Vote Smart - Facts For All

OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

By: Adam Smith

Date: May 25, 2011

Location: Washington, DC

Issues: National Security Transportation Women Defense Military Personnel Veterans Health and Health Care Education Energy

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, just to close, I agree with the gentleman's remarks.

Let me just say if I thought that there was the tiniest little bit possibility that this amendment would prevent the type of tragedy that happened at Fort Hood, I would support it unquestionably, but I don't believe it will. The concerns, the back and forth about whether or not to report something that is concerning, they exist, they need to be dealt with. They will exist whether or not this amendment is passed.

We need to work to educate people to report threats, but making it ideologically based, I think, opens up more problems and shifts the focus away from what we need. And what we need is whether the threat is ideological or whatever the cause, we need to encourage people to go to their superiors, report it, and make sure that they are better safe than sorry. I would encourage that, but I don't think this amendment does that. Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. HUNTER

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 112-88.

Mr. HUNTER. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following new section:

SEC. 5__. PILOT PROGRAM ON SCHOLARSHIPS FOR MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS.

(a) Pilot Program Required.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military departments, carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of awarding scholarships to military children with special education needs described in subsection (b) in order to cover the costs of such children in attending a school described in subsection (c) for the purpose of ensuring military children with special education needs a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. Such scholarships shall be known as ``academic opportunity scholarships''.

(2) PURPOSES.--The purposes of the pilot program shall be as follows:

(A) To identify and assess obstacles faced by military families with children with special education needs in obtaining a free appropriate public education to address such needs.

(B) To develop options for military children with special education needs to attend public or private schools through scholarships.

(C) To identify and assess evidence-based research and best practices for providing special education and related services (as those terms are defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401)) for military children with special education needs.

(D) To assess timeliness in obtaining special education and related services described in subparagraph (C).

(E) To identify and document improvements in academic performance of military children with special education needs as a result of the scholarships under the pilot program.

(F) To determine and document the cost associated with obtaining special education and related services described in subparagraph (C) through such scholarships.

(3) CRITERIA.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the pilot program based on uniform criteria established by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Education or the appropriate State government agency.

(4) COMMENCEMENT.--The Secretary of Defense shall commence carrying out the pilot program beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year.

(b) Covered Military Dependent Children.--A military dependent child described in this subsection is a child who--

(1) is a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces;

(2) is a member of a family enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member program administered by the Secretary of the military department concerned;

(3) is a child with a disability under section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and

(4) is covered by a current individualized education program developed and approved in accordance with section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1414) or has been identified as needing special education and related services.

(1) A private elementary school or secondary school.

(2) A public school in a local educational agency or location other than the local educational agency or location, as the case may be, in which the military dependent child concerned resides.

(3) A public charter school in a local educational agency or location other than the local educational agency or location, as the case may be, in which the military dependent child concerned resides.

(d) Amount, Payment, and Use of Scholarship.--

(1) AMOUNT.--The amount of the scholarship awarded a military dependent child under the pilot program for an academic year may not exceed the lesser of--

(A) the amount required for such academic year for the payment of tuition, fees, transportation, and other expenses in connection with attendance at a school described in subsection (c) for the purpose specified in subsection (a); or

(B) $7,500.

(2) PAYMENT.--Payment of the amount of a scholarship awarded a military dependent child shall be made to the parent or guardian of the child for an academic year.

(3) USE.--Subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for purposes of the pilot program, the amount of the scholarship awarded a military dependent child shall be utilized for the payment of tuition, fees, transportation, and other expenses in connection with attendance at a school described in subsection (c) for the purpose specified in subsection (a).

(e) Evaluation of Performance of Recipient Military Dependent Children.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct an evaluation of the performance of military dependent children awarded scholarships under the pilot program. The evaluation shall address the following:

(A) The progress made by military dependent children awarded scholarships in academic and social performance.

(B) The success of the scholarships in expanding choice in education and related services for military dependent children described in subsection (b).

(C) The success of the scholarships in ensuring timely access of military dependent children described in subsection (b) to special education and related services required under their individualized education programs.

(D) Such other matters as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(2) COMPLETION.--The evaluation required by paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than December 31, 2015.

(f) Options for Improvement of Educational Opportunities for Military Children With Special Education Needs.--

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS.--The Secretary of the Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, develop a variety of options for military families with children with special education needs to enhance the benefits available to such families and children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and better assist such families in meeting such needs.

(2) ACTIONS.--In developing actions under paragraph (1), the Secretaries shall consider the following:

(A) The feasibility of establishing an individualized education program for military children with special education needs that is applicable across jurisdictions of local educational agencies in order to achieve reciprocity among States in acknowledging such programs.

(B) Means of improving oversight and compliance with the provisions of section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that require local educational agencies to support an existing individualized education program for a military child with special education needs who is relocating to another State pursuant to the permanent change of station of a military parent until an individualized education program is developed and approved for such child in the State to which the child relocates.

(C) The feasibility of establishing an expedited process for resolution of complaints by military parents with a child with special education needs about lack of access to education and related services otherwise specified in the individualized education program of such child.

(D) The feasibility of permitting the Department of Defense to contact the State to which a military family with a child with special education needs will relocate pursuant to a permanent change of station when the orders for such change of station are issued, but before the family takes residence in such State, for the purpose of commencing preparation for education and related services specified in the individualized education program of such child.

(E) The feasibility of establishing a system within the Department of Defense to document complaints by military parents regarding access to free and appropriate public education for their children with special education needs

(F) Means to strengthen the monitoring and oversight of education and related services for military children with special education needs under the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunities for Military Children.

(G) Such other matters as the Secretaries jointly consider appropriate.

(g) Reports.--

(1) REPORT ON IMPROVEMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.--Not later than September 30, 2013, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the options developed under subsection (f). The report shall include--

(A) a description of any options developed; and

(B) recommendations for such legislative or administrative action as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Education jointly consider appropriate to implement such options.

(2) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.--Not later than September 30, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the plans of the Secretary for the award of scholarships under the pilot program, including any regulations prescribed for purposes of subsection (d)(3).

(3) FINAL REPORT ON PILOT PROGRAM.--Not later than September 30, 2016, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the scholarships awarded under the pilot program. The report shall include--

(A) a description of the scholarships awarded under the pilot program, including the number and amount of scholarships by school year;

(B) the results of the evaluation required by subsection (e); and

(h) Funding for Scholarships.--

(1) ADDITIONAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 301 for Defense-wide operation and maintenance for family advocacy activities, as specified in the corresponding funding table in division D, the Secretary of Defense shall obligate an additional $10,000,000 to award scholarships to military dependent children under the pilot program.

(2) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.--Not more than five percent of the amount specified in paragraph (1) may be used to cover administrative expenses to carry out the pilot program.

(3) MERIT-BASED OR COMPETITIVE DECISIONS.--A decision to commit, obligate, or expend funds made available under paragraph (1) with or to a specific entity or person shall--

(A) be based on merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, or on competitive procedures; and

(B) comply with other applicable provisions of law.

(i) Sunset.--The pilot program shall expire on September 30, 2016. No scholarship may be awarded under the pilot program for an academic year that begins on or after that date.

(j) Funding Increase and Offsetting Reduction.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in the funding tables in division D--

(1) the amount authorized to be appropriated in section 301 for Defense-wide operation and maintenance, as specified in the corresponding funding table in division D, is hereby increased by $10,000,000, with the amount of the increase allocated to carrying out the pilot program; and

(2) the amount authorized to be appropriated in section 1433 for the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund, as specified in the corresponding funding table in division D, is hereby reduced by $10,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, this amendment is very simple.

The most important assets we have in our United States military are our personnel, the men and women that we move around. They get moved around, they usually don't have a choice of where they move from base to base and camp to camp, and this amendment specifically covers those ladies and men who protect us that have special needs children, those children that would otherwise be covered under the IDEA, the disability act for kids, ensuring them a good education. However, these parents don't always know where they're going.

What this would do would start a pilot program for up to 250 kids to allow them to choose whatever school fits their needs best, whether it's a private school, a charter school or public school, and to see if that helps alleviate some of the pain that the families face as they travel from base to base, as they go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan, so we can take care of their kids here at home. It's a pilot program.

I would like to say on our side the only issue that we had with this amendment was its funding source. I have spoken to the chairman from California, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and we are going to pull the funding source out of DOD and find another funding stream for this in conference.

So with that taken care of, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, all of us are grateful to the men and women who put themselves in harm's way between the malevolent and the innocents for the sake of this country. We need to remind ourselves that they don't fight because they hate the enemy or hate what's in front of them. They fight because they love what's behind them. They love us, they love their country, they love the cause of freedom, and they love their families. They love their families more than anything, Madam Chair; and they want to make sure that their children have the very best future that they can give them.

Madam Chair, this amendment that I am so thankful to Mr. Hunter for bringing forth would allow parents an extra option for their children, especially when their special needs children, in the midst of all the travel that the armed services people have to make, they need this option, Madam Chair; and I just think it's unbelievable that we wouldn't support them. Because, fundamentally, one of two people will choose the educational values, the educational substance of our children's future. It will be one of two. It will either be a person who doesn't know their name, or a person called a parent who would die for them in a moment.

I would submit, Madam Chair, that that decision is best left to the parents. Notwithstanding the opposition from the teachers unions, the parents are the best ones to be able to choose the school that their children go to. Nothing will shape the future of America more than the values and the academics that are inculcated in the hearts and minds of our children, and that should belong to parents, especially those who are fighting and dying for this country and they have a special needs child. We should give this to them.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this amendment for a couple of reasons. First of all, I'm curious about the ``we're not actually going to fund it out of DOD, we will fund the money somewhere else in conference'' argument because it's funded out of DOD right now. Unless this is now being offered as a sense of Congress with no money attached to it, in a minute I would be curious to hear exactly how that works.

