engine program. it's been our committee's position for a long time to support that program. we believe that's an efficient use of taxpayer delaurs. so i thank you, -- delores. i thank you, again, for your leadership -- delores -- dollers. i thank you again for your leadership. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. barton. mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. i'like to thank chairman skelton, ranking member mckeon,

and subcommittee chair sth, for all of the contributions to this bill. this bill was voted out of committee by unanimous vote because maintains an objective of balancing the health and capabilities of the currenforce. i also want to really thank the staff for their professionalism, dedication and extraordinary hard work this year. an engineer with 20 patents and 20 years of experience and 17 years in the armed services committee, i can assure you that the defense department's own data provides the proof that congress must continue to appre the alternative engine for the joint strike fighter. which will ultimately 95% of all of our fighting aircraft. this competition is crucial for our national security and that of our allies because the orange engine awarded and you noncompetitive contract is 21 months behind schedule and according to g.a.o. is estimated to be $2 billion over buet. that's a 52% increase and one of

the main reasons with redundancy the committee overwhelmingly supports continued funding of the competitive engine. the department asked congress to permit the issue of a soul source contract for over$100 billion for thousands of engines over the life of this program. i owe it to the american people and war fighters to object to something this irresponsible. mr. speaker, i urge support of h.r. 5136 as approved by unanimously by the armed services committee. but, a vote for the don't ask, don't tell abdicates our authority over the military policy and gives autrity to the president and unelected executive branch leaders. congress has yielded far too much of its constitutional authority to the executive, judiciary, therefore if this amendment passes, i cannot support this bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. theentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my

colleague, my friend from texas, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, mr. ortiz. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for three minutes. mr. ortiz: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, let me thank you for your leadership that you bring to the committee and being ab to get the committee to work together, mr. mckeon as well. and i rise in support of h.r. 5136, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. the bill before us continues today to -- efforts begun last year to address readiness shortfalls. it supports the president's request for increed training funding for all the active duty forces and provides funding to continue to reset equipment damaged or worn out througthis nine years of continuous combat operations. the bill authorizes $20 billion for militaryonstructn and

$168 billion for operation and maintenance, a $12 billion increase in o&m this funding is needed over the amount authorized last year in the base budget. to reduce budget to readiness in areas where the service identifies shortfalls, the bill includes additional funding for navy ship maintenance, contract and performance management, army base operating services and training, barracks construction, reserve construction, energy conservation and renewable energy projects and today facilities maintenance and repair. our combat commanders should not have to wait years to have the right infrastructure to support work -- wartime operations. this bill proves the tools that the depament needs to ensure that general petraeus has the right facilities at the right locations at the right

time. the bill also authorizes the readiness and envonmental protection initiatives which ensure the long-term viability of military testing and training branches by protecting them from encroachment. the bill includes provisions related to the benefits for d.o.d. civilians who are deployed in combat zones. this provision is very important because feral and civilian employees are increasingly providing iortant support in contingency operions. the bill supports the president's request for a much-needed reinvestment in army training and readiness, increases in funding foall army components, along with the drawdown from iraq to begin to put the army on a path to restoring its readiness posture. the bill corrects the hours funding to meet operation requirements, to ensure that sea services can attempt air fleet

training goals and the bill includes $185 million in additional funding for naval aviation training and aircraft maintenance. the bill contains additional funding for airport accounts critical to supporting missions and tang care of an asian aircraft fleet. mr. chairman, this is a good bill and i ask my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, the ranking member of the sea power subcommittee. the chr: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 5136, that's the national defense authorization act which we have before us at this time, and it was approved unanimously by republicans and democrats on the house armed services committee. and we believe in overall and proper balance has been struck on this bill. i was personally concerned about some problems with our missile

defense system. but i made several amendments looking to get a little more information from the administration on these programs. those were adopted. in addition, we were concerned about the department's assessment, even in the most rosie scenario that we are short on strike fighters and i was pleased that we were able to add some additional f-18's to the budget to at least, in a small way, mitigate that particular problem. i would be remiss, thou, if i were to stand here and say that everything was well. as much as i support this bill, it is possible to mess up any good thing. and the idea of repealing don't ask, don't tell at the last minute with an amendment that doesn't even come out of our committee, that has at the most 10 minutes to debate and has more far-reaching implications for defense than almost any single item in this bill, is the height of folly. in the approaching memorial day

weekend, for us to try to slide this little fellow in, this little political give-me, to some vocal but very small interest group over the interests of our sons and daughters who serve in the service, in spite of the objections of the military leadership, starting with the secretary of defense coming down the chain of command, they're saying, give us time to figure out, what does it mean to repeal don't ask, don't tell? the current policy says that if uruguay, you want to serve in the military, that's fine, but don't let it get in the way of the mission. if we take that out, what does it mean? we need time and we don't need some fast little political fix to mess up an otherwise good bill. thank you, mr. chairman the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from misuri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from mississippi who's chairman of the subcommittee on sea power and expeditionary

forces, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. tailor. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. taylor: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the bill and in particular of the sea power and expeditionary forces section of the bill. under the leadership of representative skelton, the fleet has grown by seven ships since he became chairman to the total of 286. that gets us in the direction, however slowly, of the 313 ships that we wi to have. it also takes -- has some far-reaching steps, one of which is directing the c.n.o., that in the future, in order to grow the fleet, he may only retire two ships for every three ships we commission. i think this is very important language. this is the third in a row who said he wanted 313 ships. but ironically they keep submitting budgets to congress that actually shrink the fleet rather than grow it. i want to thank chairman skelton for working with us on that and my deleegs -- clleaguesn directive langua that keeps those great vessels that would go to someone else's fleet on

the our fleet a bit longer. the bill takes many steps to continue the work of the world's greatest navy and the world's greatest marine corps. it authorizes the construction of nonbattle force vessels, with 214 rcraft for the navy and marine corps. it authorizes $5.1 billion to construct two virginia class submarines. the fit time congress has authorized that. $950 million for the first incremental funding of the marine corps' amphibious assault vessel, $3 billion to fully fund two destroyers, to work also the navy surface fleet and the centerpiece of our nation's national missile defense. $1.5 billion to fund two combat shs, $180 million for one vessel for te navy, $380 million to fully fund the remaining construction costs for the first of the class marime landing platform vessel for the marine corps. $3.3 billion for 30 f-18

superhornet strike fighters. that will make a total of 186 of these fine aircraft built on chairman skelton's watch. $4.1 billion for 20 navy and marine corps f-35 joint strike fighter, $4.6 billion for 100 rotary winged aircraft. $359 million for the maritime administration, including $100 million for the merchant marine academy. the bill strongly supports funding for overseas contingency operations, authorizing $3.4 billion to build the lifesaving mine-resistant vehicles. this is on top of the $16.4 billion under chairman skelton's watch that was allocated in 2007 for a total of $-- 16,000 of these vehicles that have been built as we continue to build 1,000 of them a month to protect our soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. for marine corps programs, the bill fully authorizes for marine corps procurement an

additional $126 million for underfunded requirements that will protect our marines. mr. chairman, i fully support the bill as recommended by the committee. i also want to thank -- additional 30 seconds? mr. skelton: additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. taylor: i also want to thank mr. akin for his cooperation on this and all the sea power subcommittee, in particular i want to commend our great staff, captain will eb, s, heath, jesse and liz with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. e gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virnia, mr. forbes, the ranking member on the readiness subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman's recognizesed for two minutes. for example for example -- mr. foes: thank you, mr. chairman, for the oortunity to stand in strong support of this bill as recommended. i'd also like to express sincere apeciation for chairman skelton, ranking member mcke and the chairman of our subcommittee and my good friend

from texas, solomon ortiz. creating legislation of this magnitude and of critical importance to the defense of this nation is no easy task and i appreciate their leadership and hard work in crafting a solid bipartisan bill. mr. chairman, our founding fathers kw that our freedoms were so precious they were worth protecting d defending. they also knew, as we know today, that one of the realities of having these freedoms is that there will always be individuals who want to rob them from us. throughout the course of our nation's history we've seen this to be true. today it no different. recent attempts in times square, new york city, and on passenger airlines on christmas day are stark reminds that there are teorist organizations that are actively trying to kill american cizens. mr. chairman, we need to keep terrorists off u.s. soil, not provide mes for any administration to bring them here. and while theommittee did not support an amendment that would have prevented the transfer of any guantanamo bay detainee to u.s. soil, i do want to take a moment to highlight one provision that i'm very glad is

included in the mark. this provision requires an inventory and analysis of the modeling and simution tools used by the department of defense during the development of the annual budget. this is a terrific first step in making sure the department has the right tools to ensure that the readiness needs of commanders will be reflected in the budget. by starti with funding priorities in support of commanders out in the field, we will make sure we are providing what is required to defend america. mr. chairman, i thank you and i thank all the members of this committee for their hard work in preparing this bill. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 5136, provided the not destroyed with the adoption of political amendments that can negatively impact the readiness of our troops, such as the removal of the don't ask, don't tellolicy before the military's concluded its impact on our readiness with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to my

friend, my colleague, a former marine, he's the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation, the gentleman from arkansas,r. snyder. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. snyder: secretary gates' speech given at kansas state wi be remembered. secretary gates kept on the secretary of defense, criticisms were heard, criticisms with which i disagree. an america confident in more than just its military strength is a strong america. to remember our moral strength, not just our military strength is to build a strong america. to build a strenhened diplomatic core builds a strong america. selling our politics internationally and not fearing competition builds a strong america. using our power to help other nations develop their economy, public health systems, builds our national security. regarding what climate changes means to them strengthens us.

listening to the voice of wanting americto be a beacon of human rights strengthens us. yesterday's view that only military strength makes us strong is indeed yesterday's view. i applaud the administration's incredibly successful effortat killing and capturing terrorists, but let us not forget our responsibilities to alls aects of -- aspects of national power. the chairman: the geneman yields back. the the gentleman from california. mr. skelton: i yield two minutes to mr. miller. the chairman: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i too yield in support of the defense authorization act for 2011 as it was passed out of the full commite. i do think we have taken me important steps on protecting those who work every day to protect the people and protect those of u in the united states. the language that we had inserted into this bill, one of the things that it does is require the department of

defense inspector general to investiga the alleged misconduct and practices of certain lawyers for terrorist detainees at guantanamo bay. unanimously, the committee approved this amendment, whereby we have said that these lawyers y have -- may have very well engaged in illegal actions by confronting -- or seeking to out covert agents to the very terrorists that these particular agents took off the battlefield. so if this ined is true, i can't think of a more offensive, unpatriotic, and terrible act to be committed by the americans that did this against fellow americans. i also do stand with the ranking member in opposition to the repeal odon't k, don't tell. i agree, we also need to allow the department of defense to complete its study before we jump the gun to a rash, premature decision, one that

diverts our military's attention from its true priorities, and those priorities are succeeding in iraq and in afghanistan. and also, in keeping terrorists from harming americans and its citizens. unfortunately, if the murphy amendment does pass, and we do repeal don't ask, don't tell, i will have to vote against h.r. 5136, but i trust that this body will reject the murphy amendment, and allow r forces to remain focused on the task at hand, defending erica. iieldack the balance of my time. the chairman: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from-month. mr. skelton: i yield two minutes to my friend on thsub committee of terrorism and threats and capabilities. the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the chairman: the gentlela is recognized for two minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you. as the chairwoman on the sub

committee of terrorism and unconventional threats and capabilities. to address probably what i believe is one of the most important assets that we have for the partment of defense, the role of our small businesses in america. msub committee along with the full committee has worked hard to develop ways to expand opportunities for small business to get defense procurement. for example, we wanted to repeal the smallusiness competitive demonstration program. this would reinstitute the use of small business set asides for federal procurements in certain industry groups. assuring that these small businesses are awarded a fair proportion of department of defense contracts. the repeal of this program would not only have saved d.o.d. money and personnel, but would have improved small business prime subcontracting opportunities. secondly, the armed services committee was hoping to extend the small business initiative, innovation research prram by

one year, and to apply funding toward technical assistance for that program, in order to strengthen the ality of small businesses to meet the demands of the d.o.d. requirements. it would have made perfect sense to move an extension within this bill bec over 50% of that program is with the department of defense. also, there's a program called the mentor protege program. it pairs up major d.o.d. contractors with small businesses and helpto develop a relationship with these small contractors to help them. as you can see, these are good provisions for small businesses. unfortunately, none of these amendments were approved by the rules committee. because of the objections raised by the house small business committee on grounds of jurisdiction. i think everyone in this chamber will agree that small binesses are the backbone of many of our districts. and i know that this is true in the 47th congressional district

of california. so i hope that in the very near future the committee on small busine wi work with the armed services committee to rapidly provide these resources to our small businesses. thank you, and i yield back. the chairman: the gentlelady yields back her time. the the gentleman from california. mr. skton: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, the ranking member on the military personnel sub committee. the chairman: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wilson: there are a few issues i would like to highlight with regard to this year's national defense authorization act. i am pleased to adopt the military sub committee mark in full, and adopted some important amendments. of note in the mark was a 1.9% basic pay raise for the military as proposed in my bill h.r. 4427. concerning amendments first is my amendmento ensure that the secretary of defense retain sole

authority over tricare, the affirmative defense's health care system. this ensures that the heth care system of our serce men and women and families will not be overwhelmed in the health care takeover. i do not, however -- i do have concerns abt a few other issues that are not in t ndaa. firsis the proposalhat we would have allowed military personnel to retired with disabilities to receive their full disability pay and v.a. disability pay. the coinsurgt issue which has been addressed numerous times by the committee led by congressman jeff miller of florida, and while we have been makg inroads, there are still many veterans who need our help. additionally, i was not allowed to delete the widows tax because spouses are required to forfeit their annuity. this is a real burden to widows and children of service members. i am also concerned about the

retroactive retirement credit to regard sdiers served after 9/11. these soldiers have abced the call to duty and deserve no less than active duty counterparts. as we bring this act to the floor, it is important to keep the service member in the forefront of our mind. it is crucial to consider the repeal of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. the service chiefs as represented by the fighting men and women of our country have again anagain urged us not to change the law until they have sufficient time to conduct their setting. we are a nation at war, and as such, we should follow the wishes of our war fighters. the chairman: the gentleman's time is expired. the the gentleman from california. mr. skelton: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlelady california, mrs. davis. the chairman: the gentlelady is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes.

