[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 161 (Friday, November 7, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10982-H11008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 437
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the
[[Page H10983]]
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1588) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
This morning, the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal
conference report rule for H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration.
In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided
and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
House Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type
of rule we grant for every conference report we consider in the House.
And I want to especially give my thanks to the chairman and ranking
member of this committee, because they have done a phenomenal job with
this bill. It is a bill that sets an example for the rest of the
committees in the House as far as working together and doing what is
right for the country and what is right for our servicemen.
This legislation firmly shows our commitment to restoring the
strength of our Nation's military. The conferees authorize $400.5
billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the
national security programs of the Department of Energy, which matches
the President's request.
The legislation authorizes the funding necessary to defend the Nation
and our interests around the globe. It contains important provisions,
such as concurrent receipt pay for the Nation's veterans, commonsense
environmental reforms allowing our troops to properly train, and
important new benefits for military personnel and their families.
The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have brought a
renewed and proper focus on national defense. We owe much to our men
and women in uniform; and their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a
testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their
commitment to defend our freedoms. It is the means by which we meet our
commitment to provide them a decent quality of life with an across-the-
board 4.15 percent increase for military personnel, so as to sustain
the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer armed
services and the families that support them.
The pay raise will cut the pay gap between military and civilian jobs
from 6.4 to 5.5 percent. This will be the fifth consecutive year that
pay raises have exceeded that of the private sector.
For our active soldiers, the conferees increased the rates of special
pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger worldwide
from $150 a month to $225 per month for the period beginning October 1
of 2003, through December 31 of 2004.
We also want to acknowledge where these active soldiers get the
source of their strength. It is from their families here at home. And
we are increasing the family separation allowance for servicemembers
with dependents from $100 a month to $250 a month for the period
October 1 this year through December 31 of 2004.
I also want to take a moment to personally thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) for tirelessly fighting for the solid ``Buy
American Provisions'' that are included in this conference report. That
is extremely important to my State of North Carolina.
The ongoing war on terrorism dictates the need to have reliable
domestic sources of weapons and equipment. Unfortunately, fewer
American companies are designing and manufacturing the components and
materials used in our military systems, as the U.S. industrial base is
becoming more dependent on foreign sources. And this is a disturbing
factor to me, as I know it is to the gentleman from California
(Chairman Hunter). We have got to be able to produce these equipment
needs here in the United States so we are not at the mercy of some
other country if they decide for some reason to cut us off.
However, I am very disappointed, and I know the chairman is too, that
the conference report did not include a key provision that was passed
by the House that would ensure that all the components of the
Department of Defense uniforms come from American companies. The
language specifically worked to more adequately cover domestic textiles
and leather industries.
I would also like to congratulate my good friend and colleague on the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for
authoring the 1-year citizenship provision for our valiant servicemen
and women. It reduces the length of service requirement for
naturalization to 1 year. And I would also like to note that the
ranking member on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), worked hard on this issue as well.
On a positive note, I am extremely pleased and proud that H.R. 1588
establishes a payment program to simultaneously compensate disabled
military retirees who were injured in combat for their full retirement
pay from DOD and disability compensation from the Veterans
Administration beginning January 1, 2004. Over the next 10 years, this
bill will provide concurrent receipt to more veterans than have ever
been covered by current law. Our veterans have given deeply and
heroically, and it is only fair we recognize their service.
So let us pass this rule and pass the underlying defense
authorization conference report. At the end of the day, we will be
making our homeland safer, and we will be supporting our sons and
daughters serving in our military. We are also preparing for war,
thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in our history, this
bill is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for all of my 25 years in this Congress, I
have worked to strengthen America's military and to increase our
national security. Like other defense proponents on both sides of the
aisle, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work
together to support America's men and women in uniform.
For instance, nearly 18 months ago, I introduced the Citizenship for
America's Troops Act, a bill to help U.S. troops who are legal
immigrants by easing the costly and burdensome obstacles that they face
in the current citizenship process. Working with Democrats and
Republicans in the House and the Senate, a good compromise was finally
reached, one that is in this defense authorization conference report.
It is not perfect, but it does provide much-needed relief to the more
than 37,000 patriotic legal immigrants on active duty in the U.S.
military, brave men and women who have been fighting and dying for a
country in which they could not even vote.
This kind of cooperation and bipartisanship approach, Mr. Speaker, is
fundamental to our efforts to keep America's military strong,
especially at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in
President Bush's ability to win the peace in Iraq.
While this conference report offers much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker,
like the military pay raise and health care benefits for the National
Guard and Reserves that Democrats have fought for, it also demonstrates
how bipartisanship is becoming increasingly rare under this all-
Republican government.
During the conference committee negotiations on this bill, Republican
leaders shut out Democrats, including the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), on some key areas of the conference. And the gentleman from
Missouri will speak about those in more length. This is part of a clear
and dangerous pattern by Republican leaders. We have seen it on the
energy bill, the
[[Page H10984]]
Medicare bill, and the FAA bill; but it is extraordinarily
disappointing to see America's national defense policy treated in such
a partisan manner.
Moreover, the conference report itself contains several provisions
where Republican idealogy clearly trumped solid national defense
policy. In the interest of time, I am going to just mention three
examples.
First, why will President Bush and the Republicans not listen to the
veterans and Democrats who are fighting to repeal the disabled veterans
tax? Right now it penalizes nearly 560,000 disabled veterans, denying
them $3 billion in military retirement benefits each year. As the
American Legion has said, Mr. Speaker, the right thing to do is repeal
the tax for all service-disabled military retirees. Democrats have
proposed a plan to do that; but Republicans, led by President Bush,
continue to block it. In fact, in this bill, Republicans refuse to help
almost 70 percent of those disabled veterans, Mr. Speaker.
So when Republican Members are at home for Veterans' Day celebrations
next week, I hope they will be honest with the people about the
provisions in this bill which provide only partial relief to only a
fraction of America's disabled veterans. I hope they will explain that
they did not think they could afford to restore military retirement
benefits to 390,000 disabled veterans because they spent so much of the
U.S. Treasury on tax breaks for the wealthiest few.
Second, does anyone really believe that national security requires
that we gut landmark environmental protections? Of course not. But
rolling back America's environmental protections is a Republican
priority. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack
the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
And, third, is it really necessary to weaken the workplace
protections of 746,000 patriotic Americans employed at the Pentagon,
the same people who responded so courageously to the September 11
attack on that building? And is it really necessary to eliminate the
rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon? Of course not. But gutting
important worker rights is another key Republican priority, and they
are shamefully using this national defense bill to do it.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are some areas of this conference
report where bipartisanship and sound defense policy have prevailed.
These include the substantial quality-of-life improvements that
Democrats have fought for. Those include a 4.1 percent increase in
basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases
for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant
officers to enhance retention. And they also include an increase in
imminent-danger pay and the family separation allowance for U.S. troops
serving in harm's way.
The conference report also builds on our efforts to support the
National Guard and Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of
defending America at home and abroad. For instance, it ensures that
when the Ready Reserves serve in areas where those on active duty get
hazardous duty pay, they will too. And if members of the Ready Reserve
cannot get health insurance through their employer, it gives them
access to the same TRICARE system that serves the military.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report
includes my own legislation to make life easier for the Guard and
Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families, by
allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families
are making great sacrifices for this Nation and they deserve our
support.