But beyond that, this is not what is in the best interests of the children of our servicemembers. To give them a $7,500 voucher to go get special needs education is a license for them not to get the education they need. As everyone in this body knows, the costs of special needs children can sometimes be as much as $100,000 a year to our public schools. There are some children out there who have some very, very strong needs.

Fortunately, because of the IDEA, the public schools in this country are 100 percent obligated to meet that need. Talk to any school superintendent who has to deal with this, it's an enormous cost, but it's also an enormous benefit to these children. They have to meet those needs, and if they don't, it is precisely the parent who has the law on his or her side to say the public school must meet that requirement.

If you give them a $7,500 voucher and send them off to whatever private school is out there, they are not subject to those same requirements. They do not have to meet that same dollar value. What you are doing is you are undermining the education for these special needs children in a way that could be very detrimental to our families.

Now, we had a very long debate on this in the Armed Services Committee. This amendment was defeated on a bipartisan basis in committee for a variety of different reasons. I want to make it clear, it was stated throughout, how can you not care about the children of our servicemembers, and more than one Member on our side said, we do. This is not what this is about. We absolutly care about the children of our servicemembers. We want them to get the best education possible. But taking special needs families, giving them a $7,500 voucher and sending them out into the public and private school world and saying, good luck, is not what is in the best interests of parents with special needs children. It simply isn't. They are not getting the type of protections that they have under the law if they go out in that situation.

I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. I would like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for working with the staff to try to find a way to get this pilot program moving forward to help our parents in the military of those who have special needs. One of the things that is different between the military and other people is they are moved often, and they don't have time to go through all of the process to get all of the help they need. This would help them. It's a pilot program.

I encourage the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I find that last argument interesting to say that they move around a lot. I think that is very true. I think they do, and that is a challenge. And they don't have time to make all of these decisions. But they do have time to take a $7,500 voucher and search across all the different schools to see which private schools are going to take it. Because keep in mind, that's another critical aspect of this. Private schools do not have to accept a single solitary student. They don't. You show up with a $7,500 voucher and they say, we're sorry, your child is going to cost more than that. They just say no and move on.

Public schools do have to accept these children and do have to fund it. I really do believe that this will be a step in the wrong direction. The cost is also going to be an issue. We are going to have to find the money for this somewhere. It's not going to improve the education or the lives of our servicemembers and their families, and it is going to wind up costing money.

Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote;

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I rise in strong support of Mr. Hunter's amendment.

Last November, we recognized the 35th anniversary of IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. And prior to IDEA, one out of five children was denied access to a quality education through the public school system because of a disability. IDEA has changed the opportunity for education, but the reality for many special needs students is it still requires an attorney in order to get the education that they need. From the time that a special needs student begins their education, a family needs an attorney. In fact, I was encouraged to hire an attorney to navigate the educational process for my son, Cole.

But picture this scenario: for the men and women who serve our country, many of whom are parents of children with special needs, between deployment and transfers, our servicemen and -women don't have the resources to go through litigation, nor should they.

Most military families do not choose where they live, and they usually don't get the choice when it comes to their schools. But the amendment we are offering today would allow these families to recognize the opportunities of IDEA and authorize scholarships for military families with special needs to be able to choose the school that best fits the needs of their child, whether it be a public school, a private school, or a charter school.

This initiative will provide valuable information and data for Congress as we move to reform and reauthorize IDEA and address this issue over the long term. There is no doubt that IDEA is flawed. This would help us get the information to make it better for all children with special needs.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I would obviously urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.

I think there's universal agreement that we all want the finest quality education for all children and in this case for special needs children. I actually think that the effect of this amendment is to narrow educational opportunities for special needs children in the following way.

The provision sets up a $7,500 subsidy each year that the parents can choose to use as they see fit. That, I think, narrows the choices already available under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Presently, what happens if a servicemember family is located in a certain community and they have a special needs child, the school district in which that child resides is under a Federal legal obligation to provide the highest quality education, the least restrictive educational environment for that child. And if the parents disagree with the choice that is made by the school system, by the Child Study Team, they frankly have the right through Federal law to appeal it and change it.

So I think what actually happens here is that by limiting the level of financial support for these families, we are limiting the educational opportunities for the child; whereas the IDEA puts the force of Federal law behind the best outcome for that child. So I think we all want to accomplish the same thing. I respectfully believe the present law accomplishes that better than the amendment would, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 19 OFFERED BY MR. CARSON OF INDIANA

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). It is now in order to consider

[Page: H3608]

amendment No. 19 printed in House Report 112-88.

Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 325, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 705. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF A CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

(a) Mental Health Examinations During a Deployment.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1074l the following new section: ``§1074m. Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces deployed in support of a contingency operation

``(a) Mental Health Assessments.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide a person-to-person mental health assessment for each member of the armed forces who is deployed in support of a contingency operation as follows:

``(A) Once during the period beginning 60 days before the date of the deployment.

``(B) Once during each 180-day period in which the member is so deployed.

``(C) Once during the period beginning 90 days after the date of redeployment from the contingency operation and ending 180 days after such redeployment date.

``(D) Subject to subsection (d), not later than once during each of--

``(i) the period beginning 180 days after the date of redeployment from the contingency operation and ending one year after such redeployment date;

``(ii) the period beginning one year after such redeployment date and ending two years after such redeployment date; and

``(iii) the period beginning two years after such redeployment date and ending three years after such redeployment date.

``(2) A mental health assessment is not required for a member of the armed forces under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--

``(A) the member was not subjected or exposed to operational risk factors during deployment in the contingency operation concerned; or

``(B) providing such assessment to the member during the time periods under such subparagraphs would remove the member from forward deployment or put members or operational objectives at risk.

``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the mental health assessments provided pursuant to this section shall be to identify post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, suicidal tendencies, and other behavioral health conditions identified among members of the armed forces described in subsection (a) in order to determine which such members are in need of additional care and treatment for such health conditions.

``(c) Elements.--(1) The mental health assessments provided pursuant to this section shall--

``(A) be performed by personnel trained and certified to perform such assessments and may be performed--

``(i) by licensed mental health professionals if such professionals are available and the use of such professionals for the assessments would not impair the capacity of such professionals to perform higher priority tasks; and

``(ii) by personnel at private facilities in accordance with section 1074(c) of this title.

``(B) include a person-to-person dialogue between members of the armed forces described in subsection (a) and the professionals or personnel described by paragraph (1), as applicable, on such matters as the Secretary shall specify in order that the assessments achieve the purpose specified in subsection (b) for such assessments;

``(C) be conducted in a private setting to foster trust and openness in discussing sensitive health concerns;

``(D) be provided in a consistent manner across the military departments; and

``(E) include a review of the health records of the member that are related to each previous deployment of the member or other relevant activities of the member while serving in the armed forces, as determined by the Secretary.

``(2) The Secretary may treat periodic health assessments and other person-to-person assessments that are provided to members of the armed forces, including examinations under section 1074f, as meeting the requirements for mental health assessments required under this section if the Secretary determines that such assessments and person-to-person assessments meet the requirements for mental health assessments established by this section.

``(d) Cessation of Assessments.--No mental health assessment is required to be provided to an individual under subsection (a)(1)(D) after the individual's discharge or release from the armed forces.

``(e) Diagnoses During Deployment.--(1) In order to prevent suicide, self-harm, harm to others, and under-performance of members of the armed forces, the Secretary shall, with respect to a member described in paragraph (2)--

``(A) retire the member pursuant to section 1201 of this title if such member is otherwise qualified for such retirement; or

``(B) redeploy such member from the contingency operation to a location where the member may receive appropriate medical treatment.

``(2) A member described in this paragraph is a member of the armed forces who, as a result of a mental health assessment conducted under subsection (a)(1)(B)--

``(A) is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, suicidal tendencies, or other behavioral health condition; and

``(B) as part of such diagnosis, is determined to--

``(i) require care or monitoring that the Secretary determines cannot be provided while the member is deployed in support of a contingency operation;

``(ii) be at risk of self-harm or harming other members of the armed forces; or

``(iii) be unable to perform duties assigned during such deployment.

``(f) Sharing of Information.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall share with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs such information on members of the armed forces that is derived from confidential mental health assessments, including mental health assessments provided pursuant to this section and health assessments and other person-to-person assessments provided before the date of the enactment of this section as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs jointly consider appropriate to ensure continuity of mental health care and treatment of members of the armed forces during the transition from health care and treatment provided by the Department of Defense to health care and treatment provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

``(2) Any sharing of information under paragraph (1) shall occur pursuant to a protocol jointly established by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for purposes of this subsection. Any such protocol shall be consistent with the following:

``(A) Applicable provisions of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note), including section 1614 of that Act (122 Stat. 443; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note).

``(B) Section 1720F of title 38.

``(3) Before each mental health assessment is conducted under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the member of the armed forces is notified of the sharing of information with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under this subsection.

``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this section.

``(h) Reports.--(1) Upon the issuance of the regulations prescribed under subsection (g), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing such regulations.

``(2)(A) Not later than 270 days after the date of the issuance of the regulations prescribed under subsection (g), the Secretary shall submit to Congress an initial report on the implementation of the regulations by the military departments.

``(B) Not later than two years after the date of the issuance of the regulations prescribed under subsection (g), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation of the regulations by the military departments. The report shall include an evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of the mental health assessments provided pursuant to the regulations in achieving the purpose specified in subsection (b) for such assessments.''.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1074l the following new item:

``1074m. Mental health assessments for members of the armed forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.''.

(3) REGULATIONS.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe an interim final rule with respect to the amendment made by paragraph (1), effective not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 708 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2376; 10 U.S.C. 1074f note) is repealed.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. CARSON of Indiana. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to address shortfalls in the current Department of Defense mental health assessment process.

Currently, our servicemembers only receive mental health assessments prior to deployment and after returning home. My amendment simply requires the Department of Defense to provide mental health assessments to our troops during deployment, improving chances that post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, depression, and other mental health issues are detected and treated early.