mrs. davis: i want to thank mr. wilson and chairman skelton for their contributions and certainly to our hard working staff. this bill continues to improve the quality of life for our service members, thr families and milita survivors who carry such a heavy burden for our country. some of the highlights include continued support for increased enstraints for the active army and navy, 1.9% pay raise, increase of the hostile fire pay and family separation allowance, new initiatives to complement the military family, the authority for tricare beneficiaries to extend health care coverage to dependents up to age 26, adoption of the full range of recommendations by the defense task force on section wall assault in the -- sexual assault. millions of dollars for impact to aid. while we couldn't accommodate all the requests brought before the subcommittee, we were able to include many to address the needs of our military.

mr. speaker, there is still a policy, a policy in place which no longer reflects the needs of our military. we can correct that today to repeal don't ask, don't tell. the tentative amendment is not for the implementation. we support their work and know how important their findings will be to the successful repeal of don't ask, don't tell. a fundamental piece of this will be the opinions of our service members. congress sincerely values their point of view, d.o.d. will work hard. it's not much wally exclusive. we have heard that repealing don't ask, don't te will weaken unit cohesion, and by extension national security. but it is forcing this -- this policy is rcing those in uniform to lie to their

colleagues, that weakens cohesiveness and firing personnel during two wars, just because they are gay, that weakens national security. as chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee, i know that our military draws its strength on the integrity of our unified force, and current law challenges this integrity by creating two realities within the ranks. i urge my colleagues to look at this closely. i hope my colleagues will stand on the right sidef history and end don't ask, don't tell. the chairman: the gentlelady yieldsack her time. the the gentleman fm california. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, the ranking member on the strategic smmittee. the chairman: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: i want tthank the chair, mr. skelton. i support the commtee -- of

h.r. 5136, particularly by the way that it strengthens our nation's strategic forces. it endorse an increase in funding for the modernization of our nation's nuclear deterrence capabilities, although this funding must be sustained in the out years. it includes a $362 million increase in funding for missile defense, which i strongly support, and holds the administration accountable for deploying missile defenses in europe to protect the united states and our nato allies. it establishes a sense of congress that there would be no limitations on u.s. missile defenses in europe and the new stark treaty, depete russian statements to the contrary. there is an area in which i am concerned in that the bill does not go far enough to provide a sufficient hedge to protect the united states from missile attack. it's not planned to cover the u.s. homeland until 2020, yet the threat from iran and to t u.s. could materialize as early as 2015 according to the latest intelligence assessments. regrettably, an amendment i

offered in full committee to address this gap was rejected. another area i support, and i want to thank mrkelton -- skelton for his support of the custody rights of our military parents. it includes fundamental protection for the parents. it highlights the need for a baseline of protections for our men and women in uniform and also includes language that criticizes an unofficial d.o.d. report as an incomplete product that does not ascertain the full scope of this problem. equally important in this bill is it strengthens the safety and family rights of our military personnel. i want to thank chairwoman vis and ranking member wilson for incorporating bipartisan nguage from the defense strong act tt attempts to prevent sexual assault as well as aining. i thank them for their work on the 2011 national defense authorization act. it's my hope that we can retain the language so the house can have a bipartisan report.

the chairman: the gentleman yields back his time. e the gentleman from-month. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, before i asthat the gentleman be recognized, i wish torder the consideration of amendments. pursuant to secti 3 of use resolution 1404, and ask the designee of the chair of the subcommittee of armed services, the consideration of h.r. 5136 in the committee of the whole and following consideration of amendment number 4 printed in the house report 111-498, the following amendments be considered. en bloc, number 1. amendment number 13 found in the house report 111-49 en bloc number 2, en bloc number 3.

mr. chairman, and now i yield 2 1/2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman -- and who is the chairman on the subcommittee of strategic forces, the the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extends. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered -- the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: i rise in srt the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011. this is a strong bipartisan bill and as chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, it's been a pleasure working with chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon as well as the ranking member subcommittee mr. turner and members of the committee in drafting -- crafting this measure which provides o men and women in uniform with the tools to address some of the most pressing strategic threats to ourational security. mbers of our subcommittee are utely aware -- are acutely away that we're preventing nuclear terrorism and that we must deter nations like iran from developing nuclear weapons wet also protect ourselves, our deplod foes and our allies against the growing

threat of attack from ballistic missiles, particularly from expanding stockpiles of short and medium range rock -- rockets as well as being mindful of iran and north korea pursuing development of icbm capabilities. our bill invests in maintaining a safe and secure nuclear deterrent, providing effective missile defse against the most likely immediate threat and providg our national security space and intelligence asset. first, protecting the -- reflecting the president's commitment to a strong and sustained investment in our nuclear deterrent, the bill provides 15ds billion for the department of energy's atomic eney defense activities, not accounting the nonproliferation programs. this includes $7 billion for nuclear weapons activities, a 10% increase over last year's funding and a $5.6 billion for defense biocleaning activities. this increase will sustain our nuclear arsenal without nuclear testing.

it ensures we will maintain a credible deterrent, as for reresponsibly reducing our stockpile and ovides a robust foundation for the nuclear posture review and president obama's historic effort to reduce nuclear dangers. second, h.r. 5136 will strengtn our ballistic missile defenses by providing $10.3 billion to protect the united states, our deployed troops and allies and friends against the most immediate threats from nations such as iran, syria and north korea. our funding increases assure thate will purchase key elements of the safe adapve approach, for ballistic missile defense in europe and more efficiently in overall lower costs. the bill also provides an additional $88 million for long standing u.s.-israeli collaboration on u.s. missile defense programs. the bill provides ads 15 million increase for directed energy research to facilitate the nvestment of technologies.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. langevin: would you yield an additional 30 seconds? mr. skelton: 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman's recogniz for an additional 15 seconds. mr. langevin: thank you. the bill also requires defense system. it makes deployment of missile defenses in europe contingent on such testings as well as deployments on european soil. i'm prd of our smart spending decisions to strengthen our defenses against current missile defense. we're embracing good practices and emphasizing the cost of the american taxpayer. i thank chaian skelton for his leadership and i yield back. the chair: the ntman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wiman, the ranng member on the oversight and investigation scommittee. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i can begin by congratulating the ranking member mckeon and chairman skelton for their fine work on the national defense authorization bill for 2011.

mr. chairman, the defense authorization bill provides our department of defense the resources it needs and addresses the committee's priorities in supporting our men and women in uniform, their spouses and families. to enable our service members to continue defending our freedoms abroad, we owe it to them to provide the best available support, training and equipment in this bill -- and this bill reflects our undying commitment to those service members. after traveling to afghanistan and pakistan last month on a congressional delegation, and visiting the troops in the field, i know it's critical that we move the bill forward quickly to prove them that vital support. the funding and support for this ll in the wars in afghanistan and iraq is critical. that support back home is just as critical. i am concerned, though, today about the attempt to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy withoutistening to our service members first. we're currently fighting two wars and asking our men and women to make tremendous sacrifices now this congress wants to act without their regard and essentially telling our american military members and families that their views do not count.

we've only been given five minutes to debate this policy which will affect millions of american service members and their families. surely the american people and the military deserve more, especially as we head into the memorial day weekend intending honor our service members. furthermore, we heard from all the service branch chiefs yesterday asking congress not to support this amendment and wait for the study next year. believe congress must make a fully inrmed decision and the department of defense must provide congress a full and compte report on the ramifications of changing the current law or whether a chang is necessary. we owe that much to our military personnel, to listen to them and to wait for the completion of the study next year. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields backhe balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: may i inquiref the time remaining, please? the chair: the gentleman from missouri has 5 3/4 minutes. the gentleman from california

has 7 1/2 minutes. mr. skelton: would the gentleman from california care to proceed? mr. mckeon: yes. mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, a member of the committee, mr. connolly -- conaway. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. conay: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the bill. this legislation authorizes good policy for directing the defense of our nation. i also strongly support the addition of the improve act of 2010 which has already passed this house by an overwhelming vote. it will also help us move closer to the day that the financial statements of the department of defense are audible and -- auditable and receive an unqualified opinion. the murphy andment will tell the 350,000-plus men and women who are currently participating in the survey of what they think about don't ask, don't tell, that members of congress quite frarningly couldn't care less what they say. this is -- while tse constituents may work for the department of defense or the president as commander in chief, they are our constituents.

we're criticized roundly in this realm for not lispening to our constituents and a vote for the murphy amement will codify that statement in their min and i will pose the murphy amendment. i will also oppose the overall legislation if the murphy amendment is opted. with that i yield bk. thehair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my colleague, my friend and distinguished chairman of the you budget committee, who's also a member of our committee, the armed services, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. spratt. the chair: the gentleman's recognized r two minutes. mr. spratt: i thank my good friend and colleague for yielding and commend him for the job he's done in bringing together an excellent bill to this floor. this bill fully funds naonal security activities in the department of defense and energy, including top line funding increases for d.o.d. as well as fully funding iraq and afghanistan operations. this is the fourth consecutive year that the congress has significantly increased funding

for -- funding for the military of this country, overthat all bill provides $548 billion for d.o.d.,$159 billion for operations in iraq and afghanistan and a total altogether of $726 billion if you include the department of energy. among the unsung heroes in our national military are the families who serve every bit as much as their member, particularly when there's a deployment in the family. this bill recognizes the vital role they play and provides a 1.9% pay increase, it expands tricare health coverage to include adult-dependent children up to the age of 26, it incases family separation allowances for troops who are deployed and away from their team and it increases imminent danger pay for the first time since 2004. there will be more extensive debate later on on the alternative engine. i think it makes sense, it saves money in the long run because

it's $100 billion program is something where competition is vitally needed. having followed the course of ballistic missile defense for some time, it's of interest to me that ts bill provides for missile defense for a robust missile defense, providing $361 billion -- million -- billion -- excuse me, providing $10.3 billion above the budget request. let me say finally that this bill is consistent, too, with the passes set for exploring the ramifications of a change on don't ask, don't tell policy. i think it would be wise if we left the security of defense to fini his exploration along with the military chiefs before dingtating any changes -- dictating any chges. the chairthe gentleman yields back. thgentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the committee, dr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman's

regnized for one minute. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman. first of all, i want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member for an excellent mark. i voted for it coming out of committee. i have three amendments or three amendments in en bloc. two i'd like to mention quickly. one is military retiree pay adjustment that ensures our nation's military retire es are always paid on or before the first of each month. second requires reports to congress on u.s. modernization sustainment and recapitalization of our bomber force. however, i'm very disappointed the lack of an ear to the people of this country by this congress is unprecedented and a good example is the murphy amendment that we see today that repeals don't ask, don't tell. when we have a scheduled report coming out the first of december and we have the entire joint chiefs of staff and secretary gates who oppose that. i will oppose the don't ask,

don't tell repeal. with thai yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: may i inquire about the available time? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/4 minutes. mrskelton: thank you. i yield 1 1/4 minute to the gentleman from new jersey, the chairman of the acquisition form task force, mr. andrews. the chai the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/4 minute. mr. andrews: i ask to revise and extend -- iran iran. mr. andrews: the best way to defend thicouny is to have every person who is wilng to serve her have the opportunity to do that and who's able to do so. that's the intention of the murphy amdment. which frankly there have been a series of misrepresentations about. let's set the record straight. if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chfs of stafbelieve after listening

to the input of our service personnel, after reviewing the facts, if they believe that implementation of this policy would in any way underc the readiness or effectiveness of our armed forces, they will not certify the policy and it will not ppen. this policy will happen only when the secretary of defense and the chairman of e joint chiefs of staff y that the right thing to do for this country. the right thing to do for this country is not to ask someone what church they go to, what country they came from, what color they are or what their sexual orientation is. it's to ask if they're willing and able to serve and that is what we are going to do. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the geneman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from delaware, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for one minute.