Finally, the bill continues to make important investments in the wide
range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout
the world. It includes full funding of $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, the next generation multirole fighter of the future for
the Air Force and the Navy and the Marines. It fully funds the F/A-22
Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air
Force, by providing $3.5 billion for 22 planes, and it includes the
full $1.2 billion needed for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, all these important prodefense provisions have strong
bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of
Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure the U.S. military
has the resources it needs. That is the type of bipartisanship and
cooperation that our national security policy requires. It builds
strong public support for a U.S. foreign policy here at home and
ensures our troops have the resources they need to do the dangerous job
we ask of them.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders seem to have forgotten
these lessons. And the President too often ignored them in the run-up
to the war in Iraq, which is a big reason it will be so hard to restore
President Bush's credibility and the public's confidence in his ability
to win the peace in Iraq. The American people deserve better than that,
and so do our troops in the field. I urge my Republican friends to
remember that, especially as U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers continue to
shoulder almost the entire burden for rebuilding Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the underlying conference report which we are going to consider this
morning.
I want to begin by thanking my friend, the former mayor of Charlotte,
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for the fine work
she has done not only in managing this rule but her important support
of provisions in this measure dealing with concurrent receipt, making
sure that those veterans who have been wounded and suffered will also
receive their retirement pay. This I know was a very high priority for
her. She also was very involved, Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Buy
American Provision, which my very dear friend and classmate, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee,
has pursued. And I believe that we have come to a reasonable compromise
on it.
I am not in total agreement with the gentleman on this provision, at
least the way he had originally had it, because I believe we need to
focus on ensuring we get the best quality product at the lowest
possible price for our taxpayers. But at the same time, obviously, we
do want, as a first choice, to focus on, in the area of machine tools
and other areas, American workers and American job opportunities here.
I want to say that there is another provision that my friend, the
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), worked on, and I know
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) worked on as well, which is very
important, and that is to ensure that we provide citizenship to those
who have risked their lives and fought on behalf of the interests of
the United States of America. I am pleased that the conference has in
fact chosen to follow the direction of this House in ensuring that we
have brought about the Hastings language on this. We know that
President Bush strongly supports this as well, and I would like to
congratulate him on this.
{time} 0930
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important. As we opened the
Committee on Rules meeting at 7 o'clock this morning, I said that if
you look at most of the things that we do here in Washington, D.C.,
most all of them can be handled by State and local governments. We are
obviously involved in health care and education and a wide range of
areas, but clearly those are things that can be handled at the local
level. There is really one preeminent issue that cannot be handled by a
city, a county or a State government, and that happens to be the
overall security of the United States of America and our interests
overseas. And that is why I feel as a Member of this body very
fortunate to have both the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) working hard to ensure that
we have the very, very best defense for our Nation.
[[Page H10985]]
Now, I want to say that as I listened to my friend from Dallas go
through his prepared statement on this he did end by talking about the
fact that Democrats and Republicans alike stand together in support of
a strong defense, but I have to disabuse my colleagues of the notion
that was made that somehow Republicans are interested in gutting worker
rights, murdering our environment. Nothing could be further from the
truth, Mr. Speaker.
I will state that when it has come to the environmental issues, and I
know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) will get into this as
he has in our meeting upstairs this morning and he has repeatedly here
in the well, he has talked about the responsibility to ensure that our
men and women in uniform are not playing second fiddle to some obscure
environmental priorities that one has. This measure, in fact, pursues a
very balanced approach to environmental issues.
Similarly, this notion that we somehow want to plunder workers
rights, that we want to gut the rights of workers, again, nothing could
be further from the truth. This measure pursues a very balanced
approach which focuses on worker rights. And so I want to say that I
believe this measure is going to pass with strong bipartisan support.
As the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) pointed out, the
issue of concurrent receipts is important for us to address, especially
as Members prepare to go back to their States and districts and talk
about the important sacrifice that has been made and, of course, as we
think today, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) was the
first one to report this to us in the Committee on Rules this morning,
we heard the tragic news overnight of a Black Hawk helicopter that was
downed and the loss of six lives.
We continue to live in a very dangerous world. And the chairman of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), I think made a point very clearly in our hearing
this morning and that is that we need to take action now. We want to
make sure that the conflict exists there and not here, and that is why
this legislation is so important, so that we can in fact deal with
those who want to do us in.
The training that continues to take place in the madrasas, which is
virulently opposed to the United States and our Western values, the
other kind of terrorist activity that we are seeing, we have to be
prepared to deal with that.
Lives are being lost on a regular basis because of this battle
against international terrorism, but with passage of this legislation
we will be able to diminish the threat of loss of life and ensure that
our men and women in uniform are equipped and compensated to deal with
this very, very serious issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule and the conference
report.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and thank the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) for presenting it this morning.
This was a difficult bill, and shortly we will talk about some bumps
along the way. But, Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We must do our very
best, and I think we have done a good job as it relates to the troops
of the United States of America. They are superb. They are doing a good
job. We must pay respect to them legislatively as well as to their
families legislatively, and I think we have done that by the various
items. The family separation allowance, the combat pay, the pay raise
and all of these personnel items that we touched upon is our way of
saying thanks for a good job well done.
So I support this rule. In the process I want to express my deep
appreciation to everyone in uniform and to those families who support
those in uniform. And, sadly, we have lost some and I hope that this is
some consolation that we continue to support the American men and women
who are wearing the uniform of the United States of America.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Let me congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), my good partner on the Committee on Armed Services, and all
the Members, Republican and Democrat, who helped to put this bill
together. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick), the chairman on the committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), who gave us a lot of time and attention, and all the
members of the Committee on Rules.
Let me just say a word or two about what this bill does because this
bill makes what I consider to be some sweeping reforms and it is a
great bill. It covers a number of major areas, and along with what I
call the ``people issues''; that is, the pay raise that has been
mentioned, the additional monies for housing that brings down the
amount that a service member has to pay out of their pocket, all of the
things that go to quality of life for personnel. It also covers some
major areas that have needed reform.
One aspect of that is what I call freedom to train, and today if you
go to a place like Camp Pendleton, I have used that as an example, it
has some 17 miles of shoreline. Only a very small area can actually be
utilized for Marines who basically practice Iwo Jima. They practice
assaulting a defended beach area. They can only do that practice in a
very, very limited area of about one kilometer because of environmental
considerations. And if you go to bases around the country, rifle
ranges, air space for our Air Force and our other services to undertake
integrated training with multiple aircraft, all of that is being
hindered and obstructed because of a collision with our environmental
laws.
Now, we have an answer to that, and the answer is a management plan
called an inramp, and that is where the military gets together with
State Fish and Wildlife and Federal Fish and Wildlife and they make an
agreement. They make an agreement and they say, okay, the habitat for
the gnatcatcher will be over here, we will set aside this 400 acres,
and the Marines will have this area for rifle training or the Army will
have this area for tank training or the Air Force will have this area
for aircraft training.
Once you make that agreement and you put it in place, it is not open
for groups to come in and sue under the Endangered Species Act to close
down that rifle range, to close down that tank range, to close down
that air space that is so vital so that our people can survive in
theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan.