The amendment also requires that medical records from past unit assignments and the VA be reviewed whenever possible. Currently, these records are rarely considered. As we all well know, our troops are under a constant threat while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many are injured or see their friends injured or killed. And throughout it all, they perform amazingly and should be commended.

But these are the exact experiences that lead to serious mental health issues. Yet, despite this ongoing exposure, Mr. Chairman, most do not receive a mental health assessment until they return home from combat, often coping with PTSD, TBI, or depression for months without receiving treatment.

By the time they return home, the stigma attached to mental illness keeps many away from pursuing treatment at all. And among those that do, many still fall into drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, homelessness, and suicide.

Tragically, the oversights addressed by this amendment have impacted my congressional district. In 2009, Army Specialist Chancellor Keesling committed suicide while deployed in Iraq. His commanders never knew that he had been placed on suicide watch by a previous unit and had been treated for a mental illness by the VA.

Upon reassignment to a new unit and redeployment to Iraq, records from his past tour and from the VA were never reviewed. During deployment, he was never reassessed. Chance's father, Gregg, has recently reviewed my amendment and he believes that it could have saved his son's life had it been in place in 2009.

This is just one example of the tragic implications of mental health issues in the military. There are countless examples from my district and across this great Nation that I could provide as evidence of why this amendment is so critical and necessary. Some of these terrible problems can be avoided, and I believe lives can be saved by comprehensively addressing mental illness in our military at its source during deployment.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my colleagues to support improved mental health for our troops by voting ``yes'' on the Carson amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I believe the case for my amendment is very clear. Many of our men and women in uniform are living through months of deployment with mental health issues like PTSD, TBI, and depression going completely undiagnosed.

My amendment simply calls on the DOD to help our servicemembers catch and treat these issues through early assessments during deployment. This is a very important step that will save lives and help our men and women in uniform build productive lives for themselves on returning to civilian lives.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for bringing his very thoughtful amendment to the floor. I think it will be a strong addition to the bill. I encourage also that our colleagues support his amendment.

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

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENTS EN BLOC NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. MCKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 276, I offer amendments en bloc.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 44, 45, 51, 52, 58, 68, 73, 74-75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 98, and 99 printed in House Report 112-88 offered by Mr. McKeon:

AMENDMENT NO. 44 OFFERED BY MS. HANABUSA

Page 461, after line 24, insert the following:

SEC. 1043. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP FOR DETAINEES REPATRIATED TO THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA, THE REPUBLIC OF PALAU, AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS.

(a) Prohibition on Citizenship.--Notwithstanding the Compact of Free Association, an individual described in subsection (b) who has been repatriated to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, or the Republic of the Marshall Islands may not be afforded the rights and benefits put forth in the Compact of Free Association.

(b) Individual Described.--An individual described in this subsection is an individual who--

(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after September 11, 2001, while--

(A) in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense; or

(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

AMENDMENT NO. 45 OFFERED BY MS. HANABUSA

Page 507, after line 2, insert the following:

SEC. 1078. REPORT ON CERTAIN UNNECESSARY OR UNWANTED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On March 31, 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates testified before the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives that the initial cost of United States operations in Libya was approximately $550,000,000 and was estimated to cost an additional $40,000,000 a month after that.

(2) Secretary Gates testified that he was unaware of what the total cost of United States assistance to Japan would be in the aftermath of the earthquake, tsunami, and Fukushima Daiichi incident, but indicated it would be less than $500,000,000.

(3) Secretary Gates testified that the Department of Defense would not need to ask for more money to cover these costs within the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts because ``There's several billion dollars in there we can move around ..... that would cover these costs ..... things that we don't need or want.''.

(b) Determination.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall determine and make publically available the programs funded through the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts during the five-year period preceding the date of the enactment of this Act that are unnecessary or unwanted.

(c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representative a report that contains the results of the determination required by subsection (b). Such report shall include--

(1) a description of each program that the Secretary determines is unnecessary or unwanted;

(2) a description of the amount authorized to be appropriated and the amount authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year for each program described under paragraph (1); and

(3) any other information the Secretary considers relevant.

AMENDMENT NO. 45 OFFERED BY MR. ROGERS OF MICHIGAN

Page 531, after line 2, insert the following:

SEC. 1099C. EXHUMATION AND TRANSFER OF REMAINS OF DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES BURIED IN TRIPOLI, LIBYA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall take whatever steps may be necessary to--

(1) exhume the remains of any deceased members of the Armed Forces of the United States buried at a burial site described in subsection (b);

(2) transfer such remains to an appropriate forensics laboratory to be identified;

(3) in the case of any remains that are identified, transport the remains to a veterans cemetery located in proximity, as determined by the Secretary, to the closest living family member of the deceased individual or at another cemetery as determined by the Secretary;

(4) for any member of the Armed Forces whose remains are identified, provide a military funeral and burial; and

(5) in the case of any remains that are unable to be identified, transport the remains to Arlington National Cemetery for interment at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

(b) Burial Sites Described.--The burial sites described in this subsection are the following:

(1) The mass burial site containing the remains of five United States sailors located in Protestant Cemetery in Tripoli, Libya.

(2) The mass burial site containing the remains of eight United States sailors located near the walls of the Tripoli Castle in Tripoli, Libya.

(c) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date on which NATO's Operation Unified Protector or any successor operation terminates.

AMENDMENT NO. 52 OFFERED BY MR. CAMPBELL

Page 548, after line 8, add the following new section:

SEC. 1115. TERMINATION OF JOINT SAFETY CLIMATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.

Effective as of October 1, 2011, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later, the Joint Safety Climate Assessment System of the Department of Defense is terminated.

AMENDMENT NO. 58 OFFERED BY MR. GARRETT

At the end of subtitle C of title XII of division A of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 12xx. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO SITUATION IN LIBYA.

Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize military operations in Libya.

AMENDMENT NO. 68 OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF ALASKA

SEC. __. STRATEGIC PORT ASSESSMENT AND REPORT.

(a) In General.--Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment and report on port facilities used for military purposes at ports designated by the Department of Defense as strategic seaports, regarding the following:

(1) The structural integrity and deficiencies of the port facilities and infrastructure improvements needed directly and indirectly to meet national security and readiness requirements.

(2) The impact on operational readiness if the improvements are not undertaken.

(3) Identifying, to the maximum extent practical, all potential funding sources for the needed improvements from existing authorities.

(b) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare the report required by subsection (a) in consultation with the Maritime Administrator and each of the port facilities used for military purposes at ports designated by the Department of Defense as strategic seaports.

AMENDMENT NO. 73 OFFERED BY MR. MCKEON

Page 712, line 8, strike ``

SIMULATION TRAINING SYSTEMS'' and insert ``CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS''.

Page 712, line 13, after ``Budget Activity 12'' insert ``, Line 070, Force Readiness Operations Support''.

Page 712, line 17, strike ``simulation training systems'' and insert ``Civil Support Team Information Management Systems''.

AMENDMENT NO. 74 OFFERED BY MR. AKIN

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 845. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON LONG-TERM CONTRACTING FOR ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

It is the sense of Congress that long-term contracting for alternative fuels is in the best interests of the Department of Defense and is a wise use of taxpayer resources. Long-term contracts provide stability for industry, which allows them to drive the cost down. Long-term contracts also provide some insulation to the Department of Defense from fuel price increases. The Department of Defense has asked for the authority to enter into long-term contracts for alternative fuels, and it is the sense of Congress that this is a valuable proposal and should be supported.

AMENDMENT NO. 75 OFFERED BY MR. BRALEY OF IOWA

Page 594, after line 21, insert the following:

SEC. 1231. REPORT ON LONG-TERM COSTS OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, AND OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN.

(a) Report Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, with contributions from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall submit to Congress a report containing an estimate of the long-term costs of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom for each the following scenarios:

(1) The scenario in which the number of members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom is reduced from roughly 190,000 in 2011 to 150,000 in 2012, 65,000 in 2013, and 30,000 by the beginning of 2014, and remains at 30,000 through 2020.

(2) The scenario in which the number of members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom rises to approximately 235,000 in 2011, is reduced to 230,000 in 2012, 195,000 in 2013, 135,000 in 2014, 80,000 in 2015, 60,000 in 2016, and remains at 60,000 through 2020.

(3) An alternative scenario, determined by the President and based on current contingency operation and withdrawal plans, which takes into account expected force levels and the expected length of time that members of the Armed Forces will be deployed in support of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom.

(b) Estimates To Be Used in Preparation of Report.--In preparing the report required by subsection (b), the President shall make estimates and projections through at least fiscal year 2020, adjust any dollar amounts appropriately for inflation, and take into account and specify each of the following:

(1) The total number of members of the Armed Forces expected to be deployed in support of Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn, including--

(A) the number of members of the Armed Forces actually deployed in Southwest Asia in support of Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn;

(B) the number of members of reserve components of the Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty in the United States for the purpose of training for eventual deployment in Southwest Asia, backfilling for deployed troops, or supporting other Department of Defense missions directly or indirectly related to Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn; and

(C) the break-down of deployments of members of the regular and reserve components and activation of members of the reserve components.

(2) The number of members of the Armed Forces, including members of the reserve components, who have previously served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn and who are expected to serve multiple deployments.

(3) The number of contractors and private military security firms that have been used and are expected to be used during the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(4) The number of veterans currently suffering and expected to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other mental injuries.

(5) The number of veterans currently in need of and expected to be in need of prosthetic care and treatment because of amputations incurred during service in support of Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(6) The current number of pending Department of Veterans Affairs claims from veterans of military service in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and the total number of such veterans expected to seek disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(7) The total number of members of the Armed Forces who have been killed or wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, including noncombat casualties, the total number of members expected to suffer injuries in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and the total number of members expected to be killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, including noncombat casualties.