mr. castle: i express concern. while the bill before us takes themportant step of preventing the movef any c-130 aircraft away from air reserve components until congress receives written agreement on t details of such a temporary transfer, i believe we shod consider implementin a time limitation of 18 months on the duration of those loans. as a former governor i understand the important role the air and national guard provides in meeting our homelan security needs and that any aircraft reductions may significantly impact each state's ability to respond to ergencies. if this body does choose to move forward with the loan agreement, we should at least set up a regime to make sure this is temp -- truly a temporary transfer. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the geleman yids back his time. the gentleman from missouri. the gentleman from missouri mr. skelton: mr. chairman, pursuant to section 4 of house resolution 1404, i hereby give

notice that the amendments numbered 80 and 82 may be offered out of order. mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the distinguished lady from wisconsin, ms. baldwin. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for one minute. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman. today we have the opportunity to rht a wrong. i ridse in strong sport of repealing the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. 17 years after congress passed don't ask, don't tell, we know that it is a misguided, unjust and discriminatory policy. not only does don't ask, don't tell damage the lives and livelihoods of military professionals, it deprives our nation and our armed services of the honorable service and needed skills. under this law, almost 14,000 service members have been discharged including almost 1,000 mission-critical troops d at least 60 arabic speakers

and 10 farsi linguists. it's indefensib. when the house votes to repeal don't ask, don't tell, we will have taken one more step othe path to full civil rights and equality for lbgt americans but we wl also change the course of history for all the courageous americans who serve our country and for their families. mr. chairman, in the land of the free and the home of therave, it is long past time for congress to end this unamerican policy. . the speaker pro teore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: may i iuire to the time we have remaying? -- remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from missouri has one minute. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this timi yield two minutes to the gentlelady from oklahoma, ms. falin. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. . falin: thank you, mr. speaker. this memorial day we thank our

men and women serving our nation, our veterans, and families, and those who have given their lives. we honor their sacrifices on behalf of our freedom as a nation. my colleagues and i have worked very hard and our armed services committee on the national defense, defense authorization act which i believe to be a comprehensive blue frint -- blueprint for our nation's defense both at home and abroad. most importantly i believe this bill prodes our men and women in uniform with support and protections they need and deserve both on and off the battlefield. every day these brave men and women put their lives on the line for the safety and security of our nation and it is our job to make sure that they receive the quality support and services that they need and espeally when they return home. i'm very grateful for our amendment to improve the detection and diagnosis of common combat related afflictions lying ringing in the ears, post -- like ringing in the ears, posttraumatic stress disorder. the sooner we catch these

service related injuries, the sooner we simultaneously approve the quality of life for our troops and reduce the cost of health care across the board for them. so as this may -- memorial day approaches, i hope we all remember our troops, both those currently serving, those who have served our country to defend our freedoms. and if this bill makes it out of the floor as it came out of the committee, in one piece, i will be supporting it. if there are changes and some other issues this committee has rais in the last few minutes as objectionable, then we'll be considering that. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman -- mr. mckeonon -- mr. mckeyon: -- mr. mckeon: at this time iove -- the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chr: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. skelton: mr. chairman,

picture in your mind american soldier, a corporal patrolling in afghanistan. wearing the uniform, carrying his american made rifle, having been transported in mrap security vehicle to his place of patrolling. with a radio made in america, all of these items furnished by the congressf the united states. under our duty and the duty to train and allow him to be fully prepared to fight the fight that he is. that's what's important in what we do today. that's the purpose of the authorizion bill.

it is required by the constituon of the united states. it's paramount. it's the mt important job that weave to d provide for the security of those who fight and protect us in their line of duty. i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield to the gentleman from colorado, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. coffman: thank you. i rise in support of the defense authorization bill, but re in opposition to the murphy amendment to the bl. congress must review the resus of the defense department

study, department of defense study on the don't-ask, don't-tell before the vote -- before we vote to reversethe existing policy or to keep it. the purpose of this study is to survey those in uniform on this issue. the murphy amedment essentially says we are not willing to listen to those who currently serve in uniform before making r decision. it was during the first gulf war when i served as a ground combat leader with the united states marine corps that i found that the interdependent bond formed between marines on a ground combat team was essential to our effectiveness on the battlefield. my concern is that the ability for this bond to form mig be greatly degradedh the interject of sexuality, whether through heterosexuality or homosexuality. i think that it is absolutely sential for the study to be

completed so that the deprtment of defense can demonstrate how challenges such as the one that i just raised and concerns will be handled beforehe congress makes a final decision on whether to keep the current policy in regards to sexual orientation or reject it. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckn: may i inquire othe time? the chair: the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from missouri has no time reining. mr. mckeon: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1/2 minutes. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, as i mentioned earlier, i think this is an outstandin bill. i think the chairman has worked very hard. i think thmembers of the committee, subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members have all worked veryhard, the staff. it's an excellent product as it stands right now.

i think we'll have, fortunately, insufficient te to debate the murphy amendment about don't-ask, don't-tell. i think that's unfortunate that the rules committee did not give ushe time that is necessary to fully debate that, but we will take aantage of the time as we may. i would like to say that as many of t members have spoken day on -- today on our side, they do support the bill as it came out of committee. they hopit will be improved, but if the don't-ask, don't-tell murphy amendment passes, many of them will not be able to support the final passage which is, indeed, i believe a tragedy. none of us have ever before to my knowledge voted against the defense authorization bill and we really don't do that lightly. and we want to suprt all of this product and hope that we'll

be able towork this out as the day goes. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed inhe bill is consered as an original bill for the purpose of amendments under the five-minute rule and is considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except those printed in house report 111-498 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 1404. except as specified in section 4 of the resolution each amendment printed in the report shall be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a member designated in the port, shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall nobe subjt to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand

for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the committee on armed services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed i the report not earlier disposed of or germane difications of any such amendment. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read except -- shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the -- or their designees, shall not be sject to amendmentand shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. for the purpose of ilusion of such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the formof a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a geane perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be stricken. the original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en bl may insert a

statement in the congrsional record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc. the chair of the committee the whole may recognize for consideration of any amendment out of the ord printed but not sooner than 30 minute after the chairman of the committee on armed services or his designee announces from the floor a request to that efct. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in house report number11-198. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. amendment number 1. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report numb 111-498, offered by mr. skelton of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1404, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr.

skelton. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my colleague, the gentlelady from massachusetts, miss tsongas. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: thank you for yielding and your leadership on this important legislation. i rise in support of the fiscal year 2011 national defense authorization act and the accompanying manager's amendment. this bipartisan legislation supports the ongoing efforts of our armed forces to keep our country safe, to hold -- maintain our resolve against extremists, and sustain nuclear weapons, nonproliferation. it provides our men and women with the crucial tols they need to protect our country and effectively find and hold accountable those who wish us harm. equally as important it includes protection for our service members such as lighter weight body armor that will keep our service members safe but lighten the burden we ask them to carry.

this bill also expands legal rights for service members who have been victims of sexual assault and improved training related to the prevention of and response to this crime. i look forward to he repeal of the long overdue repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell. the unanimous support that this bill received in committee is a testament to our continued commitment to provide the technology, equipment, and manpower required to protect our country at all times. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5136. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair: the gentlemanrom new jersey. mr. andrews: i'm pleased to yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. heinrich, one minute. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey may control the time. thgentleman is recognized for

one minute. mr. heinrich: mr. speaker, i strongly support th amendment which improves and percent strong underlying legislation. to keep the american people safe and spur economic growth in places like central new mexico. the bill a amended will expand tricare coverage to include dependent children up to the age of 26. something our troops and litary families deserve. it also provides our military with the cutting edge resources that they need to defend our nation. many of thesedvancements originate in central new mexico at curtland air force base in sandia national laboratoes. for example, the operationally responsive space satellite prram and airborne laser test bed will bh receive greater resources to accomplish their important mission. and the bill will ahorize the secure microgrid eney pilot program on a military installation to advance our goal of energy, securi, and independence. this bill is a true reflection of our 21st century military

strategy for keeping americans safe and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying legislation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- mr. mckeon: i just havene speaker on this. the chair: for what purpose does the gentman rise? mr. mckeon: i'm wishing to tell the chairman i have one speaker. if you want to proceed -- the chair: does the gentleman claim time in opposition? mr. mckeon: i clai the time in opposition although i will not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. thgentleman is recogned. mr. andrews: mr. chairman. mr. mckeon: i would defer to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. i just announce we do have several speakers. and for the benefit of the house we will be calling those several eakers. mr. chairman, i'd like to yield one minute to our friend and colleague who's been a leader on

port security issues here in the couny, worked very hard on them, the gentlelady from california, ms. richardson, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. richardson: i rise in strong support of h.r. 5136. i want to all of the staff that have brought to us this point. having visited afghanistan and iraq, i rongry agree that this bill will help to us restore and enhance the readiness of our troops. but with the limited time i have to speak, i want to focus on one part of the amendment today. that is the amendment that would allow the transportation command to update and expand its 2008 strategic seaport study. th remains a crucial tool to ensure that our ports remain ready to respond in the case of an emergency and worse, an attack. my amendment would expand the scope of the report to include the consideration of infrastructure in the vicinity of strategic ports, including

bridges, roadsnd rail capacity. we must be ready to move our troops immediately and to get them the resources that the need. i stand toay something that i've said before, the role of our ports is to connect the fort. if the transportation system and infrastructure innd around our strategic ports are deficient, the ability of our ports to fulfill their readiness would be failed. i stand in support of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balce of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i misspoke earlier saying i was the only speaker. we have a new member of congress that we're really happy toear from at this time, he will be serving on our cmittee and he's a representative from hawaii, mr. djou, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. djou: thank you, mr.

chairman. i rise in support of house resolution 5136 in fiscal year 2012 defense authorization act was approved byhe armed services committee. i am pleased today to give my first speech as a meer of the u.s. houseof representatives and it's a great honor to speak on the defense authorization act. not only as a member of congress but also as a member wo represents hawaii's first congressional disict, speaking of course also as an army reservist and it is my honor to be speaking on this measuhe week before memorial day. to defend america we need the best trained and equipped united states armed forces. i'm pleased this bill attempts to ensure that the department of defense is fully equipped and well prepared to fight all of our future and current battles. i'm pleased to support this particularesolution which contains impoant measures for the pacific command, in particular, of course, for myself, representing hawaii's firstongressional district, homof the united states navy's pacific fleet, the america's

u.s. r force and the 25th infan fry division of the united states army. the members contained in here will help defend the united states in the asia-pacific region and the looming threats to our national security. in particular, a region right now in the korean peninsula which deserves our nation's critical attention. i am happy also to support the republican efforts to deploy a comprehense missile defense system. as represent frve hawaii, the one region which is in the flight arc of north korea's ballistic missiles, this is an important development and something that i encourage the united states congress to continue to develop and further. with that, mr. chairman, i yield ck the balance of my time and thank you for allowing me to speak. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i'm pleaed to yield to a gentleman who has worked very hard on the issue of special combat pay for those folks facing that fierce action. i yield one minute to our friend from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for one minute. mr. mcnerney: tha you, mr. chairman.

mr. speaker, last year i was in afghanistan and some paratroopers were transporting me outside the city of kandahar and one of them stopped and turned to me and said, are you a congressman? and i said, yes. he said, you can help us? we haven't had a pay raise in 10 years. and i said, can i help you? you bet i can. upon returning i introduced a combat act to increase specially paid for troopserving overseas and separated from the families. er the past several months i worked to incorporate hostile fire, imminent danger and family separation allowance pay increases into the 2011 national defense authorization act. this increase will help hundreds of thousands of service members and their families. officer members and their families have made enormous sacrifices to keep us safe and they deserve this pay raise and i'm proud to see that the increas are included in the 2011 defense authorization bill. thank you, mr. chairman, for your efforts and for working with me onhis issue and for all the work that you've done for our armed forces to support this important legislation.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, we have three minutes remainig? the chair: 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman's rognizefor 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, many of the members on our side have been talking about the murphy amendment that will be coming up later today. we are concerned that we were only given 10 minutes to debate that amendment. somethi that will be very far reaching, very important to all of the members of the armed services and to the cotry. i'd like to talk just a little bit about the process that we've been going through this year. earlier this year the president in his state of the union speech told the nation that he wanted to see don't ask, don't tell repealed by the end of the year. the secrety in responding to

thpresident's messe put a process in place, a process that would give to the congress a report covering many items. in march the secretary selected neral ham and jay johnson, the defense department, two very good men, men of high integrity, men that have taken this responsibility very seriously. i met with them and i talked to them about the process, about what they were going to do, how they would work to make it fair. this month, just a couple of weeks ago, they have led a contract to -- the name of the company is weststaff, a firm that's done survey work before

the defense man power data center, to conduct surveys on military personnel, military spouses and the comprehensive working review group. they'veet cteria on how ey're going to move forward on this survey. they will sample 350,000 members of the military and their families. they will survey 100,000 active duty military, 70,000 of their spoice -- spouses, 100,000 of the reserve component military and 80,000 of their spouses. the sample size will be dictated by randomized responses from various subelements of each component. service member lbs asked to respond by mid -- members will be asked to respond by mid july. they will develop the sample of service members and spouses and i specifically asked them if they would reach out to make sure that all members were

represented, which is what they are going to do. they are going to set up a system whereby members of the military who may be homosexual will be able to have their feelings known and keep their confidence. that report, as they've been set out now to work on, will reach out to the military. they will then report back to us no later than the first of december and at thatoint we are asked to move forward. i have a letter here from secretary gates says, i believe in the strongest possible terms that the department must, prior to an legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough object thorough, objective and systemic assessment of the impact of such a policy change, develop a

comprehenve implementation program and providthe president and the congress with the results of this effort. the chair: the gtleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i will continue at a later time. thank you very much, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. has one minute remaining. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i would yield that minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, to talk about his ideas to help improve health care for those who serve in our national guard. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for one minute. mr. schrader: appreciate the opportunity, mr. speaker. i'm here offering amendments the defense re-authorization bill for 2011, because some of the treatment that oregon, washington, california, arizona, nevadamaryland and vermont guardsmen may have received when they got back from tours in iraq and afghantan this spring. the national guard and the army have been fighting side by side for nearly nine years of war. it's time to make a full assessment of treatmt our national guard soldiers receive when they get home.