So this is offered under the proposition that the real endangered
species here is a 19-year-old Marine rifleman who needs the very best
training that he can get here at home before he projects American power
overseas, and in this bill we put together this balance between
conservation and military requirements.
Also, with respect to allowing our submariners to utilize the best of
their sonar devices that will keep them alive when they are in the
littorals, in shallow water areas around the world, where they will be
faced with very quiet diesel submarines which are now being
proliferated in certain adversaries' navies. We say that, whereas
before the standard was that if a mammal, maybe a sea lion, was
potentially disturbed that military training could not take place in
his neighborhood. Now we say he has to actually be significantly
disturbed. He has to actually be disturbed or that disturbance has to
be significant enough to alter the way he migrates or feeds or the way
he goes about his daily life.
So we are trying to give as much value to the sailors' survival as we
have given to the sea lions' survival. I think that is a good balance.
In this case we put the sailor ahead of the sea lion. I think the
American people want that.
With respect to personnel, right now we are facing a war that is a
new war. It is a war in which we see terrorists with high technology.
We have to be flexible. We have to move quickly, and that involves
people who not just wear the uniform of the United States, it also
involves people who wear the civil service uniform.
[[Page H10986]]
So we are empowering Mr. Rumsfeld with the ability to reshape his
civil service so that instead of taking 4 or 5 or 6 months to go
through the bureaucracy to qualify a civil servant to work at a job so
you get to the point where you just direct a sergeant to go do it and
he salutes and goes and does it, we will now be able to quickly move
civil servants into that job. We will be able to hire them quickly, and
when people show an extraordinary ability to work and an enthusiasm and
dedication that rises above the community, that they will be rewarded
for that. And we have tested these ideas in pilot projects around the
country, and the members who have participated in the pilot projects
have voted that they like it.
So we are undertaking important reforms in this bill. We are giving
the military the tools they need to fight this new type of war. I would
urge everyone to support the rule and support the bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, I am a conferee on the Defense Authorization
Act. Virtually all of the funding for intelligence is contained in this
bill.
This bill is far from perfect. Like a number of conferees, I am
enormously concerned about developing bunker buster nuclear weapons,
weakening nonproliferation programs, and an assault on collective
bargaining, all of which is unfortunately part of this legislation.
Nonetheless, I signed the conference report and I intend to vote for
final passage. The lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and
women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and in the global
war on terrorism. Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we
are to prevail, and I intend to do everything I can to provide our
forces with the best intelligence possible.
The funds in this bill meet important intelligence needs vital to our
Nation's security and, in contrast to the recent $87 billion
supplemental, these funds come through the regular budget process.
Still, the following needs to be said: The Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious
shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and ties to terrorism. Sketchy and often circumstantial
evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a
minimum, I believe the Intelligence Community overstated the strength
of the underlying data supporting the conclusions.
The Intelligence Community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar
intelligence. With American lives on the line now, the shortcomings in
prewar intelligence must be addressed now. A ``lessons learned'' study
cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search.
Regardless of what he finds, there were problems with collection,
analysis and the way policy makers used the information.
I strongly support this bill's requirement of an Iraq ``lessons
learned'' report by the Department of Defense due March 31 of next
year. As a conferee on the intelligence authorization bill, I plan to
push for an interim ``lessons learned'' report from the Intelligence
Community on the same date as the military's report is due, and I hope
that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will join me in this
request.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who has
just gone through very difficult negotiations at a very difficult time.
Some Members may not know that he lost his home to the California
wildfires that swept through southern California. So I thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
This is good news. This defense conference report is good news for
our young men and women who serve in the Armed Services and are
required to carry out the will of this Nation overseas. We want to give
them the tools necessary so they can do their job and come home safely
to their families, and this bill provides many of the tools necessary
for that to happen. It is also good news for our veterans in addressing
the issue of concurrent receipts.
It is also very good news for the KC-767 program. This is a critical
part of our defense program and it completes the circuit for the start
of a new program in fulfilling a great need by replacing our KC-135's,
the tanker fleet that we currently have.
{time} 0945
For those who are not familiar with the KC-135, this is basically a
gas station in the sky. It refuels other aircraft, and it is a very
necessary link in projecting power for this country. Afghanistan and
Iraq once again confirmed the necessity that in today's war on
terrorism, we must have tankers to fulfill the role of carrying out and
projecting power. The problem has been that they are an aging fleet.
The average age of the KC-135s is 43 years. Can the Members imagine,
Mr. Speaker, coming back and forth to work in a 1960 automobile? This
is basically what we have asked our young men and women to do. The
average age of 43 years is the equivalent of driving a 1960 Dodge Dart.
And just like an older automobile would suffer from rust and need
repair, these aircraft are suffering from corrosion and have high
maintenance costs. So the KC-135 must be replaced, and this is good
news because this defense authorization conference report does that.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the House on notice that we
will have to correct some of the problems that have been created by
this agreement in the current legislation. The conference report
changes the original plan for the KC-767. It changes the delivery rate
and purchasing method that was supposed to save approximately $4
billion, an estimated $4 billion, but the short-term plan was
shortsighted. It does create a long-term problem. I will submit for the
Record the letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
outlining the plan to change the delivery schedule for the first 100
aircraft. It essentially changes it from a 20-per-year delivery rate to
a 12-per-year delivery rate.
When we assume the total program of 400 aircraft, instead of ending
this program in fiscal year 2025, it will now end in fiscal year 2039.
That moves the mid-point of this entire program 7 years to the right.
If we assume an average cost of $150 million per aircraft and a 5
percent inflation rate, that is for increased labor cost, increased
material cost, increased cost of money, it raises the cost of the
entire program by 40.7 percent. So instead of 60 billion over 21 years
for the KC-767 program, the Federal Government will have to spend
approximately $84.4 billion over 35 years.
What needs to be done? We are going to address the delivery schedule.
It must be accelerated so that we can reach an optimum production rate
and a lower cost per aircraft. We also need to provide adequate budget
authority to serve the taxpayers with significant reduction in the cost
of this program by accelerating the production rate. But over all, Mr.
Speaker, this is a very good conference report, and it is going to be
something that is going to help our young men and women as well as
veterans. I support the rule, and I support the defense conference
report.
Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, November 5, 2003.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration
of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A
aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on
the best way to get this program started. Your most recent
amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20
of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to
implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it
acceptable.
Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the
critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the
constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed
chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then
buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year
until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in
Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile
for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will
add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The
[[Page H10987]]
combination of these added funds achieves an immediate start
to the program and allows us to purchase the last 80 aircraft
at time of delivery.
I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past
and look forward to working with you in the future. If you
require further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen
and ranking minority members of each of the defense
committees.
Sincerely,
Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I am glad to see us
put some quality-of-life provisions in it; and I commend the chairman,
whom I have worked with for 20-odd years, for once again bringing a
bill to closure.
I do have to call attention to the fact that this rule waives all
points of order, which is typical; but in this case, as ranking member
of the Budget Committee, I feel obliged to make my colleagues aware
what it is we are waiving because it is not a good way to do business;
it is not a good way to keep a budget.
This conference report contains two provisions that entail
significant spending over and above the amounts allowed in the budget
resolution. One allows concurrent receipt of military retirement
benefits for retirees who also get VA disability benefits. The other
commits the government to lease and purchase up to 20 or maybe even 100
new tanker aircraft.