(8) The amount of funds previously appropriated for the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Veterans Affairs for costs related to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, and Operation Enduring Freedom, including an account of the amount of funding from regular Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Veterans Affairs budgets that has gone and will go to costs associated with such operations.

(9) Current and future operational expenditures associated with Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn including--

(A) funding for combat operations;

(B) deploying, transporting, feeding, and housing members of the Armed Forces (including fuel costs);

(D) equipping and training of Iraqi and Afghani forces;

(E) purchasing, upgrading, and repairing weapons, munitions, and other equipment consumed or used in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn; and

(F) payments to other countries for logistical assistance in support of such operations.

(10) Past, current, and future costs of entering into contracts with private military security firms and other contractors for the provision of goods and services associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(11) Average annual cost for each member of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn, including room and board, equipment and body armor, transportation of troops and equipment (including fuel costs), and operational costs.

(12) Current and future cost of combat-related special pays and benefits, including reenlistment bonuses.

(13) Current and future cost of calling or ordering members of the reserve components to active duty in support of Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(14) Current and future cost for reconstruction, embassy operations and construction, and foreign aid programs for Iraq and Afghanistan.

(15) Current and future cost of bases and other infrastructure to support members of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(16) Current and future cost of providing health care for veterans who served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Odyssey Dawn--

(A) the cost of mental health treatment for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, and other mental problems as a result of such service; and

(B) the cost of lifetime prosthetics care and treatment for veterans suffering from amputations as a result of such service.

(17) Current and future cost of providing Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits for the lifetime of veterans who incur disabilities while serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(18) Current and future cost of providing survivors' benefits to survivors of members of the Armed Forces killed while serving in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(19) Cost of bringing members of the Armed Forces and equipment back to the United States upon the conclusion of Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Odyssey Dawn, including the cost of demobilization, transportation costs (including fuel costs), providing transition services for members of the Armed Forces transitioning from active duty to veteran status, transporting equipment, weapons, and munitions (including fuel costs), and an estimate of the value of equipment that will be left behind.

(20) Cost to restore the military and military equipment, including the equipment of the reserve components, to full strength after the conclusion of Operation New Dawn or Operation Enduring Freedom.

(21) Amount of money borrowed to pay for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the sources of that money.

(22) Interest on money borrowed, including interest for money already borrowed and anticipated interest payments on future borrowing, for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Odyssey Dawn.

(c) Report Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, with contributions from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall submit to Congress a report containing an estimate of the long-term costs of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom for each the following scenarios:

AMENDMENT NO. 76 OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF UTAH

At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 2852. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORMER DEFENSE DEPOT OGDEN, UTAH.

(a) Conveyance of Residual Interests.--To facilitate the conveyance of a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 2.73 acres at the former Defense Depot Ogden, Utah, from the Weber Basin Disabled Corporation to the Ogden City Redevelopment Authority (in this section referred to as the ``Redevelopment Authority''), the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretaries''), may convey, by quit claim deed, all residual right, title, and interest of the United States (including reversionary interests) in and to the property for the purpose of permitting the Redevelopment Authority to take immediate steps to prevent the further deterioration of the building on the parcel and subsequently redevelop the parcel.

(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance of residual United States interests in the property described in subsection (a), the Redevelopment Authority shall pay an amount equal to the fair market value of the conveyed interests, as determined by the Secretaries. Amounts received under this subsection shall be deposited in the Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005. The amounts deposited shall be merged with other amounts in such fund and be available for the same purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund.

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretaries shall require the Redevelopment Authority to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretaries, or to reimburse the Secretaries for costs incurred by the Secretaries, to carry out the conveyance under subsection (a), including costs related to environmental documentation and other administrative costs. If amounts are collected from the Redevelopment Authority in advance of the Secretaries incurring the actual costs, and the amount collected exceeds the costs actually incurred by the Secretaries to carry out the conveyance, the Secretaries shall refund the excess amount to the Redevelopment Authority.

(2) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED.--Amounts received as reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund or account.

(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal description of the real property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretaries.

(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretaries may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretaries considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

AMENDMENT NO. 77 OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF UTAH

Page 121, after line 10, insert the following:

SEC. 328. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MINIMUM CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR CERTAIN DEPOTS.

Section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``maintenance, repair, and overhaul'' after ``combined'';

(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``facilities,'' before ``infrastructure'';

(3) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

``(E) A table showing the funded workload performed by each covered depot for the preceding three fiscal years and actual investment funds allocated to each depot for the period covered by the report.''; and

(4) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

``(I) Tooele Army Depot, Utah.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 78 OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF NEW YORK

Page 531, after line 2, insert the following:

SEC. 1099C. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE RECOVERY OF THE REMAINS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES KILLED IN THURSTON ISLAND, ANTARCTICA.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Commencing August 26, 1946, through late February 1947 the United States Navy Antarctic Developments Program Task Force 68, codenamed ``Operation Highjump'' initiated and undertook the largest ever-to-this-date exploration of the Antarctic continent.

(2) The primary mission of the Task Force 68 organized by Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd Jr. USN, (Ret) and led by Rear Admiral Richard H. Cruzen, USN, was to do the following:

(A) Establish the Antarctic research base Little America IV.

(B) In the defense of the United States of America from possible hostile aggression from abroad--to train personnel test equipment, develop techniques for establishing, maintaining and utilizing air bases on ice, with applicability comparable to interior Greenland, where conditions are similar to those of the Antarctic.

(C) Map and photograph a full two-thirds of the Antarctic Continent during the classified, hazardous duty/volunteer-only operation involving 4700 sailors, 23 aircraft and 13 ships including the first submarine the U.S.S. Sennet, and the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Philippine Sea, brought to the edge of the ice pack to launch (6) Navy ski-equipped, rocket-assisted R4Ds.

(D) Consolidate and extend United States sovereignty over the largest practicable area of the Antarctic continent.

(E) Determine the feasibility of establishing, maintaining and utilizing bases in the Antarctic and investigating possible base sites.

(3) While on a hazardous duty/all volunteer mission vital to the interests of National Security and while over the eastern Antarctica coastline known as the Phantom Coast, the PBM-5 Martin Mariner ``Flying Boat'' ``George 1'' entered a whiteout over Thurston Island. As the pilot attempted to climb, the aircraft grazed the glacier's ridgeline and exploded within 5 seconds instantly killing Ensign Maxwell Lopez, Navigator and Wendell ``Bud'' Hendersin, Aviation Machinists Mate 1st Class while Frederick Williams, Aviation Radioman 1st Class died several hours later. Six other crewmen survived including the Captain of the ``George 1's'' seaplane tender U.S.S. Pine Island.

(4) The bodies of the dead were protected from the desecration of Antarctic scavenging birds (Skuas) by the surviving crew wrapping the bodies and temporarily burying the men under the starboard wing engine nacelle.

(5) Rescue requirements of the ``George 1'' survivors forced the abandonment of their crewmates' bodies.

(6) Conditions prior to the departure of Task Force 68 precluded a return to the area to the recover the bodies.

(7) For nearly 60 years Navy promised the families that they would recover the men: ``If the safety, logistical, and operational prerequisites allow a mission in the future, every effort will be made to bring our sailors home.''.

(8) The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command twice offered to recover the bodies of this crew for Navy.

(9) A 2004 NASA ground penetrating radar overflight commissioned by Navy relocated the crash site three miles from its crash position.

(10) The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command offered to underwrite the cost of an aerial ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the crash site area by NASA.

(11) The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command studied the recovery with the recognized recovery authorities and national scientists and determined that the recovery is only ``medium risk''.

(12) National Science Foundation and scientists from the University of Texas, Austin, regularly visit the island.

(13) The crash site is classified as a ``perishable site'', meaning a glacier that will calve into the Bellingshausen Sea.

(14) The National Science Foundation maintains a presence in area of the Pine Island Glacier.

(15) The National Science Foundation Director of Polar Operations will assist and provide assets for the recovery upon the request of Congress.

(16) The United States Coast Guard is presently pursuing the recovery of 3 WWII air crewmen from similar circumstances in Greenland.

(17) On Memorial Day, May 25, 2009, President Barak Obama declared: ``..... the support of our veterans is a sacred trust ..... we need to serve them as they have served us ..... that means bringing home all our POWs and MIAs .....''.

(18) The policies and laws of the United States of America require that our armed service personnel be repatriated.

(19) The fullest possible accounting of United States fallen military personnel means repatriating living American POWs and MIAs, accounting for, identifying, and recovering the remains of military personnel who were killed in the line of duty, or providing convincing evidence as to why such a repatriation, accounting, identification, or recovery is not possible.

(20) It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to return to the United States for proper burial and respect all members of the Armed Forces killed in the line of duty who lie in lost graves.

(b) Sense of Congress.--In light of the findings under subsection (a), Congress--

(1) reaffirms its support for the recovery and return to the United States, the remains and bodies of all members of the Armed Forces killed in the line of duty, and for the efforts by the Joint POW-MIA Accounting Command to recover the remains of members of the Armed Forces from all wars, conflicts and missions;

(2) recognizes the courage and sacrifice of all members of the Armed Forces who participated in Operation Highjump and all missions vital to the national security of the United States of America;

(3) acknowledges the dedicated research and efforts by the US Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, the Fallen American Veterans Foundation and all persons and organizations to identify, locate, and advocate for, from their temporary Antarctic grave, the recovery of the well-preserved frozen bodies of Ensign Maxwell Lopez, Naval Aviator, Frederick Williams, Aviation Machinist's Mate 1st Class, Wendell Hendersin, Aviation Radioman 1st Class of the ``George 1'' explosion and crash; and

(4) encourages the Department of Defense to review the facts, research and to pursue new efforts to undertake all feasible efforts to recover, identify, and return the well-preserved frozen bodies of the ``George 1'' crew from Antarctica's Thurston Island.