they will rept back to congress by the end of the year on the treatment and medical care our national guard soldiers receive in comparisono regular army. t second amendment requires the seetary of defense to provide each member of the national guard with a clear and comprehensive statement on medicalare and treatment they are entitled to receive. when they're in theater, the army makes no distinction between the national guardarmy reserve d regular army soldiers the. should be no distinction in the care when theturn home. i ask e thousand continue this work by supporting my amendments. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the time has expired. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinioof the chair, the ayes have it. . andrews: mr. chairman. e chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. anrews: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote and pending that i make a point of order the quorum inot present. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, fuher proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-498. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. bartlett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: andment number 2 printed in house report 111-498 offered by mr. bartlett of maryland. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. bartlett: to offer the amendment, sir. the chair: does the gentleman have a modification to the amdment? mr. bartlett: i have the amendment, sir. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1404, the gentleman from maland, mr. bartlett, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett. mr. bartlett: thank you, mr. speaker. we have ned two concerns relative to the ar reserve line hall tractors. the first concern is that they are procuring these tractors without the benefits and advantages of full and open competition. and secondly, their procurement is way, way behind the need. there are in fact about 1,000 tractors ort. so i have a very simple amendment which addresses these two concerns. a, congressional encouragement of full and open competition. congress encourages the secretary of the army to use full and open competition for the m-915 tractor traler program beginning in fiscal year 2012, and, b, report not later than february 15, 2011, the secretary of the army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a repon

line ha tractors including possible courses of action that would accelerate meeting the line hall actor requirent of the arm serve. we have vetted this with the army reserve, mr. speaker, and they are in support of it. and i encourage a yes vote on this and i yield back the balance mtime. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? . andrews: mr.hairman, i rise to claim time in opposition although we do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. the chair: -- mr. andrewsthank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the amendment. it is a very well thought out endment that encourages competition, which will be a service to the service members of our country as well as to our taxpayers. we thank the gentleman from maryland for offering it and would urge members to support it. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favosay aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

mr. andrews: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose es the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. andrews: as the desige of the chairman, i have an announcement with respect to the order of the amendments. the chair: the gentleman will proceed. mr. andrews: pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the committee on armed services, i request that during further consideration of h.r. 5136, in the committee of the hole, -- whole, and following consideration of amendment number 82 printed in house report 111-498, the following amendments be considered. en bloc number 3 followed by en bloc number 4. the chair: it is now in oer to consider amendment mber 3 printed in house report 111-498. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek

recognition? the chair: for what ppose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: to offer an amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: thelerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 111-498, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1404, the gentleman

from washington, mr. smith, and a memb opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. smith. . smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer n amendment regaing military family leave. this committee and this body has in the past taken great steps to make sure th our military families, that when they are deployed they have and do qualify for military family leave act. unfortunately there are some specifics the military -- sorry of the family leave act that leave out some of our military personnel when they are deployed because of the jobs that they have, they do not qualify r the existing family leave act. what this amendment does is it makes sure that all military personnel, even if they don't qualify for the family and medical leave act, will have the ability to take at least -- i'm sorry, the spouses, children, and pare of military personnewill have the ability to take at least t weeks of unpaid leave when a service

member receives a notification or order to active duty in pport of a contingency operation or is deployed in connection with such an operation. one of the things that we really struggled to deal with is the amount that we have asked of the guard d reserve. they have deployed more than ever before and that has a tremendous impt on their families of the the guard and reserve has performed an uven believable serce to this country. every time i traveled abroad iraq and afghanistan, meet members of t guard and reserve, i come away enormouly impressed with their immense dedication and job they are doing. they continue to do it. they continue to sign u recruitment and retention are at all-time highs. they are absolutely committed to serving this country, but they al need our help and support because members of the guard and reserve tically have families and jobs here at home and that is disrupted everyime they are caed up and sent overseas. this is one small way that we

can help them deal with that disruption by making sure their loved ones qualify for the family medical leave act. this would be unpaid leave, but it would make sure they have the time to help support their loved one who is being deployed. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. and simply ask the body to support this amendment. the chair: is there any memb seeking time in opposition? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition althou i do not oppose the amendmt. the chai without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minut. mr. mcke: thank you, mr. airman. continuing my earlier comments, i was right in the midd of a letter by secretary gates. i will catch everybody up to speed. secrary says, prior to any legislative action, the mitary should be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and

systematic assessment of the impact of such a policychange. developed and attende comprehensive implementation plan, and provide the president and the congress with the results ofthis effortin order to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective manner. i am inserting some of my own language now. i would like to say that we will asked toote on an amendment later today without having the value and the important information that would come from this without being able to act in a most informed and effective manner. the secretary goes on to say, critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage our forces, their families, and the broader military community throughout therocess. our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights, and

suggestions if we are to carry out this change successful. therefore i strongly oppose a legislation that seeks to change this policy prior so the completionf this vital assessment process. further i hope congress will not do so as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectiv do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and nsequence for them and their families. mr skton, chairman of t committee, spoke to the secretary two days ago, and the secretary said, i stand by letter. my i inquire -- may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: next, i have a leer from admiral, chief of

naval operations. i spoke to each of the chiefs the day befo yterday i believe it was. on may 26. and he sent a letter, part of which says, i share the view of secretary gates that the best approach wld be to complete thd.o.d. review before there is any legislation to change the law. my concern is th legislative changes at this point regardless of the precise language used, y cause confusion on t status of the law in the complete and disrupt the review procs itselfby leaving sailors to question whether their input matters. obtaining the views and opinions of the force and assessing them in light of the issues involved will be complicated by a shifting legislative backdrop and its associated debate. the admiral told me he was very

concerned about what it wd do in the force, the confusion that would be caused, an los -- and losing the credibility of he and his colleagues because they ha gone out, based on what the esident says, based on what e secretary said earlier this year, they have gone to the forcand told them they would be involved in this process. and it breaks faith with them and the things that they have tried toell the forc ma i inquire how much time i haveeft? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. mckeon: ok. i'll read general schwartz's letter. general schwartz is the jeff of the aiforce. -- chief of the air force. he said, i believe it's important a matter of keeping faith with those currently

serving in the med forces that the secretary of defense commission review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the don't-ask, don't-tell law, which is the murphy amendment which we'll be discussing and voting on later today or tomorrow. such action allows me to provide the best military advice to the president and sends an important signal to our airmen and their famili that their opion matters. to do otherwise in my view would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act befor all relevant factors are assssed, digested, and understood my time up mr. chairman? i yield back. thank you very much. the chair: the ntleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i wi assume there is support for my amendment. i just want to quickly address what mr. mckeon as said on two vels. first of all the amendment we'll be voting on later today,

don't-ask, don't-tell, ecifically leaves it in the hands of the secretary of defensand chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to be the one who will chair the policy. the policy will not be changed as a result of the amendment that we are passing. it will meet, absolutely, the requirements that secretary of defense and others have put out to get iut from the armed forces. and it will not, let me repeat, will not be changed until the secretary of defense and the chairman of thjoint chiefs of staff certify that ange. no, i will not. you had your time. they will have to certify before we goforward. second of all, this policy, don't-ask, don't-tell, this ridiculous policy that has driven people out of the military who were only too anxious to serve has ben i existence for 16 yearsand i cannot speak for the gentleman from california, but i have spoken to many members of the armed forces during the course of that 16-yea period about this policy as i'm sure others have. so the main thing i object to is

the zarktization -- carkization that the men and women of our armed forces have been left out of this debate. nothing could be further from the truth. we had 16 years and a year and a half since president obamasaid that he felt the policy should be changed torques have those conversations and are having them. and again we will contie to have them, even after congress pulls itself out of this policy. we are the ones whoinserted rsves into the debate by passing it in the first place 16 years ago. this will now go back to the secretary of defense to have precisely those conversations mr. mckeon wants them to have. i'm sure they will. with any time i have remaining i yield the balance of my tmeo mr. andrews from new jersey. mr. andrews: i tha my friend for yielding. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i think that the process my friend from califoia lays out is correct. there should be wide solicitation of views of those who wear the uniform. and there will be. the amendment mr. murphy will be offeri later today simply said

this, if the -- after that process the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff believe that the evidence shows that implementation of the repeal would undercut the readiness or effectiveness of our troops, they will not certify that the policy should be put in effect and it won't be. the secretary has repeatedly said, admira mullen has repeatedly said, t questio is not whether repeal should take place but how. mr. murphy's amendment will set up a rational process for that to take place. i believe it's the righthing to do and i support mr. smith's amendment which is before us right now. the chair: the gentlemahas 15 seconds remaining. mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is o the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. so manas are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agre to.

it is now in order toconsider amendment number 4 printed in house report number 111-198. for what purpose does the gentleman from grgia seek recognition? mr. marshall: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in house report number 111-498, offeredy mr. marshall of georgia. the chair:ursuant to house resolution 1404 the geneman from georgia, mr. marshall, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. marshall. mr. marshall: i thank the chair. this is a pretty simple amendment. we give fire retardant uniforms to all sdiers deploying to our combat zone. national guard soldiers here in the united states do not have fire retardant uniforms, for the most part. yet some national guard soldie

as a ordinary part of their duties are exposed to fire hazards. the amendment'pretty simple. it simply says we acknowledge that there is a cost issue associated with issuing fire retardant uniforms to all of our national guard soldrs here in the united states, but at least we should encourage the guard to consider issuing those uniforms to thosesoldiers who as a normal course of their duties from time to time are exposed to fire hazards. and i ho that everybody would agree that's a wise thing for us to do. and i reservthbalance of my time. the air: the gentleman reserves. does any membeseek recognition? opposition? does any member seek recognition? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition. i will not opose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mckeon: we do have other

things we can talk about here today seeing how the rules committee didn't give us time to fully debate the murphy amendment on don't-ask, don't-tell. we'll use the timeor that. i would like to yield a couple minutes to a member of the committee, mr. coffman, from colorado. two mites. the chair: the gentlemans recognized for two minutes. mr. coffman: thank you. i se in support of the amendment offered, but in support of the bi as well, defense authorization bill as well. t in opposition certaiy to the murphy andment on the don't-as don't-tell, reversing don't-ask, don't-tell. one thing i think at hasn't been raised certainly whathe amendment states is that it will -- the congress of the united states wl in fact delegate to the department o defense, to the secretary of the department of defense, and to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff the ability to simply do the assessment based on the survey to mak that decision, but i

think that the reality is, is unfortunately these are not independent positions. the president at the end of the day is the commander in chief and the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff report to the commander in chief. so i questiothe ability for them to make an independent decision. this policy was put in place by the congress of the united st andt ought to bethe congressf the united states that ultitely repeals it based on the findings of the study for which i believe we have the responsibility to review. and so i would hope that we would, in factvote down the murphy andment. do our job in terms of reviewing the findings of the views of the commen and women of the armed forces -- of the men and women of the armed forces o the united states, that thistudy is in fact to put forward as their concerns about the challenges of reversing the

"don't ask, don't tell" policy that upon our reading of that information, and we will then make an informed decision. . we will make a decision as to whether or not we wilreverse this policy or continue this policy or reform this policy in some otr way. but it is wrong for us to delegate this to somebody else and i believe, again, we should vote down the murphy amendment and i would yield back the balance of myime. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. >> i think it's still your time. or has five mines expired? then reclaiming my time. mr. marshall: i actually agree with mr. coffman who co-chairs along with me the balanced budget caucus. i agree with him on bothcounts. one that i've got a good amendment here and thawe ought not to pass the murphy amendment. i think everybody understood the course we were headed on in

regard to don't ask, don't tell, was for the military to do a study of the issue, given the udy to us. we look at the study and then make a decision. we don't have the results of the military's analysi what we do have is pretty well expressed concerns about the service chiefs of each one of our branches, that we ought not to move foard, that we'rgetting the cart before the horse here on this issue. seems to me we've been committed for some time to a course wre we're going to look at the information and then make the decision and this reverses that course. i think it's a mistake. as long as we're talking about diffent issues here, i'd like to talk about the f-22 or the f-35 alternate engine as well. you know, we co-chai mr. coffman, the balanced budget caucus. we're both very concerned about unnecessary peitures. i talked to a reted commander recently. he was an f-16 pilot. thehad a sqdron wherepretty routinely only four to six of

their jets would operate and it was engine problems. the time they were having those problems it was sole sourced. and comtition was injected. the affect of competition was -- the effect of competition was that all of a sudden the engines we were getting improved in quality amatically. , so competition's good for the le we have a statute that requires competitn, if we follow our own law, we will insist upon competition where the engines, where the f-35 is concerned. but there's a specific example competition working where jet engines are concerned and it's the f-16 and the reliability of the f-16. g.a.o. did a study othe cost vings associated with this and concluded it was 21%. bottom line, there not a god argument eept for near term dollar issues there's not a single good argument why we wouldn't have competition where the f-35 engine is concerned. appreciate the ranking member and the chairman of this

committee and both of the relevant subcommittees strongly supporting having competition where the f-35 engine is concerned. i appreciate the support that i've received for my amendmen with regard ational guard uniforms and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for three minutes. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman for his agreement with us on this issue where exactly -- we had a process set up. the process was set up by the secretary in con for mans with the president's wishes -- conformance with the president wishes. the thing they thought was very important was having the input from those who would be most affected -- affected. in talking to the chiefs yesterday, one of them made the comment to me in addition to the letters. he sayshey, i understand the

politics, i understanwhat's going on here and he said, the amendment is verclefrl written, it says -- cleverly written, it says nothing will be done to implement this until the study is done. however, the headline will be, don't ask, don't tl repealed. so if i'm -- says, i understand hoit works. but the guy that's out at afghanistan is going tt the headline ant -- headline and then when somebody may send him a survey, he's going to say, whats this? i know this is already decided. i mean, we ought to treat this like it really is. ma of your members, i've been on the floor the whole day, i've istened to this debate, and i was also in the les committee yesterday a heard it, and ybe of your membe say -- many of your members say, this repeal, don't ask, don't tell, this is it. and some of your members say, it

doesn't really do anything, it just kind of moves the baldown the field. then why are we doing the debate? i think be honest in what this really does. this precludes the study, the sty that we just hired, that we're going to pay good money for and we're going to hear from e troops, but they're going to knothat their wishes or their desires or their comments or their participation is folly. because the decision's already made. at it was supposed to be was we found out, we went out and did the study, then it comes backnd came to us with the chiefsnd the secretary's remmendations and then we do have a responsibility or we do pass the laws and we're giving up that responsibility today by voting on something without the complete information and we're

dising the troops, that's wha we're doing. we're disease respecting them -- disrepresenting them -- disrespecting them and as some of the chairmen said to me yesterda it's ing to cause confusion in the force a we don't keep faith with those who are putting their lives on the line every day for us and especially thicommittee. ts committee should stand for the force. is committee should stand for the troops. this should have been discussed in our committee before it came to the full floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlem yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those oppod, no. in the opinion the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for whapurpose does -- mr. mahall: could i ask for a lorded -- recorded vote? the chr: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed.