No funds were added to this conference report to pay for either of
these programs, and that is my problem. Between the two of them, they
will entail new unfunded future commitments of approximately $40
billion, $22 billion for concurrent receipt, $18 billion for 100 new
tanker aircraft.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I support the
compromise on concurrent receipt, and I understand the need for new
tankers; but I am concerned, and have to be, about the way we are doing
this. The rule before us would waive the point of order that would
otherwise lie against the conference report for some clear and
substantial departures from the budget resolution that is supposed to
be prevailing in this House.
We just finished the fiscal year 2003, Mr. Speaker, with the largest
deficit in our peacetime history, $374 billion. The deficit for next
year, fiscal year 2004, is likely to break that by $100 billion, even
without the additional cost of these programs which are not included in
any of CBO's or OMB's projections.
All I am saying is if concurrent receipt is a worthy benefit, and I
think it is, then let us pay for it or at least let us recognize fully
in the budget the cost of it. If we need these tankers, and I accept
the arguments that we do, then let us pay for them. Let us make the
argument and pay for them and set the priority in the budget. This bill
does not do that, and this rule would allow Congress to flout the
budget resolution without facing up to these costs. If Congress feels
that it is necessary to abandon the budget resolution that supposedly
prevails in the House and further increases the deficit, then we ought
to be accountable for that decision. But this rule would make sure that
no Member of this body will have the opportunity to demand such
accountability.
Let me tell the Members specifically the two problems in the
conference report with respect to these items that give me trouble. The
conference report phases in a compromised version of concurrent
receipt. In 2004 this would increase direct spending by $800 million.
By 2013 this would increase annual cost to as much as $3.5 billion.
This provision would cost an estimated $22 billion in additional direct
spending over the next 10 years, none of which is provided for in the
mandatory spending provisions of the budget resolution. That is why I
call it a substantial departure.
There is another anomaly in the way concurrent receipt is treated.
Since the mid-1980s, we have recognized military retirement costs
through an accrual system that sets aside funds to cover the cost of
retirement benefits we owe in the future for today's military service.
The concurrent receipt provisions in this bill eliminate a reduction or
offset in military retirement and thus increase military retirement
benefits. Under current procedures, we should increase our accrual
payments to account for the fact that we have just increased future
spending on retirement benefits. This bill does not do that. It departs
from a convention we adopted 20 years ago for reporting military
retirement programs.
The conference agreement also includes language that was not in
either bill to lease 20 tankers and then buy 80 more. In effect, what
it allows is incremental funding, something we have not done for big
procurement programs for a long, long time. It entails at least a
liability of $4 billion, maybe as much as $18 billion, and yet none of
this money is in the Air Force budget. None of this authority has been
recognized. What we have here is an effort to obscure the fact that we
are increasing the defense budget but not adding BA commensurate to the
amount of the increase.
There are committees right now and next week railing against
corporate misaccounting in this country and should be. But we should
keep our own books in proper order in order to make such criticisms.
This is not a way to budget. I support the bill and hope it does not
constitute a precedent for the future.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong support of the rule and of the conference report
with a deep sense of gratitude to the gentleman from California
(Chairman Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), ranking member, for their extraordinary and bipartisan
leadership on behalf of that fundamental function of our Nation and
this Congress to provide for the common defense and in meeting the
urgent needs of soldiers in the field of today, our intelligence
community, but also meeting the needs of those who have served in
uniform. I believe this conference report goes a long way toward
discharging that duty.
Mr. Speaker, in the survival of freedom we literally as American
citizens owe our veterans everything. But in a world of limited
resources, we can only in this Congress do the right thing. I rise
specifically today on virtually the eve of Veterans' Day to point out
how this Congress, thanks to the bipartisan leadership of the defense
authorizing committee, is doing the right thing by veterans in the area
of concurrent receipts.
Since arriving in Congress, I have heard from one veteran after
another, men and women who had worn the uniform of the United States of
America, about the injustice of losing disability benefits for which
they were eligible as veterans at the time they reached the age of
retirement. Thanks to this legislation, in most cases disability
benefits incurred in uniform or earned in uniform will not be forfeited
simply because a veteran reaches the age of retirement. The Good Book
tells us if we owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect,
then respect. By meeting the urgent needs of the defense of the Nation
today, we pay a debt to those who risk and expend their lives in the
advancement of our freedom. But by addressing the injustice of current
veterans benefits, Congress today goes a long way toward paying the
debt we owe to those we can never repay.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership.
I rise to point out that this conference report does not adequately
address the needs of our disabled military retirees. Later today we
will be considering a motion to recommit. And I strongly urge Members
to support that motion and urge that we fix a tremendous injustice in
this conference report.
The conference report provides no relief whatsoever to two-thirds of
disabled veterans who are now paying the Disabled Veterans Tax.
Further, it provides only limited relief from the unfair tax burden to
those it does cover. Under this report, veterans with disabilities
rated at 50 percent or more would have to wait 10 years before
receiving their full military retirement pay. The vast majority of
eligible veterans are left out. In fact, 400,000 veterans with
disabilities rated under 50
[[Page H10988]]
percent would not receive any relief at all. In other words, some
veterans who lost their limbs while serving their country are not
considered worthy of relief after they get back to the States.
This is not ``full concurrent receipt'' as has been claimed. This is
clearly not a victory for veterans. It is an attempt to divide and
conquer veterans so as to deprive most retirees of their earned
retirement benefits. A vote for the motion to recommit is a vote for
full concurrent receipt and an end to the tax on our disabled veterans.
I urge all Members to vote for this motion and support what 374
Members have already said by cosponsoring legislation for full, not
partial, concurrent receipt.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the veterans of our country are wise enough to
make judgments about where they want to go, and I salute them for
raising the issues that we have been dealing with the last few years.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I want to say right up front that I will vote for this
defense authorization. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and a whole range of people have
done an outstanding job to ensure the safety not only of the United
States and our security but of those young men and women who are out
there basically buttressing the pillars of civilization.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) mentioned a little while
ago that a 19-year-old rifleman ought to get the best training in the
world. I agree with him 100 percent. I was a 19-year-old Marine Corps
rifleman who worked with the Navy over a period of years, went into
assaulted-fortified positions from Navy ships. So I personally
recognize the absolute need, the uncompromising need, to ensure the
best available training, the best equipment, the best of support that
this country can offer to U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marine Corps, and
airmen.
I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services and the
chairman and the ranking member. Over the next several months, the
Committee on Resources will be reauthorizing the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. The language in the defense authorization bill dealing
with the marine mammals was something that we worked out. The language
that is in the defense bill now, I think, goes beyond what is
necessary. There are some issues dealing with small numbers versus
negligeable numbers. There are some issues dealing with confined
geographic areas. There are issues dealing with permits. There are
issues with civilian scientific research.
I think the model we can use for the marine mammals and the Marine
training is laid out before us in this thing called INRMPs, Integrated
National Resources Management Plans, that there is consultation, there
is collaboration with the Committee on Resources and the other agencies
throughout the Federal Government. That model that deals with INRMPs,
that assures those guys on the ground, that young 19-year-old rifleman,
is going to get the best training, no compromise on that. And I would
like to work with the Committee on Armed Services to deal with those
issues over the next several months.