AMENDMENT NO. 79 OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF NEW YORK

Page 345, after line 8, insert the following:

SEC. 731. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRY ON OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMICAL HAZARDS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than March 31, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on establishing an active registry for each incidence of a member of the Armed Forces being exposed to occupational and environmental chemical hazards, including waste disposal, during contingency operations in order to monitor possible health risks and to provide necessary treatment to such members.

(b) Matters Included.--The report under subsection (a) shall include a discussion of each of the following:

(1) Processes in which members of the Armed Forces may be included in the registry described in subsection (a).

(2) Procedures to ensure that members eligible to be included in the registry are provided appropriate medical examinations.

(3) Using existing medical surveillance systems to establish the registry.

AMENDMENT NO. 80 OFFERED BY MR. BISHOP OF NEW YORK

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE EFFORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE FROM TERRORIST ATTACKS SINCE 9/11.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled and Special Operation forces completed the mission to kill Osama bin Laden.

(2) The Department of Defense and the Armed Services have worked diligently and honorably to protect citizens at home and abroad.

(3) The Department of Defense and the Armed Services are meeting the challenges of the global struggle against terrorism.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) we continue to affirm our commitment to support the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces;

(2) we recognize that the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces have worked diligently and honorably to protect citizens of the United States at home and abroad;

(3) we recognize that the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces are meeting the challenges of the global struggle against terrorism;

(4) we commend the men and women of the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces for the tremendous commitment to keeping our country safe; and

(5) we honor the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces for their success in preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and around the world since 9/11.

AMENDMENT NO. 81 OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER

Page 377, after line 7, insert the following:

SEC. 845. REPORTS ON USE OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:``§2335. Reports on use of indemnification agreements

``(a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2011, not later than 90 days after the date on which any action described in subsection (b)(1) occurs, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on such action.

``(b) Action Described.--(1) An action described in this paragraph is the Secretary of Defense--

``(A) entering into a contract that includes an indemnification agreement; or

``(B) modifying an existing indemnification agreement in any contract.

``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any contract awarded in accordance with--

``(A) section 2354 of this title; or

``(B) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).

``(c) Matters Included.--For each contract covered in a report under subsection (a), the report shall include--

``(1) the name of the contractor;

``(2) the actual cost or estimated potential cost involved;

``(3) a description of the items, property, or services for which the contract is awarded; and

``(4) a justification of the contract including the indemnification agreement.

``(d) National Security.--The Secretary may omit any information in a report under subsection (a) if the Secretary--

``(1) determines that the disclosure of such information is not in the national security interests of the United States; and

``(2) includes in the report a justification of the determination made under paragraph (1).''.

(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2335. Reports on use of indemnification agreements.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 82 OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER

Page 132, after line 10, insert the following new section:

SEC. 346. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR INCLUSION IN ANNUAL REPORT ON OPERATIONAL ENERGY.

Section 2529(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

``(E) An evaluation of practices used in contingency operations during the previous fiscal year and potential improvements to such practices to reduce vulnerabilities associated with fuel convoys, including improvements in tent and structure efficiency, improvements in generator efficiency, and displacement of liquid fuels with on-site renewable energy generation. Such evaluation should identify challenges associated with the deployment of more efficient structures and equipment and renewable energy generation, and recommendations for overcoming such challenges.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 83 OFFERED BY MR. BOREN

Page 270, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 598. PROHIBITION ON THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF NAMES AND IMAGES OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Prohibition.--Chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``§988. Unauthorized use of names and images of members of the armed forces

``(a) Prohibition.--Except with the permission of the individual or individuals designated under subsection (d), no person may knowingly use the name or image of a protected individual in connection with any merchandise, retail product, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to connect the protected individual with that individual's service in the armed forces.

``(b) Authority to Enjoin Violations.--Whenever it appears to the Attorney General that any person is engaged or is about to engage in an act or practice which constitutes or will constitute conduct prohibited by subsection (a), the Attorney General may initiate a civil proceeding in a district court of the United States to enjoin such act or practice. Such court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and determination of such action and may, at any time before final determination, enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions as is warranted, to prevent injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons for whose protection the action is brought.

``(c) Protected Individual.--For purposes of this section, a protected individual is any person who--

``(1) is a member of the armed forces; or

``(2) was a member of the armed forces at any time after April 5, 1917, and, if not living, has a surviving spouse, child, parent, grandparent, or sibling.

``(d) Designated Individual or Individuals.--(1) The individual or individuals designated under this subsection, with respect to a protected individual--

``(A) is the protected individual, if living; and

``(B) otherwise is the living survivor or survivors of the protected individual highest on the following list:

``(i) The surviving spouse.

``(ii) The children.

``(iii) The parents.

``(iv) The grandparents.

``(v) The siblings.

``(2) In the case of a protected individual for whom more than one individual is designated under clause (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of paragraph (1)(B), the prohibition under subsection (a) shall apply unless permission is obtained from each designated individual.''.

(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``988. Unauthorized use of names and images of members of the armed forces.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 98 OFFERED BY MS. DELAURO

At the end of subtitle C of title XII of division A of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 12xx. PROHIBITION ON PROCUREMENTS FROM COMMUNIST CHINESE MILITARY COMPANIES.

(a) Waiver Authorized.--Subsection (c) of section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3461; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amended to read as follows:

``(c) Waiver Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation on procurement of a good or service under subsection (a) if the good or service is critical to the needs of the Department of Defense and is otherwise unavailable to the Department of Defense and the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a report described in subsection (d) not less than 15 days before issuing the waiver under this subsection.''.

(b) Report.--Such section is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:

``(d) Report.--The report referred to in subsection (c) is a report that identifies the specific reasons for the waiver issued under subsection (c) and includes recommendations as to what actions may be taken to develop alternative sourcing capabilities in the future.''.

(c) Definition of Communist Chinese Military Company.--Subsection (e) of such section, as redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

``(1) The term `Communist Chinese military company' means--

``(A) any person identified in the Defense Intelligence Agency publication numbered VP-1920-271-90, dated September 1990, or PC-1921-57-95, dated October 1995, and any update of those publications for the purposes of this section; and

``(B) any other person that--

``(i) is owned or controlled by, directed by or from, operating with delegated authority from, or affiliated with, the People's Liberation Army or the government of the People's Republic of China or that is owned or controlled by an entity affiliated with the defense industrial base of the People's Republic of China; and

``(ii) is engaged in providing commercial services, manufacturing, producing, or exporting.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and apply with respect to contracts and subcontracts of the Department of Defense entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 99 OFFERED BY MR. DONNELLY OF INDIANA

Page 364, after line 2, insert the following:

SEC. 825. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN FOR SECURITY CONTRACTORS OPERATING IN AFGHANISTAN AND IN SUPPORT OF OTHER CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish a plan to be known as a ``Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan'' setting standards that must be incorporated in Department of Defense oversight plans governing all security contractors operating in Afghanistan, and other future contingency operations, under a contract or subcontract funded by the Department of Defense. The Secretary shall designate a single appropriate official stationed in the country of operations to review each security contract or subcontract involving security contractors funded by the Department of Defense for compliance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. Such official shall certify that the official has reviewed the oversight plan for that contract, that the oversight plan is appropriate for that contract, that there is an appropriate number of appropriately trained personnel available to oversee that contract, and confirm that any and all licenses and permits required by the security contractor and its employees have been reviewed and verified as current and authentic.

(b) Deadline for Implementation.--These requirements under subsection (a) shall be implemented by not later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(c) Comptroller General Assessment.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an assessment the Department of Defense's compliance with this section and, not later than 6 months after the requirements of this section are implemented pursuant to subsection (b), shall submit to Congress a report on such assessment.

MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 68

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 68 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of title add the following:

SEC. __. STRATEGIC PORT ASSESSMENT AND REPORT.

(1) The structural integrity and deficiencies of the port facilities and infrastructure improvements needed directly and indirectly to meet national security and readiness requirements.

(2) The impact on operational readiness if the improvements are not undertaken.

(3) Identifying, to the maximum extent practical, all potential funding sources for the needed improvements from existing authorities.

(4) The authority necessary for the Department of Defense to support section 50302 of title 46, United States Code.

Mr. McKEON (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.

There was no objection.

MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 73

Mr. McKEON. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 73 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:

The amendment as modified is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XII of division A of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 12xx. REPORT ON EXPANSION OF PARTICIPATION IN EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING PROGRAM.

(a) Report Required.-- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the desirability and feasibility of expanding participation in the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) program to include additional countries.

(b) Matters to Be Included.--The report required under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) A description of the benefits of the ENJJPT program to United States national security.

(2) An assessment of the current participation in the ENJJPT program and whether it fully meets the needs of the program and United States and NATO objectives.

(3) An analysis of whether participation of additional countries in the ENJJPT program would benefit the program and United States national security.

(4) A recommendation of additional countries that could participate in the ENJJPT program, including NATO member nations not currently participating in the program, major non-NATO allies, Partnership for Peace nations, and other countries.

(5) The restrictions or limitations that currently prevent additional countries from participating in the ENJJPT program.

(6) A discussion of the benefits to the United States and other countries of a United States-sponsored scholarship program to assist certain countries to meet the cost-sharing obligations of participation in the ENJJPT program, and whether authorities currently exist to institute such a scholarship program.

Page 712, line 8, strike ``

SIMULATION TRAINING SYSTEMS'' and insert ``

CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS''.

Page 712, line 13, after ``Budget Activity 12'' insert ``, Line 070, Force Readiness Operations Support''.

Page 712, line 17, strike ``simulation training systems'' and insert ``Civil Support Team Information Management Systems''.

Mr. McKEON (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.

There was no objection.

MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 82

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 82 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:

The amendment as modified is as follows:

Page 132, after line 10, insert the following new section:

SEC. 346. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR INCLUSION IN ANNUAL REPORT ON OPERATIONAL ENERGY.

Section 2925(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.

There was no objection.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), a member of the committee.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill and in strong support of the en bloc amendment.