fowhat purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mrskelton: mr. chairman, purr subte to section 4 -- purpose suen section 1404, i hereby give notice that amendments numbered 21, 42, 47 may be offered out of order. the chair: dual noted. mr. skelton: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. skelton: pursuant to house resolution 1404, i offer amendments en bloc. number 1. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: amendmentsn bloc number 1 offered by mr. skelton of missouri consisting of amendments number 9, 10, 16, 24, 36, 63 and 70 printed in house

report 111-498. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1404, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. mr. skelton: mr. airman, i urge the committ to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which has been -- have been examined by both majority and minority. mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlewoman's recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house forive minutes and revise and extend. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee:ant to bsolute chairman skelton for bei the kind of leader on a committee as challenging as providing for the men and women

of the united states mita, to ensure the listening ear, to those of us who represent soiers and their families across americ i think our state of texas can count itself as having the highest population, one of the highest populatio, of current and active duty military as well as veterans. i thank the ranking member for his leadership. saying that, before we honor them on memorial day, i believe that this legislation is a tough initiative on providing for the families and the member and women of the united states -- men and women of the united states military. i also think the important t note that the defense department can be a job creator. create portunities for americans across this nation. and my amendment simply asks that a report be provided to the congressional black caucus who's established an economic task rce to establish jobs and to be able to account for the numbers of sll, medium and

minority and women owned businesses that are doing business wi the defense department. 57.4 million americans are employed by small businesses. this amendment would be beneficial to small businesses by providing cohesive information in this seion, by encouraging and strengthening competition between businesses. more importtly, with this report i would like to encourage the departnt of defense get out beyond the beltway and to establish outreach centers or outreach programs that would explain to these sll businesses, whethern appalachia or in the delta, whether in houston, whether in urb centers, on how to do business effectively, efficiently and with integrity with the department of defense. this amendment creates jobs. anas i look for greater opportunities, mr. speaker, i would like to add that i believe that we're moving in the right direction to eliminate don't ask, don't tell. to my dismay, it has been characterized as breaking our

loyalty, our breach of our responsibility to our military. it is not. it is giving everyone a ance to be an american. to swear to the oath of service. i believet is an important step. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. for what purpose does he rise? mr. mckeon: i rise in opposition of the amendment although i will not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman's recognized for 10 minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm happy to yield at this time three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. chair: the gentleman's recognized for three minutes. mr. sessions:hank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i appreciate, respt the debate that's going on today and i want to thank the rules committee for making in order an amendment to this bill. mr. airman, currently private health care oviders are treating brain injury patients with new and innovative

treatments with remarkable results. and i'm disappointed, however, to report that many of these trtments are crently not available within the military and veteran medical facilities across is country. for our heroes who are suffering from traumatic brain injuries. i've engaged the military now at the senior military leadership for quite some time now. and i am not satisfied with the military's response to t.b.i., traumatic brain injuries. th that said, in an effort to further aid our military members and to fix this delinquency, i introduced the t.b.i., traumatic brain injury, treatment act, h.r. 4568, in february of this year. and i am offering it as an amendment today. the t.b.i. treatment act establishes a five-year pay for

performance pilot program. essentially what would happen i that any member of the military or who's being treated today by he veterans administration would be able to ask for, being able to go outside the military system to a private or free enterprise market system and to be able to have the latest innovative ocedes applied to them private heth care providers would be authorized and reimbursed to provide proven treaents to ctive duty soldiers and veterans at no cost to the patient. i believe and i believe the members of this body believe that it is important to work with the military leadership. hower they need help in getting to the correct answer. i'm asking for each of us today as members to look very

carefully at this issue and to jo me in supporting this amendment. this amendment helps to expedite these groundbreaking treatments, to make sure that effective, immediately and quickly that our nation's veterans who are suffering from t.b.i. and the myriad of problems tt come with that will receive the most leading edge answers available in medicine today. i ask my colleagues to please join with me in this bipartisan amendment. mr. chairman, i also note as i stand that i am opposed to the provisions known as don't ask, don't tell changes yesterday at the rules commite, we had a rather vigorous debate, and at the end of that debate when i hadn opportunity to talkith members of the committee who were there, i said please tell me about the debate at took place in the committee.

there was none. the chairman: time is expired. mr. sessions: it should have been in the committee. the chairman: for one minute mr. sessions: i believe that thisssue reallydemanded an opportunity for the members of the armed services committee to fully debate and lead the way on this issue rather than it being a part of a political issue that dominated by the democratic party. i believe that the members of the military,onored heroes of this great nation, should not be a part oa political agenda, but rather be a part of good policy for this nation. i think it's a slap in the fa to the members of the military to be driven down a road that is driven political agenda from the left in this country rather than wise policy.

i'm disappointed. i relayed that to the committee and its leadership yesterday, and i will say it on the floor of the house today that i believe that when we go forth in dealing with the military, we should go forth ll together, and not as a political agenda. i yield back my time. the chairman: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield to the gentleman from new york mr. mcmahon. the chairman: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcmahon: i have a longer statement, which i will submit to the record. i ri today to ge my colleagues todopt a sense of congress in this amendment, which wod recognize for father vincent, a decorated hometown hero from my district in staten island and brooklynnew york, for his military accomplishment and his commitment to faith. we'd like the department of navy to commission a navy destroyer

ihis name. the father put in infoation, received the congressional medal of honor for his heroism in this line of firen vietnam. he was sent there as a chaplain, but he quickly became much more as heecame a friend and accompanier of every soldier in the battlefield. he could have come home after a year's service, b instead h stayed and earned the name of the grunt padre, because with his fellow marines he raced into battle and was at his side all the way. on the morning of september 4, 1967, during the operation swift , the first baalion, fifth ma enas, encountered the vietnams -- i ask the gentleman for 15 seconds more to conclude my remarks. mr. skelton: allow it, please.

mr. mcmahon: on that day, the father lost his life. he cou have come home, but as a great priest, as a great man of fith, he stood by his fellow soldiers and gave his life today. we are asking the navy to name a ship after him. i thank the chairman, i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield the balance of my ti. the chairman: time is expired. the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman i yield at this time, the the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. the chairman: the gentleman is cognized for three minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentleman, mr. mckeon, and chairman skelton r allowing o amendment to be part of this en bloc amendment. congresswoman napolitano and i introduced this amendment. we have 57 or 58 co-sponsors. i'd like to tell the members why this is such an important amendment. last summer, a 25-year-old hoosier army specialist on his second tour of duty in iraq

named chancer keiseling died of suicide in baghdad. his mother and father went to the air force base anthey received their son. he got a full military honor burial and a1-gun salute. he received all kinds of letters -- the family received all kinds of letters from condolence from the secretary of the department of veterans of affairs and a three-stareneral, but they did not receive any kind of a comment or letter of condolence from the president of the united stes, the commander in chief. i think it's very important that this picy be changed. it's been the policy for a long time that if a person died by suicide in the militarythe commander in chief does not send a letter of condolence to the family. but the family is the one that's really suffering. d right now with meers of the military seing one, two, and maybe even three tours of duty in afghanistan and iraq or around the world, there's tremendous pressure on them,

tremendous pressure. and a lot of them succumb to the pressures and commit suicide. now, this is not an isolated case. in 2008, there were 260 suicides, 140 in t army, 41 in th navy, 38 in the air force, and 41 ithe marines. in 2009, it was 160 in the army, 47 in the navy, 34 in the air force, and 42 in the maris. so far this year, 71 yng men and women have committed suicide in the military. and i think it's only fig and proper that the commander in chief, the president of the united states, who sends these young people into combat for extraordinarily long piods of time, ought to understand that the grieving families like the keiselings deserve a letter from the commander in chiefsaying we understand the pressure that your son or daughter was under. e understandhat they served their country well and we want to express condolence to you for

your loss and for the service they their country. after all, they voluntarily joined the service. they voluntarily seed in combat and in combat areas. and because they couldn't handle the pressure over months and months and sometimes years, they succumbed to that pressure. they should still received condolencfrom the commander in chief, and i wa to thank once again the ranking member and the chairman of the committee for supporting this, and i hope that the prident after this resolution has ssed enlock with the other amendments will see fit to send letters of condolence to every young man and woman's family who died in the service of their country, r if they died in combat or by their hand. i i yield back the balance of time. the chairman: the time is expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to mr. kennedy. the chairman: the gentleman is recognized r one minute. mr. kennedy: i want to thank mr. burton for his work on this, acknowledging the families of those who have died real in

combat. ecause these suicides are a lt of combat. and the greatest signature wound in this war on terrorism in iraq and afghanistan is a wound that involves both the psyche with traumatic brain injury, with the concussions they're serving in addition to the i.e.d.'s, and the stress d strain of constantly worrying about your life being in jeopardy, which post-traumatic stress. and there's nothing that is unnormal about having the stress of worrying about your life being taken, and these people have to live with it consntly, nonstop, because this country keeps asking them to go back and back and back and back again. his is something that's long overdue. i thank the chairman from indiana. let's study, let's serve, let's make the commitment not to

forget thfamilies left behind as a rest of these terrible tragedies. the chairm: the gentleman from cafornia. mr. mckeon: may i inquire as to how much time we hav left? the chairman: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. and the the gentleman from missouri has 5 3/4 minutes remake. mr. mckeon: we'll reserve. the chairman: the geneman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield to the the gentleman from nework. the chairman: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and mr. chair. i encourage the department of defense to help develop the next generation of semiconductors. it allows us t embrace the american intellect and put it

into an investment towarbetter outcomes in our military. these new technologies will focus on scaling. scali of processors to the point that the next generatn of wpon systems would be lighter, more agile, consume less power, and at the same time, be more powerful. as important as our future weapons systems are, so too is it essential for us to maintain our global competitiveness in nano technology. to achieve both of these goals for the military and for business creation and innovation, we need to achieve these goals for the department of defense and having them critical involved. mr. tonko: this amendment asks the department of defense to support the creation of a public-private partnership of defense laboratory scientists and engineers, university researchers, integrated circuit designers and fabricators,

manufacturers, merial, and chemical suppliers, and inspection tool fabricatorso develop extreme ultr violent lithography. on 345 wavers. a partnership of such would bring all the stake holders and financial resources to one location and would be tal to our nation if we're going to compete in the global race in the next generation of semiconductors. i ask my lleagues to support this very key amendment, a i yield back theemainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. theentlewoman from california. mr. mckeon: connue to reserve. the chairman: the gentleman from-month. mr. skelton: i reserwo minutes to my friend, mr.

lungren. e chairperson: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in support of the amendment. i'm happy to work with chr member watson with important updates to our security policy, otherwise known as the fisma act, which is long outdated and needs this updating provision. but a portion of our amendnt is drawn from my executive authorities act and focuses on coordination of efforts to secure federal networks that develop and monitor cyber polics and lead the world in standards and practices for sponsible actions in cyber space. clearly, cyber security one of the biggest threats i believe facing the country today. we're so interconcted by use of the internet. but it also provides real vulnerability, because of cyber

penetration. following recommendation on cyber security, which i co-chaired, by establishing a national office to cyber space with the executive office ofhe present, this office will include authorities over agen information, security policies, and responsibility for coordinating the defense of our federal networks in establishing a national strategy for international engagement. again, this will provide the right authorities forthe cyber coordinator, now it would become cyber director. and do a long -- do incredible work in maki sure that we are the rig authorities -- we have the right authorities in place to make sure all of our departments and agencies are as secure as possible in cyber space i want to thank him for including my amendment in the en bloc package and i urge members to support the passage. i want to thank chairwoman watson forer work on this endment and to the joint forces and it's going to take nuss the right direction in securing the nation of cyber space. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chir: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. the gentleman from. mr. mckeon: we were waiting for one mr. speaker that's on his way to the floor. i yield a minute to myself. i ant to read someore letters. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mckeon: because we weren't given the opportunity to have more than five minutes to debate don't ask, don't tell, i would like to continue on with my diatribe. i have a letter from general casey, chairman of the army. he said, my views on the appeal of title 10, which is the murphy amendment, united states code, have not changed sie my testimony. he was opposed to that when he testified before committee. i continuto support the review and timeline offered by secretary gates. i remain convinced that it's

critically important to get a better understanding of where our soldiers and families are on this issue, and what the impts on readiness and unit cohesion might beo that i can provide informed military advice to the president and the congress. i also believe that repealing e law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the army as a reversal oour commitment to hear their views before moving forward. and again as i stated earlier, my time up? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield myself such time i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from -- mr. skelton: the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. skelton: thank you. the gentleman from indiana spoke about the challenge of tose

returning from the gulf and facing the depression that often ends in suicide. the gentleman from rhode island did the same. the tragedy of the serviceman or woman and suicide came home to many of us in the state of missouri not long ago when a young marine from missouri suffered that tragedy. it breaks the heart of not just the family but all who knew him. i think it's up to us to do our very best to continue to study for thosewho come hom so that n these tragedies can be put