{time} 1000
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise to express my opposition to the conference report on the
Department of Defense authorization bill. I want to pick up with where
the last speaker finished. He said he thought in this bill they went a
little further than was necessary in the area of the Endangered Species
Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. I want to say what I believe to
be the case, that the problem with this bill is that it has been
hijacked by the Republican leadership and the White House, who insisted
on provisions that weakened environmental laws relating to the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
I am also the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform,
and I want to address the civil service provisions in this bill. I am
not opposed to reasonable reform that makes the Federal Government
function more efficiently and still protects the basic rights of
Federal employees, but this bill is not reasonable.
Senator Collins developed a bipartisan compromise that safeguarded
the collective bargaining rights of 700,000 DOD employees, yet gave DOD
much of the flexibility it requested, but this bill abandons that
compromise. This bill makes a mockery of labor relations at the Defense
Department. At the same time that the bill claims to protect collective
bargaining, it allows DOD to waive these requirements for the next 6
years. During these 6 years, the Department can run rough-shod over its
unions. The Department can decide what issues will be bargained, how
labor and management impasses will be resolved and whether it will
discriminate against union members.
This bill also makes it harder for DOD employees to gain redress for
unfair treatment. Currently employees have the ability to file appeals
with the independent Merit Systems Protection Board, but under this
bill employees first would have to go through an internal DOD appeals
process. An administration that says it is against bureaucracy and red
tape wants to create so much bureaucracy for employee appeals that
employees will simply give up trying to protect their rights.
The bill removes requirements for DOD employees to receive overtime
pay or pay for working on holidays or weekends. This is ironic, since
both the House and the Senate recently voted to protect overtime pay
for private sector employees.
As the war efforts in Iraq have demonstrated, DOD employees do not
work only Monday through Friday, 9 to 5. Frankly, it is shameful that
Congress is going to give those employees who safeguard our national
security less overtime protection than it gives private employees.
Finally, I have concerns about some of the provisions dealing with
government-wide procurement policy. In particular, the bill extends to
all civilian agencies something known as ``other transaction
authority'' for research and development projects related to defense
against terrorism. This would essentially waive all Federal procurement
laws for these contracts. The bill also includes excessive waivers of
procurement rules for contracts related to other anti-terrorism
products and services.
It is wrong to take important must-pass legislation like the DOD
authorization and load it up with right-wing policies that damage the
environment and strip employees of basic rights, but that is what this
bill is doing, and I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for her leadership and appreciate her yielding me time.
Let me say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for 18
years in this Congress supported legislation that would give concurrent
receipt to our veterans; 18 years. People in this Chamber need to know
that, because there are people here who have been present during that
time, and during that time the people who are now saying that
Republicans will not support our veterans need to remind themselves
that not a one of them joined sponsorship for his bill while that was
there.
Since I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I have been working to
strengthen the Berry Amendment to help ensure that the Department of
Defense use American manufacturers and products in its procurement
programs. This past spring, and this good rule supports these efforts,
I became very concerned when there was a blanket waiver issued for
commercial aircraft.
Among other products, this largely jeopardizes our domestic titanium
industry. The number of companies that currently comprise this
industrial base has shrunk to three domestic producers of titanium.
Maintaining this base is not only vital for our economy, but also our
national security. We simply cannot be relying on the Russians and the
Chinese, who are developing their own economies, to supply significant
amounts of titanium for our Nation's defense.
[[Page H10989]]
The gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) has been tenacious in
working to make sure that our industrial defense base is strengthened,
not protected, strengthened, so that our national security is foremost.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Chairman
Hunter) for his comments on this issue.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and we are going to
describe during the general debate the great industrial base
provisions, like the machine tool provision that we came out of this
conference with, some excellent stuff.
But with respect to titanium, we know that we have three major makers
of titanium left in this country. Otherwise, you have to rely on
foreign sources. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hayes) personally for putting together the working group between
industry and the Air Force and Members who are interested, and putting
together what we call the basket approach to titanium.
The basket approach says basically this: If you are going to take a
domestic system, like the planes that are candidates for this tanker
operation, and you convert them into a military system, right now the
Berry Amendment says you have to use American-made titanium on American
military systems.
We have agreed that since some of these civilian aircraft will have
some foreign-made titanium, we got with the industry leaders and they
agreed that they would take and require the same amount of American
titanium, with in fact a 10 percent increase, and spread that across
the rest of their lines to make up for the foreign titanium that was in
those civilian aircraft. I have talked with industry leaders. They feel
a strong commitment to that policy.
I want to thank the gentleman for putting that in place. I think it
is going to accrue to the benefit of not only our tanker program, but
also the health of the titanium industry.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very
much, and thanks again to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick). This is a great rule. It is for our troops, it is for our
Nation, The spirit and intent of what we discussed is there.
Vote for this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and this
rule. I have concerns about this bill, too. I represent the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Keyport, Bangor. Many of these work rules
are very much deplored by the workers there, and I regret that they
have been attached to this legislation, but we will continue to work to
try and deal with them as we proceed in this session of Congress.
I want to rise in very strong support of the provision my friend the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) talked about earlier, the question
of tankers. I became interested in this issue several years ago with a
visit to Tinker Air Force Base where we saw the condition of our KC-
135-Es. I believe that this is a crucial national priority, to get a
new tanker replacement program started.
The Air Force has chosen the 767. We have had a lot of controversy
about whether we should buy or lease. We have come up with a
combination here. The Secretary of Defense's office, led by Mr.
Wolfowitz, sent a letter on Thursday, which has brought us together. I
want to commend the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert),
for his dedicated leadership on this issue. Without his tremendous
effort and tenacity, we would not have gotten this far.
I intend to have a colloquy later with the chairman of the committee
when we get to the authorization bill on this matter, but I just want
to say that I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this. For 2
years, we had to get an effort under way to get this replacement effort
going.
Not to understate it, every single plane that flew into Afghanistan
and into Iraq had to be refueled multiple times. Our whole effort to
improve our bomber capability with the B-2 and smart weapons and all of
the aircraft coming off of our carriers, Navy and Marine Corps
aircraft, all of them had to be refueled multiple times. So you do not
get anything done without tankers.
We have planes now, 544 of them, that were built between 1957 and
1963. These are very old aircraft. We have serious corrosion problems,
and I am glad that this conference committee was able to come together
and put together a package and that the administration has said they
will make it work.
I believe this is one of the most important things we can do. If you
think about it, tankers and the EA-6-Bs, which are also old and in
terrible condition, are two weapons systems that have become absolutely
fundamental to our U.S. ability to project power around the world. I am
glad we can get this tanker thing moving forward and that it is in this
bill.
I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on this
issue.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep
disappointment at the failure to deal with challenges for one-half of
our patriotic team in the war against terrorism. We have done some good
things in here for our folks in the Armed Services, but for our
civilian employees, who are a crucial part of our defense team, we are
removing protections for overtime pay and other matters, and that is
just abominable.
When I went out to greet with the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) the Carl Vinson when she came back from the Afghanistan war, I
talked to the folks about their incredibly successful safety record of
thousands of sorties without a loss, and they told me it is in large
part because of the incredibly adept maintenance done on that ship by
our civilian employees. This bill is a jab and a mark of disrespect for
those civilian employees, who are every bit as patriotic as our folks
in the Armed Services today, and there is no reason for this to have
happened.