Specifically, I want to speak on the Rogers-LoBiondo amendment, No. 51, that helps repatriate the heroes that were killed in 1804 in the fight against piracy in Tripoli, Libya.

They were led by Commander Richard Somers with the Intrepid when he was attempting to fight the pirates at that point in time. They have unceremoniously been buried in mass graves without the formal military tradition that we have in foreign countries.

This amendment seeks to right a wrong that has been in place for more than 200 years. And Somers Point, New Jersey, a town in my district, is where Commander Richard Somers hailed from. So it's extremely important to all of the United States of America. The American Legion of the United States has endorsed this amendment, and I urge all the Members to strongly support it.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

I have no speakers at this time; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. GARRETT. I thank the chairman.

Today, I stand here to introduce this amendment, No. 58, to the National Defense Authorization Act to clearly set out congressional intent with regard to military operations in Libya.

The amendment is simple: it clarifies that this authorization bill does not serve as congressional authorization for any military operation in Libya. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the sole power to declare war, to authorize it. And we know that the War Powers Resolution was enacted to give the President the ability to commit forces to defend American interests in an expedited manner for up to 60 days before having to seek that congressional authorization. Subsequent military engagement must then, under that act, be authorized by this Congress.

But despite that clear standard, Presidents have routinely disregarded the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution and the role of Congress. As you know, President Obama consulted the U.N. and the Arab League of Nations before engaging in hostilities. However, the whole of Congress was not consulted nor authorized and to date has not authorized any military action in Libya whatsoever.

I do believe firmly that the President must come to this Congress for authorization to continue any and all U.S. military action. So I encourage Members of this House to support this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member and the Chair on a couple of items that we've placed in this en bloc amendment.

One of them deals with the necessity of providing energy efficiencies that could save billions of dollars. It requires the Department of Defense to valuate energy efficiency benefits and recommend how to deploy them.

Fuel is carried on expensive supply convoys that often travel through indefensible areas. One out of every 24 fuel convoys represents casualties. We're spending $24 billion a year to protect convoys to forward operating bases in Afghanistan, and 65 percent of all electricity on bases in Afghanistan is for air conditioning and heating leaky tents. Reducing this fuel use is a simple way to reduce fuel convoys, which reduces costs and casualties. And this amendment requiring a report on energy efficiency and onsite renewable generation will expedite energy efficiency deployment across the armed services.

Additionally, there is an amendment that I have cosponsored with my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), that will deal with what happens with contracts that are issued on defense activities where the Federal Government has provided indemnification. We've been dealing with an issue that involves the Oregon National Guard where we really can't understand exactly what elements were related to this indemnification. We can't get the full information. When the government agrees to shoulder financial responsibility for a contractor's risk, it may be necessary, but ambiguities in the current law do not have, I think, the best interests of our troops or taxpayers in mind in terms of making sure that this is very limited in nature.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress within 90 days whenever the Department enters into or modifies an indemnification agreement and explain why such provision is necessary.

The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I'm happy to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

The more limited these indemnification provisions can be, the less likely that we're going to have contractors who don't really have the full financial incentive to make sure that they are acting in the best interests of our troops. I've seen examples that really give me pause. The inclusion of this amendment will help make that less likely, and I appreciate it.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to support this en bloc amendment. It will make the bill stronger.

* [Begin Insert]

Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Mr. Chair, on February 19, 2010, a constituent of mine, Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Birchfield of Westville, Indiana, was shot and killed while on patrol by a local Afghan security contractor who had been hired, with six other colleagues, to guard a nearby construction project and road. The construction project and the security contractor were funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. While the shooter was immediately apprehended and would later admit to the shooting and be sentenced to 15 years in prison by an Afghan court, I am deeply troubled by the fact that insufficient contract oversight by our government may have lead to this tragedy.

According to NCIS documents obtained by the Birchfield family through a Freedom of Information Act request, the seven Afghan guards taken into custody were found in possession of five ounces of opium and some of them were presenting symptoms of opium withdrawal. Several of the guards admitted that they had little to no training, and most of them stated they had none of the permits required for their jobs. Their employer, a subcontractor providing security for the project, admitted his employees were not properly licensed and that he did not know where he was supposed to obtain licenses.

Last month, the Department of Defense confirmed to me that the project these security guards were subcontracted under was funded by U.S. funds known as Commander's Emergency Response Program funds, or ``CERP.''

It appears clear that proper oversight of these security contractors paid by our government did not happen. These private security contractors were operating without the licenses that are required of private security contractors in Afghanistan, they were not properly trained, and several of them were drug users. I cannot say that had there been better oversight by our government this tragedy would have been avoided, but we owe it to our service men and women in harm's way to get this right. I believe DoD must significantly improve their oversight of private security contractors.

According to the Congressional Research Service, right now the DoD relies on 19,000 private security contractors in Afghanistan, a force equal to almost 20 percent of all U.S. military personnel in that country. Not only is the ratio of armed contractors to U.S. forces higher in Afghanistan than it ever was in Iraq where we had many more troops, 95 percent of the security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghans, a much, much higher reliance on local security contractors than Iraq. Meanwhile, the performance and reliability of Afghan security contractors is spotty and continues to be. If we are going to continue to rely on local security contractors in Afghanistan, we must make oversight a top priority. And that means ensuring that rigorous oversight on the ground is getting done.

The Congress and GAO have been critical of DoD's security contract oversight for years. In the 2008 NDAA, Congress directed DoD and the State Department to prescribe regulations for the use of private security contractors in an area of combat operations by May of 2008. In 2009,

GAO recommended specific steps that DoD implement to satisfactorily comply with Congress' directive on security contractors, including the screening, training, equipping and oversight of contractors. Currently, the GAO considers all of these recommendations as either only partially implemented or not implemented at all.

Further, the DoD has acted to try to improve oversight, but the fact is, I don't think they are focusing enough properly trained personnel on oversight maintenance. Many contract officers are not even in the same country as the project they are responsible for managing. And often the responsibility for on the ground oversight falls to a service member designated as a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) whose primary responsibility likely has nothing to do with contracting and who may have had only minimal contract oversight training before arriving in the field. DoD needs to do more than come up with plans and guidance, they need to ensure that sufficient personnel who are adequately trained are in place and actually doing their job, especially when the contracts involve paying and arming Afghan security personnel in a theatre of combat.

My amendment to H.R. 1540 does two things which I believe are crucially important but also should not be difficult for DoD to comply with.

First, my amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan which would set uniform standards for contract oversight plans for all private security contracts funded by DoD in Afghanistan and in any future contingency. Beyond just ensuring that paperwork is in order, all security contracts would require a plan clearly laying out an oversight strategy and designating sufficient personnel to exercise necessary oversight to ensure contract performance and reliability.

Second, my amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to designate a single official in the country of operations with the responsibility of reviewing private security contracts to ensure compliance with the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. Further, this official must certify that they have reviewed the oversight plan for a security contract, that the oversight plan is appropriate for that contract, that there is an appropriate number of appropriately trained personnel available to oversee that contract, and confirm that any and all licenses and permits required of a security contractor and its employees have been reviewed and verified as current and authentic.

The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed my amendment and has advised me that it does not affect direct spending or discretionary authorizations.

Mr. Chair, if we have the time, money and resources to bid and hire private security contractors, and if these private security contractors are essential to successfully executing military operations and reconstruction in Afghanistan, then we should make sure that we've clearly planned how we will maximize contract performance and ensure safety and reliability, and make sure someone is held accountable for seeing that this is actually carried out.

* [End Insert]

Mr. McKEON. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

The en bloc amendments, as modified, were agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 24 OFFERED BY MR. SARBANES

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in House Report 112-88.

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

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike section 937.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment, and I want to thank the cosponsors: Representatives Hanabusa, Langevin, Loebsack, and Reyes.

This amendment is designed to preserve current law with respect to the service contracts and outsourcing activity of the Department of Defense.

Current law now has in place a requirement that before the Department of Defense can do more outsourcing, can do more privatization of service contracts, they have to do an inventory of the contracting activity that's already in place. And this makes perfect sense. This is really a good government proposition if you think about it. It's important enough that it was included in the 2010 Defense Authorization Act; so it is part of current law.

Unfortunately, the proposed bill, the new Defense Authorization Act, would remove this requirement. And if you remove that requirement, you're really undermining the public's stake in making sure that government is functioning in an efficient manner.

Now, the impetus for having this kind of requirement in place--and the amendment that we're putting forward here today would maintain the requirement that's currently in law--the impetus came from a lot of research that showed that in many instances the costs to the government and, therefore, to the taxpayer of outsourcing these various services of the Federal Government, particularly within the Department of Defense that this is directed at, the costs did not justify the activity, and in many instances you didn't get better performance when you had this outsourcing. In fact, you got worse performance.

So when those studies were done and that research was done, there was a move to make sure that the Department of Defense would conduct an inventory. The current law says that no further contracting can occur until the Secretary has certified to Congress that a contractor inventory has been developed, reviewed, and integrated into the budget process. That makes a lot of sense. Our amendment would restore this provision and therefore keep current law in place with respect to this contracting activity and inventory.

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

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FORBES. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment, but, Mr. Chairman, most of all, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for doing what many people often think is impossible in this House, and that is bringing forth a bipartisan bill, 60-1. 60-1, in the committee, this bill passed with this provision in it.

One of the keys with bipartisanship is that the American people realize it's important when we come to national defense that we have both Republicans and Democrats supporting in the same direction. And the key to that oftentimes is the word ``balance,'' which is not always a sexy issue, but it is so important.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, when it comes to the workforce, there are some people who don't like the word ``balance.'' They either want every single employee to be a government employee and hired by the government--some on this side, some on this side--but then, Mr. Chairman, there are other people who want everybody to be in the private sector. I think the beauty of this piece of legislation is it struck the right balance for the national defense of this country because it struck a balance. And it said what we realize is from every general, every admiral, everyone who testified: We can no longer do it with just all government employees; we can't do it with all military employees; we can't do it with all contract employees; but every single one of them will tell you we need that mix.