behind us, thathey can come back to a grateful nation and warm and ving home and fit in and continue to perform their duties in uniform and duties at home. so those of who knewhis young marine understand fully the comments of the gentleman from rho island, the comments of the gentleman from indiana. i yield back. i yield back the balance of my time. the chairthe gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: we have two minutes remaining? e chair: tinutes remaining. mr. mckn: i yield, mr. chairman, at this timeo the gentleman fromeorgia, mr. kingston, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and just nd it so appalling that the defense committee, which has always had a strong bipaisanrelationship and a probm-solving ability, has only been given 10 minutes to

uproot a long standing policy on don't ask, don't tell. fiveinus per si to make a major social change in america. a change that will change the dynamic inhe barracks. in the field. the morale, the tension. at will you do about spousal benets in the face of don't ask, don't tell? it would certainly be unfair to have somebody in combat and not cover his husband. and so you're going to have spousal benefits and when you do that, what do you dobout the don't ask -- i mean, the defense of marriage act? that's the law of the land. you'll have to change the state lawto allow same-sex marriages. that's how profound this change is today that we will be voting on after a 10-minute debate. and what about the issue of religious freedom? we've already seen the military uninvite people like tony

perkins and franklin graham for spking that prayer. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. kingston: if you just cut out everything else on the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and say, what do you do about the spouse benefits and whato you do about the religious freedom that's so important to all soiers, how do you deal with that? you need more than 10 minutes. and i appeal to all members of congress, wherever you on -- you are on this, to realize we need more than 10 minut and reject the amendment so we can get it. the chair: the gentleman's time s expired. the gentleman from missouri. the gentleman yielded back his time. the gentleman frocalifornia has 45 seconds remaining. mr. mckeon: i wod yielthe remainder of our time, mr. airman, to, again, t gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman. i wanted to say, we have an issue with military chaplains who actually work for their denomination, they do not

necessarily answer straight to thmilitary. they are supposed to have their loyalty ttheir denomination and if their denomination believes a certain thing that is not in alignment with a potential new policy of the defense, then there going to be censored. how do you deal with that censorship matter and that freedom of religion issue? again, tonykins, a marine, a chaplain, the president of family research council, and franklin graham, son of billy graham, had both been uninvit already because of their views, they're litically incorrect. the military invited them to speak at breakfastand they were uninvited. mr. speaker, that's why we need more than 10 minute and i appreciate it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. inhe opinion of the chr, the

ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are greed to. it is now in order to coider amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-498. for what purpose does t gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 13, at the des the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-498 offered by m mcgovern of massachusetts. he chair: pursuant to house resolution 1404the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcovn, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman fromassachusetts, mr. mcvern. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlemans recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . govern: mr. chairman, hunger and obesity is are serious problems in this country -- are serious problems in this country. 17 million million children go hungry each year. now we have aew problem. obesity.

most people think obesity is a simple problemf eating the wrong food and this is mostly correct. but there are many cases where ese people are also hungry. that they are feedi themselves and their families with empty caloriesimply because they are inexpensive. we must address hunger and obesity and i'm pleased that the first lady is working on these issues. but now obesity is a national security issue. 27% of young adults are too fat to serve in the military and being overweighis now the leading cause for rejection for military service. our amendment is simple. it says that hunger and obesity are national security problems and must be addressed. and it says that we should do so in part with the re-authorization of the child nutrition act. the school lunch program was created in world war ii because 40% of the rejected recruits were underweight. in factthe preamble to the school lunch act states, the school lunch program w created, and i quote, as a measure of national security, end quote. healthy school meals along with more exercise and better access to food at home will help comt

the national security crisis of obesity and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: theentleman reserves. does any member seek recognition in opposition? mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i rise -- i claim the time in opposition although i will not oppose the amendment. the chair: witho objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes mr. mckeon: and i yield such time as he may consume to the lady from missouri, mrs. emerson. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. emeon: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member mckeo my colleague jim mcgovern made a couple of remarks with regard to the challees t military is facing with regard to potential enlistees and i could go down and continue talking about some of these, but one of the most interesting facts is that every year the military anually discharges over 1,200 first term

enlistees because, before their contracts are up, because of weight problems. and then the military must recruit and train their replacements at a cost of $50,000 for each man or woman. which begs the question and which is why this amendment from my colleague is so very important, and that is because 16 million children or 22.5% of all children in the united states live in a home where access to food is an uncertain. in these homes child nutrition prrams literally serve as a lifeline to proper nutritn and a better future. and we know that hungry children are sick more often, they suffer growthmpairment and even developmental impairments. they do poorer in school. they're less prepared to join the work force and for purposes of this debate, they're less prepared to serve their country in the armed forces.

the factof life for too many of our children arhard to hear, but they are in fact true. the first step in achieving greatesuccess mu be to ensure adequate funds are dedicated to this challenge. i support the sense of congress language in this amendment calls for $1 billion increase in funding for the child nutrition programs a i sharets belief that we need to pay for it. i'd like to thank my colleagues, jim mcgovern, sanford bishop of georgia, for their leaderip on this issue, and to support the goals of this important program. i would ask colleagues to support the nse of cgress language, continue working to make itmessage a ality and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mrs. emerson: i yield back. the chair: ok. the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachuse mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to thank the gentlelady from missouri for her leadership and her co-sponsorship of this amendment and i yield two minutes to the gentlem from georgia, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to joi presentives mcgovern and emerson as an original co-sponsor of thisipartisan amendment which affis the intention of congress to combat domestic childhood obesity and hunger in the interest of our national security. according to a july, 2009, trust for america's health report, the percentage of owe bees and overweight childrenges -- obese and overweight children ages 10o 15 are above 30% in 30 states. seven of the top 10 states are in the south, with my state of georgia ras third with 33.3% of obese and overweit youngsters. obesitis especially evalent in the african-american and latino communities. overweight and obese tes are at risk of developing diabes,

heart disease, cancer, stroke, arthritis and breathing problems and amecan childr are disproportionately impacted. in a recent report, to fat to fight, over 100 retired general and admirals wrote that obesity among children and yog adults has increased so dramaticall that it threatens not only our nation's hlth but the future of our military. between 1995 and 2008 the military had 140,000 individuals, a 70% increa, who showed up at the centers r processing b failed their entrance fals -- physicals because they were too heavy. 1,200 enlistees were discharged before their contracts were up and now being overweight is the leading medical cause for rejection from militarservice. mr. speaker, proper nutrition, healy food, ending hunger and access to physical activity for our youth areital to ensuring

that our nation's milary remains strong into the future. i urge my colleagues to pport this important amendment and e strong effort to support and maintain a strong national defense by assuring strong and healthy service members. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: may i inquire, mr. chairman, as to the remaining time? the chair: the gentlen has three minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield that to the gentleman fromirginia, mr. forbes, a memr of the committee. the air: the gentleman's recnized for three minutes. mr. forbesthank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank the ranking member for yielding that time. mr. chairman, i was excited as i was reading some articles in my office before i came overere. the leadership of the house has finally moved us up to where we now have an 18% approval rating across the country. that means that only 82% of the americans feel that this body doesn't have a clue about where we need tgo or why and the

reason is because as hard as they try to find it there's one thing they can't find in any of these walls, under any of these chairs and that is just simple common sense. because, mr. chairman, wh they go to buy something, theow the first thing they need to do is ask how much does it cost? and yet we passed a health care bill and we don't even really look at all the facts. later we find out it costs a hole lot more than what we thought it would and we just come back up and say, well, that's just too bad. and we're getting ready to do the same thing because when they take any actions in tir business, one of the first th they want to do is say, what'she effect going to be on that particul action? and, mr. chairman, as we look at this provision on trying to remove the don't ask, don't tell policy that is currently t policy for o.d., we hear our chiefs of staff and one voice, admiraughhead, saying, just

wait and get your facts before you make your decision. just some common sense. we hear general schwartz, the chief of staff at the department of air force, saying, just wait and get the facts, let us do the study before you make a decision, just some common sense. we have general conaway who says just wait and get the facts before you make a decision, just some common see. and we have general casey from the army just saying, just get the facts before you make a decision. let us complete the study, just some common sense. but what some individuals want to do on this house floor, same thie do with so many other things, bury the common see, let's just push forward, we'l get the facts later. let's just pass the provision now. and that's why, mr. chairman, i hope that this body will protect this autrization bill and not pass the amendment to remove n't ask, don't tell, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. chairm, if we want to do something that is common sense, we should pass this amendment before us. hunger, obesity are critical issues to our military and to the health and well-being of our nation. 69 years ago, military recruits were turned away because they were undernourished. today they are rejected because they are fat. a school lunch program alls our children to eat during the school day. we must improve it so thatmore nutritious meals are srved and that every child has access to school meals. we talk a lot abt health care in this chamber according to the american public health association, i quote, left unchecked, obesy ll add nearly $344 billion to the nation's annual health care costs by 28 and account for more than 21% of health care spending. this is a health issue. this is a common sense issue.

this is a natiol security issue. this amendment expresses the house's support for this effort to end hunger and toake sure our you people have nutritious meals, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the mcgovern-bishop-erson amendment. and i i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remake. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i would yield myself the lance of mtime. i suppt this amendment. i think it's good thing. i think that the whole country could use a little help in this area. now, back to don't ask, don't tell. again, i think it's very important that weas mr. forbesaida little common sense. when we tell the military we're going to get eir viewpoint, and then we say, never mind, we're going to move ahead, your viewpoint don't real matte i think that that's a big

mistake. i think this amendment is a good one, but i think only giving us 10 minutes to debate don't ask, don't tl is a mistake. iield back the balance of my time. e chair: queson on the amendment offered by the the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings of the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlem from missouri seek recognition? mr. skelton: mr. chairman, pursuant h.res. 1404 i i offer amendments en bloc number 2. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en

bloc. the clerk: amendments en bloc, consistenting of amendments numbered 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, d 45, turn in house reportumber 111-489. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1404, the gentleman from missouri, m skelton, and the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, will each control 10 minutes. the chair now rises the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. mr. skelton: i urge the committee to adopt the amendments, both the majority and the minority. . chairman? i yield two minutes to my friend from california, the gentlelady, mrs. harmon. the chair: without objection. mrs. harmon: i thank esteemed chairman mr. skelton for yielding and ask unanimous to

revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so red. mrs. harmon: i have served on every security committee, including three terms on the armed services committee, whose bill i am once again proud to support. as a rookie member of congress in 1993, i sat in the most junior chair, just a few feet away frothe witness table. then chairman of the joint chis co-lynn powell testified in favor of the clinton administration's don't ask, don't telpolicy. i drew a deep breath and told the general that i thought don't ask, don't tell was unconstitutional. i opposed it then and i oppose it now. no good has ever come of that policy, and i applaud the personal couragof current joint chiefs chairman who told congress, quote, no matter how i look at the issuei cannot escape looking at the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and wal-mart to lie about who they are in order to defend their llow citizens. the en bloc amendment which we are now debating includes language i co-authored with

chair slaughter to give victims of military sexual trauma the ability to seek a base transfer. it's an epimic which afcts a growing number to rape. it is horrifying that women in our military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in iraq or afghanistan. m.s.t. must end, and this bill makes a very good start. let me just make some general comments about our national security. we can't wish away the threats facing our nation. we, like generations of americans before us, must rise to meethem. we must be realistic about our vulnerabilities about the capabilities of our adversaries, and of our allies to help us. we must be wise enougho recognize that we will not prevail through litary might alone. our military diplomatic and development effortare tools to an end. security and eventually pce. these are dangerous times and they require a tough response. we have the strategy in this bill. we have the strength in tho men and women who serve courageously. we have our values.

we will not fail. supporthis bill. support the mury amendment. support the en bloc amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: who seeks recognition in opposition? >> mr. chairman, although i will not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is rognized for 10 mines. mr. mckeon: at this time, i yield twminutes to the the gentleman from pennsylvania, sponsor of one of the minutes, mr. murphy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. m murphy: thank the ranking memr for yielding. one of the amendments i would like to talk about, according to a study, studies of po traumatic stress disorder in our veterans from orations in iraq and afghanistan. suicide rates among them are also hher than that of the generalopulation. the department of defense has rightly doubl its budget for treatmt of reseah of ptsd and traumatic brain injury and set higher goals for the number of behavior of health providers.

although care is supplement to contract providers, the military remains understaffed to meet the needs. combat veterans should not be placed on a waiting list, especially dealingith mental health problems and suicides. service members who need care can only get care if they are near care. now, a huge iestment has been made into many of the great clinicians and medical services in their careers. bonus educational expenses are id in hopes we can recruit and retain them for 20 or 30 years, although many do not remain that long. sometimes we discourage those from signing up later in their careers because ofheir age and hey caot remain for 20 years or so. there are those at the peak of their careers who can look to the field not only with the immediate nes with hhly skled and ready trained experience, but to provide mentorship and training to those starting out in their careers. this amendment simply calls upon the surgeons general, the army, navy, air force to report on other incentives offered to

recruit anretain those with 20 or more years of non-military clinical experice to serve in active or reserve du. this might include but is not limited to offering a 10-year retirement incentive instead of traditional 20- or 30-year retirement. we are very proud of our service men and women and want to make it very clear thatll of us in congress and i know all the military is absolutely dedicated to making sure that we take care of all of their wounds, whether they are the visible or invisible wounds of war. we are proud of their service and will continue to support them, and along ose lines, i hope my colleagues will also support this amendment. with that, i yield back. the chair: e gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to my friend, the the gentleman from north dakota. the chair: the gentleman is recoized for two minutes. >> i thank my friend, the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of amendment number 23, which reauthorized the joint family support assistance program. thiprogram has been providing

critical support to the unsung heroes of the glal war on terror. the families left behind of deploying guard and reserve soldiers. mr. pomero the department of defense stated in its report to congress on the implementation of this prram, the guard reserve are expericing gnificantly increased mobilization as a result of the global waon terrorism. families who previously had limited exposure of the demands duto separation due to military deployment must now deal with the likelihood of longer and often multiple eployments to the service member. issues like ngle parenting, keeping a house running through all kinds of weather conditions, traumatized children with -- missing a parent. all of these issues have been dealt with through the scopesf ese joint family support assistance prrams.