Now, this is just the first step in this effort. We are going to
continue to work on this, that this effort of flexibility does not mean
disrespect for our civilian employees. We are going to stay on it like
a dog with a bone.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support
of this rule and the underlying bill which will follow immediately
thereafter.
I want to just point out to my colleagues that the concurrent receipt
victory that is in this bill is significant, it is profound, it is
historic, and will make a major difference in the lives of our men and
women who have served ably and honorably in our military, have served
for 20 years or more, and also have been disabled. It will provide that
anyone who is service-connected disabled 50 percent or more or combat-
related of any rating will get the full concurrent receipt after a
phase-in of 10 years.
Let me point out to my colleagues that this adds about $22 billion in
benefits over 10 years to veterans compensation. This is not an
insignificant amount of money.
After the phase-in period, let me remind my colleagues as well that
this bill adds about a $3.5 billion every year to service connected
disabled vets. So the next 10 years we are talking about another $35
billion more that will go to our disabled veterans. That is in excess
of $57 billion to our disabled veterans as a result of this
legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the
chairman of the committee, for his work, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Missouri
[[Page H10990]]
(Mr. Blunt), and so many others who worked on this to make sure that we
get concurrent receipt resolved.
{time} 1015
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would only point out to the previous speaker and to speakers on the
other side that if the Republicans in the House were willing to forego
a little bit of the tax cuts for the wealthy, we could fully fund
concurrent receipts, rather than just partially funding concurrent
receipts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to again thank the chairman and ranking member of this
committee for the good work they have done in bringing this bill
forward. It is a good bill at the right time in history to help our men
and women and to be sure that we are doing all we can in this war on
terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 437, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1588), to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 6, 2003, Book II.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank all of my colleagues who
participated in putting this bill together from the earliest hearing
that we had early in the year on the threat that America faces, on the
status of our Armed Forces, and on what we need to do to give the
President and our troops the tools to get the job done. My partner, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), is every bit a 50-50 partner in
this operation, Mr. Speaker. When we really get down to what it takes
to protect our freedom, there are no Republicans or Democrats, and we
have a very bipartisan committee, and I am proud of that. I want to
thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as not just a friend,
but a real full partner in helping to shape America's defenses, along
with all of the members on the Democrat side on the Committee on Armed
Services and, of course, our great, great folks on the Republican side,
along with the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who have done
such a great job.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we face a new era. This is an era of what I would
call terrorists with high technology; and probably Jim Woolsey said it
best when he said we have killed the big dragon, that is, we have
disassembled the Soviet Union, but there are lots of poisonous snakes
out there, and we are seeing those poisonous snakes and the effect of
their bites every day around the world, not just in the theatres in
Afghanistan and Iraq, but elsewhere. And I think probably the American
people since 9-11 still have an acute understanding of the venom and
the poison that is manifest in that capability of our adversaries in
this new era of terrorists with high technology.
Our job is to meet that threat, and our job is further, in meeting
that threat, to shape the U.S. military and our defense apparatus to
meet the threat, to defeat it, and to equip it; to give it the tools
that it needs to do its job most effectively, and this bill does that,
Mr. Speaker.
I wanted to talk about a number of issues with respect to this bill.
This is a sweeping bill; and it does a number of reforms, a number of
changes, a number of things that I think are important to change our
military as we move into this new era.
Let me talk about, first just talk about the last subject that came
up during the rule, and that is the tankers. Because, yes, the tanker
agreement is in this bill. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about
that.
First, anyone who does a security analysis or a briefing on potential
threats around this world and present threats understands that tankers
are extremely important. I just might add that I undertook a series of
classified and unclassified briefings, as have most members of the
Committee on Armed Services over the last many years, and paramount to
our ability to project power is American air power.
Whether we are talking about B-2 bombers that can fly literally from
Whiteman Air Base to strike a target in Kosovo with precision
munitions, or talking about tactical aircraft flying off a carrier and
hitting targets in Afghanistan or Iraq, we need tankers. Tankers, that
big gas station in the sky that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt)
talked about, are necessary to project American air power. If we have
American air power and, specifically, if we have stealth, and we couple
that stealth with precision munitions, that is, instead of carpet-
bombing a bridge, we send in that one precision munition, it hits one
strut on that bridge and brings the whole bridge down, if we have that
combination and we have the legs to get it there over the target in
whatever remote part of the world we are operating in, we can project
American power, we can protect our military forces, and we can drive
them in a blitzkrieg attack against the enemy target, whether it is
enemy forces surrounding Baghdad or some other area of the world; and
Americans now understand that.
So we have to have tankers. If we do scenarios around the world,
every single scenario requires lots of American tankers and, I might
say, Mr. Speaker, more than we have now, newer than we have now, more
capable than we have now. That is the reason we are putting the tanker
deal together, and that is the reason that this is being carried in
this bill.
Now, let me tell my colleagues, with respect to personnel, we have
had some arm wrestling over this. But I think that the guy with whom we
are trusting millions of young American lives, the Secretary of
Defense, can be trusted with reshaping our personnel system in civil
service in the Department of Defense to be more effective, and I think
be more rewarding for those workers. I think they like the idea that we
are going to be able to hire people right out of that job fair instead
of telling them, in 3 months, maybe the Federal Government can hire
you, while IBM and the private concerns are picking them up
immediately. I like the idea that they are going to be able to be
qualified for a job within a few days instead of after 3 or 4 months of
bureaucracy, and that will allow them to take jobs that military people
are doing now. When we have tested these things in places like China
Lake, a majority of the workers, the workers have voted that they like
this new system, this new flexible personnel system. This is an
important new part of shaping the military.
So I think that is good.
Freedom to train, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about that. We have to
give our young people the freedom to train, and once we make that
agreement that the bird hatchery is going to be over here and the rifle
range is going to be over here, we cannot let groups then go sue to
close down the rifle range on the basis that they want to get that one
too. We have to allow a balance to be maintained. One Marine said it
best. He said to our members of the Committee on Armed Services, he
said, for years we have done work-arounds. He said, we cannot work
around it anymore, there is no land left to work around. So we need to
have this. This is very, very important legislation, freedom-to-train
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Let me talk about the industrial base. We have got in this bill a
great foundation for bringing back and maintaining the industrial base
of this
[[Page H10991]]
country, and the centerpiece of this is what I think is the centerpiece
of American production, the machine tool industry of this country,
which used to be second to none. We have a provision in this bill, it
is not a mandatory provision, so it is not going to make anybody have
to go in and take out billions of dollars of machine tools, but it says
that if you are an American contractor bidding on a DOD job, if you use
an American machine tool instead of a foreign machine tool, you are
going to get points in the competition. And I think that is going to
incentivize some of our companies, big and small, to say instead of
looking at another foreign-made machine tool, let us call up that
American company and see what they have. Maybe we can use that machine
tool. And that is going to, I believe, Mr. Speaker, start to bring back
this base of machine tools upon which a lot of our defense
manufacturing capability was founded. We do a lot of other great things
in our industrial-based provisions, Mr. Speaker; but that is the
centerpiece, and I think it is a very important foundation.