The wonderful thing about this piece of legislation that this amendment tries to take away is that it creates a comprehensive approach to workforce management and a total force management, which is what we need to do, the most important thing this legislation does, which is to defend and protect the people of the United States of America.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this amendment, that we will keep the bipartisan approach that came out of this committee's work, that we will keep the balance, we will not remove this tool from the arsenal that the Department of Defense needs, and we will reject the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. SARBANES. Well, I couldn't agree with what my colleague said more. I mean, we do want to have a balanced approach. Nobody's arguing--certainly I'm not arguing that we should eliminate outsourcing or the privatization of certain services where that makes sense. In fact, what the amendment that we're proposing here would do is keep in law a process whereby the Department of Defense looks at its contracting activities through a commonsense lens and determines whether continued outsourcing in some instances makes sense, whether additional outsourcing makes sense.

Right now, there does not exist a comprehensive inventory of these contracting activities, so how are you going to make a commonsense judgment about where to allocate your resources going forward if you don't have that at your disposal? That's why the requirement was put in place. I think it's very bipartisan in that sense because it's saying let's get as much knowledge as we can so the government can run efficiently and make these decisions in an efficient way, which is very much in keeping with what the public wants to see these days.

So this is about good government. It's about having good information at your fingertips.

We think that the requirement to do this kind of inventory ought to stay in place. The underlying bill right now would remove that commonsense requirement, and this amendment would put it back. That is why we are putting forward the amendment today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't think the gentleman is on the Armed Services Committee so oftentimes might not have heard so many times the people who meet with us and tell us the importance they need for this overall comprehensive approach. And I'll just point out to the gentleman, as he mentioned the need for an inventory, it's in the bill.

The second thing I would tell you is the inventory alone doesn't do anything unless we go the next step, which is in this bill, which is to say that we're going to develop a policy from the inventory. We can have all the inventory, all the statistics in the world, but what's wonderful about this bill and what this bill does is it takes all of that information and it creates a total force management approach, which is exactly what we need for the national defense of this country.

Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I don't know why we would want to try to skew that one way or the other and take away opportunities for the Department of Defense to get the right balance between military, civilian, and contractor personnel.

The bill that came out of the committee--again, 60-1, overwhelmingly supported by the people who have been at all the hearings, heard all the testimony--is a bipartisan approach, strikes the right balance. This amendment would skew that balance.

I hope we will reject the amendment.

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

Mr. SARBANES. In closing, let me just say in support of this amendment that I am not on the House Armed Services Committee, but what I understand is the report that was approved last week by the committee criticized the Department of Defense for failing to inventory service contracts, which is what we are trying to accomplish here. That is why we are supporting this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, he is right. That's why we have the inventory included in here. That's why we require the policy. All of that is included in here, it's just that the approach that the Armed Services Committee has done is a much more balanced approach. It's one that gives the Department of Defense the tools they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and hope we will defeat this amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 25 OFFERED BY MR. MURPHY OF CONNECTICUT

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 printed in House Report 112-88.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 845. CONSIDERATION AND VERIFICATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EFFECT ON DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT OF AWARD OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Section 2305(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

``(6)(A) The head of an agency, in issuing a solicitation for competitive proposals, shall state in the solicitation that the agency may consider information (in this paragraph referred to as a `jobs impact statement') that the offeror may include in its offer related to the effects on employment within the United States of the contract if it is awarded to the offeror.

``(B) The information that may be included in a jobs impact statement may include the following:

``(i) The number of jobs expected to be created in the United States, or the number of jobs retained that otherwise would be lost, if the contract is awarded to the offeror.

``(ii) The number of jobs created or retained in the United States by the subcontractors expected to be used by the offeror in the performance of the contract.

``(iii) A guarantee from the offeror that jobs created or retained in the United States will not be moved outside the United States after award of the contract.

``(C) The contracting officer may consider the information in the jobs impact statement in the evaluation of the offer and may request further information from the offeror in order to verify the accuracy of any such information submitted.

``(D) In the case of a contract awarded to an offeror that submitted a jobs impact statement with the offer for the contract, the agency shall, not later than six months after the award of the contract and annually thereafter for the duration of the contract or contract extension, assess the accuracy of the jobs impact statement.

``(E) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the frequency of use within the Department of Defense of jobs impact statements in the evaluation of competitive proposals.

``(F) In any contract awarded to an offeror that submitted a jobs impact statement with its offer in response to the solicitation for proposals for the contract, the agency shall track the number of jobs created or retained during the performance of the contract. If the number of jobs that the agency estimates will be created (by using the jobs impact statement) significantly exceeds the number of jobs created or retained, then the agency may evaluate whether the contractor should be proposed for debarment.''.

(b) Revision of Federal Acquisition Regulation.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to implement the amendment made by this section.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House now is a relatively simple one. We have, over the last 10 years, lost 42,000 factories in this country. We have lost 5 million jobs in manufacturing. And we've had a long discussion here in this Congress over the past 3 years as to what we can do to stimulate that engine of middle class job growth and security.

This amendment seeks to increase our defense industrial capacity without spending any additional money. What the amendment before us simply allows is for the Federal Government to be able to consider at their leisure the amount of jobs being created here in the United States by a particular bid for U.S. defense work.

Frankly, most of my constituents think this already happens. Most of my constituents think that there is an ability for the Federal Government today to factor in, when awarding a particular bid, which bid is going to create more jobs here in the United States versus overseas. This amendment is purely permissive. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would make it mandatory. But this amendment, which in bill form came out of the Government Oversight Committee last Congress unanimously, allows an individual contractor in their bid submission to state how many American jobs they are going to create, and then simply allows the contracting agency to factor that into their bid award, and then requires a report back to Congress as to how often that information, that job impact statement was used.

This seems like common sense to me. The reason to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent through the Defense Department on U.S. jobs is certainly economic in nature. At 9 percent unemployment, we should be better stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars, on making sure that to the extent possible they are spent on U.S. jobs.

But it is also a very important strategic defense policy for this Nation. As our supply chain for DOD gets internationalized on a daily and weekly basis, we're putting this country at jeopardy. In my own district, I have one of the last--in fact, the last American company that makes copper-nickel tubing for the sub-fleet. Because there is one foreign manufacturer that is on the verge of putting them out of business, we are about to lose our only domestic capability for a critical component of that sub-fleet. It makes sense to give them some capacity to at least make the case to the U.S. contracting agencies that this work should stay here.

I think this is an important amendment for job creation but, frankly, just as important for U.S. strategic purposes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONAWAY. I do oppose the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment on the grounds that it's really bad policy.

Having spent several years working with the acquisition system, that is relatively complicated throughout the Department of Defense, to add one more layer of considerations to that system is, in my view, wrongheaded.

While the amendment allows this information to be provided, it provides for some punitive teeth in the amendment that should a contractor, either in good faith or bad faith, overstate the number of jobs created or retained, then that contractor would be debarred from being able to participate in the acquisitions process.

At the end of the day, at the beginning of the day, whatever part of the day you want to talk about, acquisition by the Department of Defense should be about something this straightforward. It should be about buying the gear, the equipment, and the goods and services our warfighters need at the time they need it at a price that is appropriate for the taxpayer to pay. And while jobs get created under that circumstance, that should not be a consideration as to what the warfighter needs, how we get it, how it's acquired, and that process.

My colleague has said this is simply a suggestion. That's how you get to mandatory. He already said, if it were up to him, it would be mandatory. We put this in as a ``suggestion,'' and the next step will be for him to ask that it be made mandatory and that we drive higher costs into the systems, because then the criterion for deciding on a contract is not is this the goods and service that we need at a price we can afford, and, oh, by the way, which one of these guys uses the most number of people to do that. That's counter to getting the best deal for the American taxpayer.

I want the contractors to use whatever the appropriate number of people is to build a piece of equipment that we need, provide a good or service that we need at a cost that the American taxpayer can afford.

At a time when we're going to squeeze on the Department of Defense to force higher costs through this policy, in my view, is wrongheaded.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I will make three quick points in response.

First, the amendment does not require that contractor to be debarred. It just simply allows for the possibility of debarment if they have significantly undersold or oversold, frankly, the amount of jobs that are going to be created. It is just an ability, frankly, that would exist under current law as to permissive debarment.

Second, I think my constituents are reflective of most people's constituents here. I think they expect that when they send their taxpayer dollars to Washington that there will be a preference for U.S. jobs. Most people I talk to are surprised that it's not a factor.

And third, we have to look at the holistic cost about sourcing to the Federal Government. It may be so that a particular part for a jet engine is 10 percent cheaper to buy it from a Chinese shop than an American shop. But when that American shop goes out of business, it costs the U.S. Government more money, not less, because we then have to pay unemployment compensation. We lose all of the tax revenue. We
likely have to pay other social safety net costs.

So we have to start being smart about how we use taxpayer dollars and recognize that when we buy something overseas, the contract price may be 10 percent less, but the overall cost to the U.S. Government is much more.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply respond that, again, the value for the taxpayer at the end of the day is what we need to do.

We're going to have to cut costs across this government, and that's going to mean that people are going to have to do something differently than they have done in the past. And to simply say that the American manufacturing jobs should have absolute preference over getting the best deal for the taxpayer, in my view, doesn't make sense.

We've got a very complicated acquisition process in place right now. And it reminds me of the headlines that were shown in the last couple of days of the number of folks who got money from the vaunted stimulus plan that was--in fact, whose sole purpose was to really create jobs, unlike acquisition for the military and Department of Defense whose sole purpose is to provide the goods and services and equipment needed for our warfighters at the point and time they need it at a cost that makes sense for the taxpayer. The job creation of the stimulus plan, that emphasis was flawed in the extreme. And I don't believe that adding that emphasis to defense acquisition will make for a better acquisition process or will make for a better piece of equipment that we get.