they work compiling a military sourcprogram. one locion, coordinating the many resources available within their local community in support othese famili. a one-stop shop able to make certain that there's coordination from military, federal, state, and local resources. you know, for families on military bases who are deployed, it's very clear the support systemare there and what they are. for families of guards and reserve soldiers, especially across rural areas like north dakota, it's less clear sometimes where the support can come from. i am so proud of the north dakota national guard and reserve families that have stood in support of their deploying sole jers, and we've had a bunch of them. 3,500 soldiers, over 1,800 airmen on multiple deployments. we need to supportheir

families, and i urge permanent authorization of th program. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: chairman, i yield three minutes tthe the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hunter: america right now is locked in combat against a ngerous enemy in afghanistan facing the constant threat of ambush and roadside bombs. the last thing our soldiers a marines need is any unnecessary or harmful distractions. as a marine who has served down range in both iraq d afghanistan, i personally have witnessed the current policy don't ask, don't tell works and the repeal ocurrent law does not work. i have lived with, eaten with, died for cover with, and fought with my fellow marines overseas three times. some military lawyers may think that this amendment looks good on paper, but in efct, it will destroy the combat rdiness of our fighting forces. our focus right now should be on achieving victory and returning our military home safely.

while america possesses the best military equipment in the entire world and the most technologically advanced weapoy in the earth, the true set of our might is derived from e ce set of principl from our combat troops. it is these shared beliefs that lead to the camaraderie and the instin of our troops to risk their lives and protect one another every single day. the commandant of the marine force stands opposed to repealing the current law. each of t service chiefs have expressed concern of repealing any action, until the yearlong study under way at the pentagon is completed. with all due respect, secretary of defense gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, have and are performing a great service our nation, but they work for this administration. and as such, are required to follow president obama's lead and not necessarily speak for the men and women who have volunteereto fight for our nation and put themselves in harm's way. evidently, the white house and

congressional democrats think theyre doing o military a favor by rewarding them for victory in iraq and continue hard fighting in afghanistan by forcing a liberal social ageneral depa on them. further more, ignoring our input on this matter by not having this vote after the pentagon study is completed so that at least this would be an informed vote. our time would be better spent on evaluating the real threats ng our military in afghanistan, starting with the roadside bomb threat, and ensuring our troops have the resources that ey need. the debate on don't ask, don't tell is just another distraction on these and other priorities, and i urge my colleagues here in the house to vote no ts amendment. we need to listen to our military leader, listen to the commandant of the marine cor and the actually generals and admirals in charge of our mitary fighting for us, not people who work for this administration and are going to toe the line for this administration. we've got to do what's right, support the military. we need victory, not social change in the military. i yield back thealance of my time.

the chair: the chair will not that that the the gentleman from missouri has sick minutes remaining. the the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from missouri. mr skelton: mr. chairman, i yield back the balan of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. keon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman froiowa, mr. latha a sponsor of one of the amendments in the en bloc, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recnized for two minutes. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman from california, my good friend. and, mr. speaker, the amendment i offered to my colleagues, along with the gentleman from oklahoma, is included in the en bloc amendnts we're considering. i thank the rules committee, the chairman, mr. skelton, the raing member, for considering this amendment ich addresses an issue brought to my attention by -- attention by members of the iowa national guard. the 2008 defense authozation act included a provision naowing the gap between active duty and reserve retirement

benefits. by allowing guarand reserve members to begin receiving retired pay earlier than the age of 6if they had spent significant periods of time in deployments. this provision was based on legislation that i introded, the national guard and reserve retirement modernization act. the intent of the iginal legislation was to reduce the retirement age for time spent deployed by tee months for -- by three months for every 90 days spent on active du over the course of a career. as an inntive to retain our best and brightest men and women. however, an erroneous legal interpretation has leened the time which causes many members the guard and reserve to lose redit for some of the months that they serve. my amendment states that it is the nse of congress that steps should be taken to correct this interpretation in order to ensure reserve component members

receive the full retirement benefits that they've earned. the committee has indicated in its report that thank it believes the current preparation of the law to b inaccurate. i look forward to wrking with -- workingith the committee and the dartment of defense to correct this issue of fairness to our guardsmen and reservists who are asked to meet incasing dds. i urge my colleagues to support this effort and i would yield back to the gentleman from california my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman. at this time, mr. chairman, i yield the balae of our time to the gentleman fr indiana, e ranking member on the veterans' affairs committee, mr. buyer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. buyer: thank you ve much. i want to congratulate both of you on a job well done on your bill. and to my friend, ike skelton,

buck mckeonike, i support the policy you came up with years o. the d.o.d.'s don't a, don't tell, we should not be repealing it. in a unified voice, all the service chiefs have ask used to give them time -- asketo us give them time on the shift that will affect every soldier, sailor and marine. now is not the time for congress to be voting on an amendmento repeal don't ask, don't tell. now is the me to strengthen our resolve to support our service men and women and to help them ght andefeat terrorism arou the world. now, the constitution permits congress to discriminate. we actually are designated with the power to raise and support the armies, provide and maintain the a navynd me rules for government regulation. there is nothingn the constitution that guarantees a citizen the right to serve in the aed forces. as a matter of fact, pursuant to the powers conferred under

ction 8 of aicle i of the constion, it lies within the discorrection of cngress to distinguish qualifications for being in the armed services. youan't be too tall, you can't be too short, if you're overweight. we make these decisions. why? the purpose of the military, we kill and break things. unit cohesion is pretty important. the conduct of military operation requires the members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifice, cluding the ultimate sacrifice in order to provide for the common defense of this nation. success in combat requires military units that are carefulize -- characterized by high morale, good order and ipline and unit cesion. one of the most critical elements in combat capability is it coheon defined at the small unit level. that is the bon of trust ong individual service members that makes the combat effectiveness of our military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members themselves. military life is fundamentally

differenfrom civian life. inthat -- life in that the extraordinary responsibilities of thermed forces, the unique conditions of military service require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist in a specialized society. and the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs and tradions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society. the standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is just -- is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces. those standards of conduct apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has military stus, whether or not the individual is onbase or not or in uniform or not. the pervasive applition of the andards of conduct is necessary because members of the

armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwi deployment to a combat environment. the worldwide deployment of the united states military forces, the international responsibilitieof thenited states a the potential for inlvement in the armed forces in tual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntari to accept living conditions and work conditions that a often spartan, primitive and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy. the prohibition agains homosexual conduct is a long standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in unique circumstances of the military service. tolerance does not require a moral equivalency. do not repeal this. mr. skelton: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlen rise? mr. skelton: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. the chair: is there objection to the geleman reclaiming his

time? hearing none, so ordered. the gentleman has six minutes remaining. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one mine. mrs. davis: thank you. thank you, mr. skelton. i would just like to correct a couple of issues that mr. mckeon anothers have brought up. the committee, in fact, has held hearings on don't ask, don't tell. in fact, my subcommittee has had two hearings on this very topic. every member of the task and even those not on the committee were welcome to attend. unfortunately most of the republans who have criticized this process failed to show up to either hearing. e members that did attenthe second hearing held on march 3 of this year heard one of th co-chairs of the d.o.d. working ousay that, and i quote, the issue is not whether but how best to implement repeal. all along the purpose of the study has been how to implement

repeal, not if, to end th policy. that is the purpose of the working group's meetings and why it is so important for our service members and their families to paicipate in atever activities rlated to this that they choose. i just wanted to makthat correction, mr. saker. e chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. mr.kelton: i yield two minus to t gentleman from rhode island, mr. kennedy. the chair: the gentleman's reconized for two minutes. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman skelton, mr. mckeon, for their good work on this legislation. helping to supply our soldiers, sailors, airmen and coast guardsmen, all of those who serve our country in this war on terrorism. i want to thank our service men anwom as we approach our memorial day for their service to our great country. but to understand for all of my colleagues and for this country that when they come home, the war that they fought on our behalf sometimes just begins.

it binr them personally. and that is the war to tryo cope, to cope with the many challenges healtise that they have been encumbered with because of their service to our country. and they shouldn't have to worry one bit that they don't have us to back th up 100%. they need to know that we are there for them, just as they've been with us. and that is why in this legislation we have the best in latest medicine for brain research d neuro science technology -- neuroscience technology, to make sure the signature wounds in this war, traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress, is researched properly and it's researched at the evidence-bed level by the department of defense because our soldierdemand no less than the best when it comes to making sure that their challenges,

their wounds are addressed. and the department of defense needs to do that. we make it a priority in is authorization bill and when we dthat in this bill we ao do that for this country because just as they did overseas, they're not only going to kick down the doors overseas, they're going to kick down the doors here at home when it comes to advancing mental health and neuroscience for all americans because owhat we are learning, thanks to these great soldiers that are serving this country so proudly. god bless all of our men and women and let them know that we stand behind them over there and when they get ba home here at home as well. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman -- thehair: the gentleman from missouri has three minutes remaining. mrskelton: yes. i yld one mute to my iend and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman is recnized for one minute. mr.ndrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my

remarks. the chair: witut objection, so ordered. . andrews: i thank the chairman for yielding. certainly the debate the minority keeps bringing up about don't ask, don't tell is very important. we'll ve that vigous debate. many americans don't really place whether gays and lesbians can serve in the military as the number one ing they worry about inational security. i think they're probably more worried about something like a nuclear i.e.d. going off in times square. it's important to look athe work that the two parties have done together that's reflected in this bill to prevent that day from happening. there's a program which identifies, galingters up, secures and eventualldisposes of the material that cod make a nuclear bomb to have that horror story happen. in 2008 we devoted $199 million to that program and frankly it was lagging behind. we weren't identifying, securing or disposing of enough it. this yeawe're putting $559 million into that. which means more nlear material will be identified, locked down, disposed of and t

risks thawe will have a terrible situation like i just described will be diminished. this is the real work of the defense committee that deserves everyone's support. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield two minutes to my friend, the gentleman from ohio, mr. driehaus. the chair: the gentlem is recognized for two mines. mr. driehaus: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman for yielding. mr. chairman, we will soon be considering an amendment, the pingree amendment, that would strip away competiti for the competitive engine program. this congress on nine different occasions has stood up for competition. as recently as this congress. the weapons system acquisitio reform act of 2009, where the house passed the conference report 411-0. and in section 202 we talk about thacquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the life cycle of majorefens

acquition programs. it's estimated, mrchairman, that 5,000 engines will be ordered for the joint strike fighter. 5,000 engines. and the proponents of is endment would have us do away with the competition, dpite the fact that this congress has invested almost $3 billion in this competition today -- to date. now that we're up and ready, now that the competitive engine is ready to move forward, they want to say, stop. stop the race before it even starts. we know better than that, mr. chairman. we know better because we learned on the f-15 and the f-16. we know that this will reduce costs in the long-term, as my grandmother woulday, this is penny wise and pound foolish. but also just this year in march 2010, the g.a.o. report suests this goes beyond financial specation. we know that this isoing to save money. but beyond the finances there are nonfinancial benefits. better performance, increased

reliability and improved contractor responsiveness this is critically important, if nothe xt couple of dades we're going to rely upon this engine for our men and women in uniform, we need to make sure that it is reliable, we need to make sure that there is competition. i urge my colleagues to reject the pingree amendment and i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment en bloc offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favoray aye. those opposed, . in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendnts are agreed to.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the ntlewomanrom maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: i have an amendment at the desk. the speerro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 80, printed in house report 111-498, offered by ms. pingree of maine. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house relution 1404, theentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree, and a member opposed each will control five mines. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment prohibits any further fundg for the alternate f-35 engine. in 2001, whitney won the award

fothe primary engine for the joint strike fighter through a competitive process. this process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. since then, congress has authorized $1.3 billion of unasked for funds. the bush administrationed opposed the program, the obama administration opposes the program, yet if this amendment fails to pass, we will continue to authorize a program that is unnecessary. i couldn't put it better than this, given the needs facing our country, we cannot afford a businesas usual approach to the defense budget. tough choice must be made by both the deparent and congress to ensure that current and future military

capabilities can be afforded over time. this means programs with little or no benefit, like the f-136 program, shod be can selled. i yield the remainedmoifer time to mr. larson. the speaker pro tempore: weather, e gentleman from connecticut will control the remainder of the time. >> mr. chairman. i inquire of the air w much time do we have o each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connectit has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. and there will five minutes for an opponent. >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendnt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes.