Now, we also reauthorize for 10 years the maritime security program.
This is a program that brings in the strong right arm of America's
maritime unions and makes sure that they are the ones that are moving
men and materiel across the ocean into theaters of action instead of
having to rely on rental operations where we are taking unions and
working people from other countries and having to rely on foreign
personnel to move the wherewithal for military victories around the
world. That is what is going to bring our maritime unions, our ship-
builders, and our maritime operators back into preeminence; and we have
worked hard on that, Mr. Speaker, and that is a great aspect of this
bill.
Concurrent receipt is very important, Mr. Speaker. We started out
last year by saying people who are actually hit in combat, people who
have won the Purple Heart, are going to get now two checks. They get
the full check for everything that they have been disabled, for all of
their disability, and they get the full check for their retirement for
everything that they have done to serve the U.S. military. We now also
say, and incidentally, I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh)
here, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, who very much
has been a leader in putting this thing together. We also now are going
to give full concurrent receipt, that is that full disability check, to
all of those people who are wounded in the combat area or who are
disabled or hurt in the combat area, who are hurt or disabled while
training for combat. Maybe that guy who is jumping out at the 82nd
Airborne, with the 82nd Airborne at Fort Bragg hurt his back, he is
going to get it; and also people who are hit by instrumentalities of
combat, like people who are hit by agent orange, Mr. Speaker. Then we
go to the entire population of veterans who were not hurt in combat,
were not hit by enemy bullets, were not hurt while training for combat
but, nonetheless, have disabilities. And all of those people who are
over 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, are going to receive both checks.
Now, that is going to bring in about 250,000 people, new people into
the system. It is a big, big victory for veterans. It is a wonderful
thing.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, too, along with the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis),
obviously, the guy that I call the father of concurrent receipt, it has
been a big part of his career. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), lots of great people;
I might say that Senator Warner also, working on Purple Heart Plus last
year, had a good hand in starting to put this thing together, lots and
lots of people. Lots of our veterans and veteran supporters in this
House have been involved in putting this program together. This is a
great program.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. It is a far-reaching bill. It
gives the President and the troops the tools to get the job done. Let
us pass this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the National Defense
Authorization Act. I will explain the reasons why, but I first want to
compliment my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). This
was the gentleman's inaugural voyage as chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services and the seas were far from smooth. Many of the issues we
faced were particularly difficult. I applaud the gentleman's leadership
in recognizing that the totality of the bill is more important,
especially when our country is at war in Iraq.
I do want to raise several issues of caution about process, however.
First, the conference process has not been totally inclusive. Many
issues, three in particular, civil service reform, concurrent receipt,
and Air Force tanker leasing have been decided without substantive
Democratic consultation. Second, there were few conference meetings
that involved all the conferees or even all the House conferees.
Finally, it is highly undesirable to consider a conference report on a
large and highly complex defense bill in just a few hours after the
conference report has been filed. It is not possible for Members to
make best judgments about voting on this bill when there has not been
adequate time after it has been filed.
The fact that we are considering this bill today, however, reflects
the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services members that we must
provide for the men and women of our military when they are sacrificing
in so many ways to defend our country and our issues. They are
depending on us. We will not let them down. And we are at war.
I want to highlight just a few issues that cause me to support this
bill. The bill includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for the troops. The
bill provides an increase in imminent-danger pay. It provides for
family separation allowance, which will directly benefit our servicemen
and -women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and other dangerous
spots away from their homes. The conference report further authorizes
TRICARE coverage in the military health care system for our National
Guardsmen and for our Reservists who played such a vital role against
terrorism.
{time} 1030
Finally, very, very important, this bill includes increasing the
Army's size 2,400 additional soldiers. That is so terribly important
because the troops are so strained at this time, and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. McHugh) knows that so well as chairman of the
subcommittee.
We need the pay raise. We need the special pay to compensate and help
retain those who have those special skills. Our bases need the military
construction and family housing authorizations. We need to authorize
the money for military operations, for flying hours and steaming days
and tank miles, to allow our troops to be the best trained and prepared
in the world.
I want to mention concurrent receipt. Overwhelming majorities of both
Houses clearly support providing this benefit to all disabled retirees.
Nevertheless, the conference agreement, which would provide this
benefit to those at least 50 percent disabled, is a significant step in
the right direction. There will, however, be a motion to recommit
regarding this issue, and I hope people will support it.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to reach agreements on
many difficult issues, but I know many of my colleagues will not be
happy with some of the substantive outcomes. The conference agreements
concerning low yield nuclear weapons, civil service reform, and
changing environmental laws are particularly problematic, and I point
those out.
Now, perhaps more than any time in the last decade, however, Mr.
Speaker, it is essential that the House take action to provide for our
men and women in uniform. This vote will not only be seen in Kabul or
Baghdad but also Diego Garcia, Fort Irwin, Norfolk, Fort Leonard Wood,
Whiteman Air Force Base. We need to send a message to the American
public, and to our adversaries and allies, that we as a Congress are
prepared to give our men and women in uniform the support, the strong
support and protection that they deserve.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H10992]]
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on
Unconventional Warfare, Terrorism and Capabilities and oversees these
very important special operations forces who are doing such a great job
for our country.
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking and commending the
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for
the great bipartisan job that has occurred in bringing this bill to the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588 and do so with a
great deal of pride after a lengthy but productive conference. The
conferees have hammered out an excellent bill that will go a long way
in enhancing our national security and providing our troops and their
families with the assets they need.
I have the honor of chairing, as the chairman said, the new
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on
the Committee on Armed Services. As many in this body know, I have
worked for many years to stand up such a subcommittee, and with good
reason, for there is much that is left to be done.
The subcommittee's ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Meehan), and I have worked hard together to explore a multitude of
ways to provide the Department of Defense with the capabilities to
defeat and defend against terrorists at home as well as abroad, and
many of these ideas are contained in the conference report before you.
For example, the conference report includes many provisions that will
prepare our Armed Forces and, in particular, the Special Operations
Command, to combat terrorism worldwide as well as several items that
will enhance homeland defense. In addition, the conference report
establishes several programs addressing issues that arose in the recent
war with Iraq and items that will speed the transformation of the
military services.
It is critically important that all Members vote for this measure.
There is much to applaud in many areas. I am proud to be a conferee and
proud of the work that the chairman, and my good friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), as I said before, and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) did in this regard. They have set a standard for
us, and this is a bill which must be passed, hopefully with a very good
vote.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself.
Mr. Speaker, last night, yesterday in Iraq 7 brave young Americans
died. This is the committee that makes the decisions to arm those
people, to pay those people, take care of their families, and to take
care of their injuries when they get home. And, so, as earlier this
year I voted to send those young people to Iraq, I share in the
responsibility and for those things that go wrong I share in the blame.
Having said that, although I have grave reservations about parts of
this bill, I will be supporting it because they deserve to be paid,
they deserve a pay increase, they deserve the better weapons, the
better ships that are in this bill. But there are a couple of things
that trouble me greatly.
Number one is the Bush administration's insistence on another round
of base closures. Anyone in this body knows, who has taken the time to
look at it, knows the United States Army is too small, that the entire
United States Army is spoken for. If they are not deployed, they are
getting ready to be deployed. So how on earth can we close one base out
of four as the Bush administration wants to do?