And the analogy that the country that goes out of business costs all of these other kinds of things, that's basically hyperbole. I don't think my good colleague has any of the facts to associate that with.

At the end of the day, it's the private sector that drives this economy. You cannot flourish an economy with growing government jobs. It must be in the private sector. The private sector does it best, and this would impede that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I think this is a very important debate to have to show who is really focusing on the best use of taxpayer dollars for the creation of U.S. jobs. I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate on the floor of the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut will be postponed.

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed in House Report 112-88.

AMENDMENT NO. 27 OFFERED BY MR. COLE

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 printed in House Report 112-88.

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

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 845. PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 47 of title 41, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:``§4712. Prohibition on disclosure of political contributions

``(a) Prohibition.--An executive agency may not require an entity submitting an offer for a Federal contract or otherwise participating in acquisition of property or services by the Federal Government to disclose any of the following information as a condition of submitting the offer or otherwise participating in such acquisition:

``(1) Any payment consisting of a contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication that is made by the entity, its officers or directors, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries to a candidate for election for Federal office or to a political committee, or that is otherwise made with respect to any election for Federal office.

``(2) Any disbursement of funds (other than a payment described in paragraph (1)) made by the entity, its officers or directors, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries to any individual or entity with the intent or the reasonable expectation that the individual or entity will use the funds to make a payment described in paragraph (1).

``(b) No Effect on Other Disclosure Requirements.--Nothing in this section may be construed to waive or otherwise affect the application to an entity described in subsection (a) of any provision of law (including the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) that requires the entity to disclose information on contributions, expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.

``(c) Definitions.--In this section--

``(1) each of the terms `contribution', `expenditure', `independent expenditure', `electioneering communication', `candidate', `election', and `Federal office' has the meaning given such term in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.); and

``(2) the term `acquisition' has the meaning given that term in section 131 of this title.''.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for chapter 47 of title 41, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 4711 the following new item:

``4712. Prohibition on disclosure of political contributions.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. COLE. I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, last month a draft Executive order was circulated that would require companies to disclose all Federal campaign contributions as a condition for submitting a bid on a Federal contract. If implemented, this Executive order would effectively politicize the Federal procurement process. Companies and their bids would run the risk of being judged on the basis of politics as opposed to their professional capabilities. The danger of that is obvious. It's never a good idea to mix politics and contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from implementing his proposed disclosure requirements.

And it's worth noting for the record, Congress actually considered something similar in the 111th Congress, the so-called DISCLOSE Act, and chose not to pass that particular legislation. This is, in effect, a backdoor effort to implement something that Congress has previously decided not to legislate on.

It's worth also noting that all current Federal campaign requirements and disclosure requirements would remain effective. There is nothing in this amendment that affects current law. However, we do prevent the administration from taking that extra step and chilling the First Amendment rights of companies and corporate executives.

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

Mr. CUMMINGS. I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment is nothing more than a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of political contributions of government contractors.

The draft Executive order being developed by the Obama administration would require Federal contractors to disclose more information about their political contributions than they currently provide, particularly those contributions given to third-party entities.

Some have said that they oppose this effort because additional information could be used nefariously to create a ``Nixonian type enemies list.'' In other words, they argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse the information to retaliate against them.

I have a fundamental problem with this premise. Under this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not just the new ones. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. Should we eliminate those provisions, too? Of course not.

A second argument made by the opponents is that contracting officers might review political contributions in order to reward allies or to punish foes by awarding or withholding government contracts. Again, this could happen now under current disclosure rules, but Federal procurement law prohibits this.

The draft executive order also reiterates ``every stage of the contracting process'' must be ``free from the undue influence of factors extraneous to the underlying merits of the contracting decision-making, such as political activity or political favoritism.''

A third argument that the draft executive order violates the First Amendment is also grossly misplaced. Even in the recent Citizens United case, eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices agreed that campaign disclosure rules are consistent with the First Amendment because they do not prohibit contributions and ``do not prevent anyone from speaking.''

For all of these reasons, a broad coalition of dozens of open government organizations strongly supports the administration's draft executive order; and more than 30 groups, including nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations like Democracy 21, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and many others have concluded that the draft executive order would enhance transparency and decrease--decrease--corruption.

These are not the only groups that support the draft executive order. Two weeks ago, a coalition of institutional investors and investor coalitions, collectively managing $130 billion in assets, also wrote to express their support. In their letter, they explained, ``Corporate political activity presents significant risks to shareholder value,'' and ``transparency allows investors to put together a more complete picture of the various risks to our investments.''

As the Los Angeles Times said in a recent editorial, ``Disclosure is the solution, not the problem.''

I firmly believe that to be the case, and I urge Members to defeat the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I couldn't disagree more strongly with my friend from Maryland.

Quite frankly, the information that this proposed executive order would extract and require from companies is not necessary to evaluate any bid that they've made. It's a political quest, not a quest for more information, for a better product or a better bid, and it legitimately raises political fear of retaliation. We've seen time and time and time again in history where politics have been linked to contracts. This is yet another effort to do it.

I also dispute my friend about whether or not it is appropriate for the executive branch to even consider this in the first place. It is not the job of the executive branch to legislate. That's actually our job in this body. If we want to add additional requirements, we can do so. We looked at requirements very much like this last year in a Congress which was controlled at both ends of the building by my friends on the other side, and it did not enact such legislation. I think to do so now actually through executive fiat raises even more concerning fears.

All I am asking is that we leave the law as it is, the disclosure requirements as they are, and, frankly, keep the executive branch from engaging in fishing expeditions and from potentially imputative political activity against companies and individuals who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what we're afraid of. What are we afraid of? This is about the American people knowing what these people are spending. That's what it's about. It's not about trying to make decisions on contracting.

I just said, Mr. Chairman, that the law is very clear that they cannot do that. It's about the American people knowing what's going on. I think we have to guard our democracy, and one of the best ways to guard it is through disclosure. If folks aren't doing anything, there's nothing to be afraid of. So why do we want to hide? We need a transparent democracy. That's what this is all about: transparency.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, if the information isn't necessary for the bid or for the evaluation of the bid, then it's not necessary for the executive branch to have it or for us to run the risk that it might be misused, so I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. GARAMENDI

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed in House Report 112-88.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have an amendment at the desk.

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:

SEC. 845. REQUIREMENT TO SET ASIDE WORK FOR LOCAL QUALIFIED SUBCONTRACTORS.

The Secretary of Defense shall require each contractor of the Department of Defense performing a prime contract at a military installation in the United States to set aside 40 percent, by dollar value, of its subcontracting work under the contract for local qualified subcontractors. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a subcontractor shall be considered local if its headquarters is within 60 miles of the military installation.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This is about local jobs for local companies.

Many of us have in our districts military facilities of large and small size. All too often those facilities and the work done on those facilities, performed by contractors, often national contractors, totally ignores and provides little or no opportunity for local subcontractors. This amendment would simply require that for prime contractors on military installations across this Nation they would be required to allow 40 percent of their contracts, by dollar value, to be available for local subcontractors.

Not a bad idea, it seems to me.

I know that, in my area of Travis Air Force Base in Solano County, there are constant--constant--complaints from local contractors that the big boys come in, hog all the work, and leave nothing behind except a few more burgers bought at McDonald's.

Not good enough.

This amendment deals with that issue by providing local contractors, often Republican contractors, the opportunity to have work in their communities, and ``local'' is defined as within 60 miles of the base. So I ask for an aye vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the gentleman from California's amendment. While it is straightforward, it is bad policy, quite frankly.

At first blush, where is the 60 miles? It just says ``military installations.'' If you go to Fort Hood, there are a lot of places around that are way further than 60 miles away from the west edge on the east side of the State. The amendment doesn't even say from the flagpole or the central location. Where do you measure the 60 miles? It's kind of a straightforward problem there.

It also doesn't provide for historically underutilized businesses. So you've got an historically underutilized business, a HUB, that is 61 miles outside whatever the measurement might be. They would be excluded under this provision from competing for that 40 percent because they would be an arbitrary 61 miles, 60.5 miles, 60 miles and 1 foot--or whatever the criterion is--which is not stated in this amendment.

You can't fence out competition. I understand that folks don't like to compete. This morning at baseball practice for the Republicans, we had a bunch of new guys out of the 87, and the coach said, Folks, all nine positions are up for competition. Well, I'm No. 2 on the depth chart. I'm not real happy about that, but it spurred me to compete better for that position.

Competition works. It works for the big guys, and it works for the little guys. To arbitrarily and capriciously set a 60-mile perimeter around a military base and say 40 percent of everything has to be provided to the folks inside that is wrong-headed, so I oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am shocked, absolutely shocked that my Republican friend isn't standing firm for small businesses in their communities. Would you like 61 or 60,000 miles? Whatever it is, we want the small contractors to have a shot at it. Be happy to amend to whatever mileage you would like.

I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this may not be the best way to get at this problem, but this is a problem. There is nothing wrong with competition, but what's happening right now with a lot of DOD contracts is not competition. The DOD has gone in, in a very arbitrary way, picked large contractors from a long ways away, and not even allowed, in many instances, local contractors to compete for that work.

This is a very real problem. It's a bipartisan problem. We had a Republican Member testify before the Armed Services Committee about his concerns about this. They are driving work away from local contractors and away from local workers, not allowing them to compete for that work by showing a bias in favor of a large, one-size-fits-all contractor. Not good for the Department of Defense.

Also, with all of our bases, the local community is a critical support structure for that base. Once you take that out, once you take local workers, local contractors out of the equation, it makes it that much more difficult to get the local community to give the base the support that it deserves. This is not competition as it's currently constructed. I applaud the gentleman for offering his amendment. I urge support, and I urge that this committee look more closely at this issue.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source

Meet Civic Sage

You can ask about:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Navigation

Our Mission