>> i yield myself 15 seconds. i believe that cancellation of the program would be a problem, therefore iurge m colleagues to not pass this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. >> i yield to mr. cardoza. mr. cardoza: i rise in support of the pingree amendment. i understand andespect the the passions expressed by my friends on both sides of the issue. i believe that today we must stand firmly on the side of fiscal responsibility and refuse to fund a redundant ngine that our military leadersnd our commander in chief l said is unnessary

and unwarranted when i'm back home in my district, i often hear my constituents say we never cut anything and we never can say no. today, i'm saying no and i think this house should as well. i don't think we need two engines on thiplane. i believe we need to save the $3 billion every time we get a chance. today we can maka difference for the deficit. our country cann afford the -- the deficit. we cannot afford to waste precious tax dollars funding this program the defense department says they don't ed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, chairn of the subcommittee. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. the second engine is all about fiscal responsibility and saving the taxpayers money. the pentagon themselves funded this program for 10 years and funded it because they knew that competition mattered.

one thing that's already -- one thinhas already been said in this debate that isn't true. the first engine wasn't competitivelied by. it was the engine lockheed had when they won the bid. that's why the pentagon created the second engine program to make sure over the 30 to 40-year life cycle of a $100 billion program they had options. a g.a.o.tudy on the competitive engine study from the rly 1980'showed savings oalmost 20% over the lifetime of that program. those of us who for years ha support t second engine program supported it because we want to save the taxpayers money. the simple argument competition works and being penny wise and pound foolish esn't. we've already spend $3 billion. to save $2 billion on the front end, we risk $100 blion program. please oppose this amendment.

thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: -- mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. skelton, of the armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. skelton: speak in favor of t committee position, which is to have an alternate engine for the f-a 35. if one -- for the f-35. if one looks at the graph of the f-16 alternate engine program, one will clearly notice that from th mid 1980's, the cost of the engines went down because of the competition. competition is important. single source often causes a steep increase in price. last year, this hou passed

the weapons systems acquisition reform act, which requires more competition in department of defense programs, not less. what this position is of the armed services committee is living up to that reform act, requiring more competitio it's as simple as that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired the gentleman from connecticut. mr. larson: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the chair: both sides have 2 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. larson: i recognize my distinguished colleague for 45 seconds. the speaker proempore: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. speaker. there has been competition in

the program for the fmbing-135. that bid was competitive. now we have somebody with contracts for 14 of the8 military engines complaining about competion. they lost the competition and mr. speaker, if they lost the competition a in an open, nest bid, hang the sole source of 14 of the 28 military aircraft engines, what can be the argument? with that, i eld back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr.ckeon: mr. chairman, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas, a member of the committee, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to sak in favoof competition. i work the -- our work on the act shows that, i speak against this amendment. there was no competition.

undersecretary ashton carter, on the record, has said there's no kmp decisi between these two engines. . mr. conaway: it drives down cost and we ed the c savings over the life of the prgram. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman from connecticut. mr. rson: i yield myself such time as i my consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larson: all across america, families are tightening their belts, make dog with less. they expect the same from congress. imagine their utter frustration when they hear congress pushing forward an unwanted and unnecessary $3illion program. only in washington, d.c. could a company that lost competition in the private sector and already controls 88% of the military engine market come seeking a government directed subsy and callhat competition. i guess competition in this

town means buying two of everything with the taxpayers' money. the marine the navy, and the air force have all said they don't want it,hey don't need it. the psident has called this program an example of unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. why are we ving ahead with it. if we can't cut spending here, where can we cut it? if we don't make the tough choices to rein i wasteful spending now, whenill we make them. this is about whose side you're on. are you on the side of excessive spending? or are you on the side o saving taxpayer money and supporting our troops? the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from indiana, mr. buer.

mr. buyer: to say that competition causes wasteful use of taxpayer money is a perfidious argument. i defended connecticut, you came to the floor and argued about competition, competition against new port news. i'm glad we did now that we've got welding problems with the submarines. now you think sole source and competition bad? e you kidding me, mr. chairman? do not bdishonest. let'be honest about the debate. defend our industrial base. that's what is extremely important. let's also protect the transatlantic alliance. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i recognize the vice chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on nuclear nonproliferation and terrorism, the gentleman from georgia, david scott, for 30 seconds.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. scott: want to speak for something we had notouched upon, that is what we need to touch upon the most, that's what's inhe best inrest of r national security. here we are, dbating this issue do, we want to put the future of an engine production in the hands of one monopoly company for 30 years in fact, $100 billion in it. by the year 2035, the f-35 will accounfor 95% of our entire aircraft plead fleeth for our fighter squadrons. it is very important that we have thisalt in the hands of more than one manufacturer. we need to vote dn this amendmt. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut has 30 seconds remaining. mr. larson: i yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. rooney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rooney: i rise in support of the amendment. ladies and gentlemen, we were sent here in a republic to

represent yotrustees with issues like this i'm new to congress but this is a wasteful spending earmark. we have 27 planes that use one engine that had a competitive bid and now we're talking about adding a second engine to our f-35 for $2.9 billion. why because we slipped in an earmark in 1996 and nobody in congress, the ngress with the great approval rating, has ever decided to take it out. the time to change washington is now and this is a perfect example of why. vote yes on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california s 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. mcon: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pitts. -- mr. pence. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pencei ask unanimous consent to revise andxtend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. pence: i rise in support of

of of the giant strike fighter task force. let me sai'm proud of the hoozer employees who worked to develop this engine. but that's not whi'm here. i'm here because i do believe that e essential choice between us is competion or sole source contracting. either we can require two companies to engage in head-toead competition or we can give o company a sole source contract worth $100 billion for the next 30 years. which do y think is more in the interest of tack payers? oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california has 45 seconds remaing. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield0 seconds to the ntleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds, without objection, so ord.

mr. andrews: members should ask these questions in citg this issue. when it comes to saving money, would you rather have two people competing or o for your business? when it comes to protecting your fleet, the ability to fly, wold y rather rely on one company or two to keep the fleet fl? when it comes to competition, should you presu that competition works or presume that it shouldn't? toave money to protect the fleet to promote competition, we should oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: t gentleman's time haexpire. the gentleman has 15 seconds reining. mr. mckeon: yield the mainder of our time to mr. mcintyre a member of the committee. mr. mcintyre: permission to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. mcintyre: congress is not reired to give a rubber stamp to the department of defense which is opposed to other programs like e formation of

the u.s. special operations command and fundg for the b-22 osprey. if this amendment passes our nional security will be at grave risk as 90% of our fighter jets will be dependent on onengine. that's not wise and not fair. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maine. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maine will be postponed. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washinon rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendmen the clerk: endment number 82,

offered by mr. inee of washington. the chair: psuant to house solution 1404, the gentleman fromashington, mr. inslee, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: all americans believe in a strong national dens and all americans believe in a fair level playing field in economicompetition. and in the competition for the procurement contracts for the air force tanker and preserving national infrastructure and preserve fairness, we need to amend this bill to make sure illegal subsidies are taken into consideration in this bidding process. we have an amendment that will do that that will insist in this bidng process that it be conducted fairly. any bidder, domestic or foign, has an unfair competive advantage, that is taken into consideration.

why do we need to do this? there is 50,00merican jobs at stake and nothing in international law compels us to provide a stimulus program for france. we are required to do this because we know they can compete if they have a level pying field with workers in europe. our bill is number one fair and applies to domestic and foreign bidders and it is compliant and i uld like tyield a minute and a half to mr. tee heart from kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2. mr. tiahrt: it becomes more and more difficult to create and keep jobs here in ameca. we have the best aerospace workers in the world. but jobs have left america and migrated to france. the european government has subsidized building jets and the

world trade organization ruled that those startusubsidies are illegal and our own pentagon is buying a new jet and they have decided to turn theiracks on the american aerospace workers by ignoring the llegal starup subsidi and putting another 65,000 jobs at risk. this amendment is about fairness to the workers and simply says in spite of the lobbyg efforts occurring by the french, it says, if you want to take a bid from france you have to take into consideration the dollar impact of illegal subsidies. support this amendment, it supports the american aerospace workers. i yid to mr. inslee from washington for the purpose of a colloquy. is it your understanding that the language in the amendment regarding the unfair competitive advantage describing illegal subdies provideby eads and airbus by the european

government as ruled by the world trade organization? >> it is our intent with ts amendment to ensure that illegal and unir competitive advantages provided to eads airbus by the european government areactored into the bid price of recipients of those illegal subsidies. mr. tiahrt: that's my understanding of thanguage and i yield back. mr. inslee: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from alabama. >> i rise claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed. it's interesting to listening to both sides of this debate we see this amendment in two different ways and yet we are going to end up being on the same side. this amendment as has been revised is far superior to the form in which it existed less than 24 hours ago. the amendment now applies in an even-handed way to both competitors the tanker competition and for that reason,

i think we have made the amendment better. however, allow me to afford a word of caution toy colleagues that merits our consideration. as my colleagues know, this ongoing procurement process that, in fact, was mandated by congress is just weeks away, july 9, in fact, where both companies are going to tn in their final bid. and unless we muddy this process up, we are only a few months away in selecting a winnernd moving forward to build the replacement for the air force 50-yr-old fleet of tankers. the word of cautioto my friends is this. congress needs to be very careful that we don't build obstacles or additional delay into this program. after all, our war fighters have waited long enough. and we must be extremely careful that we maintain a level playing field that is essential for

vigorous competition. we know that competition will dramatically increase the odds of a better tanker at a better price and there are only two companies in the world that are qualifie to build these tankers. to that point, on tuesday, the partment of defense reit rated that quotewe would not have welcomed eads in this competition unless they were a company in good standing with the department of defense. those of us who support eads's bid have argued for a level playing field one in which both sides can compete fairly. som on one side apper to fear that fr competition is not possible unless it is a sole- source contract, a blank eck signed by the american taxpayer. with that, i would be happy to yield to my friend and distinished colleague who serves on this committee, congssman bby bright

the chair: for how long? mr. bonner: as long as he wishes to consume. . bright: i thank the committees for inteening on this amendment to make it much less harmful than it was originally written. the comttees recognize that the fair defense competition act on which this amendment is based is deeply flawed and would have significant trade implications. considering the fact that the original bill had been deemed unworkable, i hope we canut this issue to rest and proceed to give our war fighters the st value for the taxpayer. the defenseepartment has sought to replace its aging fleet. there have been problems with that process and the effort should have ended years ago is only now getting close to final resolution. if anything, congress should avoid doing anything that would complicate an already drawn out competition.

the department of defense should award a contract withot political considerations. that said, i do not not believe this amendment will have a significant impa on the procs. the erican taxpayers deserve e best possible refueling tanker. let's let the department of defense make a decision based on the facts, not distractions. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chai the gtlan yields back the balance of his time. the gentlemanrowashington. mr. inslee: i yield one minute to ms. delauro frr connecticut. the chair: the the gentlewoman from connecticut is reognized forne minute. mr. deal: we can give -- ms. delauro: we can give the contract to boeincreati 70,000 u.s. jobs over the fe of the contract or we could give the contract to a european company, airbus, eads u

creating tens of thousds of jobs in europe. this should be a no-brainer. the decision is en clearer. we know airbus has been provided billion in illegal subsidies from european governments, subsidies which have cost us an estimated 65,00u.s. jobs. the amendment before us dires the department of defen to take any unfair competitive advantage into account in the air force tanker competition. the pentagon should not be rewarding bad behavior or u.s. taxpayers shouldn't be asked to create a job creation program for the european areao industry. stand up for american workers and basic fairness in tanker competition. the chair: the gentledy's time has expired. mr. bonner: if were to ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time, is there any time on this side of the argument?

the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/4. mr. bonner: i ask unanimous consent to rlaim my time. the chair: you have not yielded the time. you still have 75 seconds. mr. boer: i would like to respond briefly to the gentlelady from connecticut, our friend and distinguished lleague, to set the record raight. when eads wins the competition this time as they dithe previous time, ey in tend to create 4000 in the united states which will be many my district in alabama but in all 50 states. this is not a comtition between ameran jobs and european jobs, this is american jobs throughout the country in between two greacompetitors. i reserve the time. the chair: the gentlem reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington.

mr. inslee: i yld to the the gentleman from missouri. the chair: the gentleman from ssouri is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. carnahan: granting a $35 billion to a company that has received over 5 billionn illegal subsidies makes no common sense. in the end, this is about what is fair for the taxpayer, fair for companies. tens of thousands of boeing employees have been affected by these continual subsidies provided by european governments that wl put american workers at a disadvantage. i call on every member othis house to support full and fair competition in the tanker program and sport american workers. i yield back. e chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: in response to my friend fm missouri, in an agreement that we need to be assured of fair competition, that's why i do not oppose this amendment. i believe this amendment was better last night. i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. inslee: i yiel30 seconds to mr. norm dicks of washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognizer 30 seconds. mr. dicks: no one objected to him getting additional time. airbus received $5.7 billion in subsidy from the government of europe. this gives it an unfair advantage on the bidding of this chairman. and that's why we want the secretary of defense to at least take that into account. the w.t.o. has already determined that this was an illegal subsidy that rmed the ited states of america and will cost us thousands of jobs. we must have this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from alabama has 30 conds remaining. mr. bonner: rerespond to the distinguished chairman and friend from washington state with this point, the w.t.o.

issued an interim ruling. and within weeks the w.t.o. shoulbe able to considethe complaint of the european union against boeing. and to that point, $16.6 billion in r&d subsidies ve been recorded for boeing versus $3.7 for airbus. $6 billion in locaand state government subsidies and $2 billion in foreign goverent subsidies for moving manufacturing jobs out of your state, my friend, into japan and italy. with that, i yield back. the chair: thgentlen's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. you have 30 seconds. mr. insl: i just want my colleagues to realize there ia clear difference between these two bidders one has been adjudicated as having received of $5 blion of illegal subsidies that is the same contractor that will take tens of thousands of jobs to

europe that would otherwise be in the united states of america. it is untenablin today's world for the pentagon to not take that into consideration and give it to the pple who are doing a great job in the department of defense. we will not finish until this is taken into consideration. the chair: the gentleman's tim has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amenent is agreed to. mr. inslee: we would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendmentffered by the gentleman from washington will gentleman from washington will be postponed.

the air: pursuant to clause 6 ofrule 18, proceedings will nowesume on those amendments printed inouse report 111 498. on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order. amement number one, by mr. amement number one, by mr. skelton of missouri.