The fleet is too small, 295 ships. Again, how can we close one Navy
port out of four if the fleet is too small?
If the Bush administration truly thinks the base closures is a good
idea, then they ought to have the courage to announce which bases they
want to close prior to the Presidential election and not after in 2005.
I think it just stands to reason. You do not hear Congressmen saying
let us close bases. I cannot find one Service Secretary who is saying
let us close bases. I cannot find one Admiral or General who will name
one base that should be closed.
So if the Bush administration wants to close bases, let them do it
prior to the Presidential election.
Second thing is, Mr. President, for the sake of those people
fighting, let us pay for this war. This supplemental, and I am going to
vote for it, is going to spend $400 billion for our Nation's defense.
A couple weeks ago we had a supplemental for $87 billion, earlier in
the year another supplemental for $79 billion. That adds up to about
$565 billion. Every penny of that is borrowed. It is borrowed from the
Social Security Trust Fund. It is borrowed from the Medicare Trust
Fund. It is borrowed from the military retirees trust fund. It is
borrowed from the civil servicemen's retirement trust fund. It is
borrowed from the communist Chinese, and it is borrowed from average
Americans.
See, those of us who were lucky enough not to have to fight this war
ought to at least be willing to pay for it and not stick the brave
young men and women who will be coming home from this deployment with
the bill. Every other generation of Americans tried to pay their own
bills during wartime. This generation of Americans passes the buck to
somebody else, and it is wrong.
So for the sake of the great young men and women who are serving our
country in the Army and the Navy, the Air Force, Marines, those great
Guardsmen and Reservists who are being pulled away from their families
to serve as we speak, and a young person from Mississippi who was a
Guardsman died just yesterday, I am going to vote for this bill. But I
would ask my colleagues to let us do this in the future in a more
sensible way.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McHugh), who has a high responsibility of overseeing the
total force of the military, our Reserves, our Active, our Guard, with
respect to all the personnel issues, pay, personnel issues, family
benefits, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force.
(Mr. McHUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), for his gracious comments and for his
courageous leadership, certainly on this bill, but also day in and day
out.
I think it is obvious there are a couple lessons we can learn from
this bill. One is an old lesson, and that is happily this is one of, if
not the most, bipartisan committees to operate in Congress, and that is
so critical in times such as these. We have heard the gracious comments
and enlightened comments of the ranking member, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), someone who I respect so much. I want to thank
my ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for his
partnership in our portion on this mark, and all of the members of the
committee on both sides of the aisle. But I give a special tip of the
hat to our chairman who, in a very difficult time was experiencing
personal loss, the loss of his private home during the California
fires, still kept a focus on this vital piece of legislation.
The second lesson is that important as all the military is, the
troops are key. And you have heard my colleagues comment about the
positive things in this bill, active industry, the increases for the
Army in difficult times, similar end strength increases for the Guard
and Reserve, for those good citizen soldiers the military pay raise
average 4.1 percent, the imminent danger and family separation
allowances at these difficult times. But I want to focus on concurrent
receipt.
The third lesson of this bill is we always want to do better, but I
would note to my colleagues who have concerns that this is a program
that has been in place since the Civil War era. And until all of this
work together over the last several years, there had never been a
change in it.
With this bill today we will have started at 35,000 troops, veterans
who are receiving full concurrent receipt, and we will have expanded
that to over a quarter of a million. And that is progress, $22 billion.
So we will continue to fight to do better, but this is amazing progress
for more than 160
[[Page H10993]]
years when nothing had been done, and I urge all my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on
H.R. 1588, a wartime bill that directly addresses committee concerns
about the inadequacy of military manpower and the damaging effects of
excessive operations and personnel tempos.
H.R. 1588 also reflects the House Armed Services Committee's belief
in the need to be proactive in military personnel policy and pay
matters so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of the men
and women of America's magnificent all-voluntary armed services, and
the families that support them.
Finally, H.R. 1588 contains legislative and funding initiatives to
enhance the ability of the active, National Guard and reserves to
operate as an integrated total force.
Among the more important provisions of H.R. 1588 are:
Active end strength increases of 2,400 for the Army, with an
additional $68 million to support the increases;
Growth in selected reserve and fulltime National Guard and reserve
strengths;
Military pay raises that average 4.1 percent;
Continuation of increases in imminent danger pay and family
separation allowances.
A significant expansion of concurrent receipt that will when
implemented wean that benefit more than 250,000 military retirees.
Commissaries and exchange provisions to better define and protect
those important benefits.
DOD health care improvements, to include expanded health care
coverage of the National Guard and reserves, and
Expanded and expedited naturalization procedures for active and
reserve component personnel.
None of these great outcomes is achieved in a vacuum. The conference
report before you is a bi-partisan measure, reflecting the active input
and involvement of committee members, as well as the leadership and
judgment of Chairman Duncan Hunter and Representative Ike Skelton, the
committee's ranking Democrat.
H.R. 1588 is a very good bill that addresses a range of needs of our
wartime military. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder.)
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Total Force I rise in support of this conference report. I would like
to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Total Force, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his
leadership and also to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), for their many years and efforts that has
resulted once again in a conference agreement coming to the floor.
This bill continues several years of improvements to quality of life
programs for our military personnel, retirees, and their families. We
provided a targeted pay raise of up to 3.7 percent and additional
targeted pay increases for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel.
We fixed a problem for our reservists who were called up after
September 11 and were forced to pay their lodging expenses when they
went home on leave. We extended the increase in imminent danger pay to
$225 and family separation allowance to $250 until the end of next
year. Our service members are still in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan
and face months of separation from their loved ones. These increases
are necessary and deserved.
We increased access to TRICARE benefits for reservists and their
families. We expanded commissary access to selected reservists and
Reserve retirees under 60.
We allow individuals who volunteer to defend our Nation but are not
U.S. citizens to become naturalized after 1 year of service. We also
allow their families to become naturalized if a service member is
killed in action.
I am disappointed that the committee was not able to include full
concurrent receipt. Approximately 60 percent of Arkansas disabled
veterans who are currently penalized by current law will not be helped
by this compromise. We should do better.
While I am supporting of this bill, the process that brought us here
is not good. The bipartisanship for which our committee has been known
is slowly vanishing. The responsibility to provide for our Nation's
defense and security is an area in which partisanship should be
minimized, particularly at a time of war.
Sadly, it is becoming clear that this partisanship is becoming the
norm in the way we conduct business. Both Democrats and Republicans
have a duty and obligation to protect our citizens and the freedom
Americans enjoy.
We need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our
rights and freedoms are preserved for future generations.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks.)
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Chairman, the conference report on H.R. 1588, the Fiscal Year
2004 Defense Authorization Act, contains a provision, section 135,
which authorizes the Air Force to enter into a contract for 100 tanker
aircraft under the terms and conditions of section 8159 of the Fiscal
Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Section 135 of the
conference report does authorize a tanker acquisition program as did
the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my further understanding that section
135 was written after extensive negotiation with the Department of
Defense and the administration and that that section represents a
common understanding between the conferees and the administration on
the terms under which this tanker program will be executed.
{time} 1045
Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is again correct. Section 131 codifies an
agreement reached with the administration. The conferees relied upon a
letter sent on November 5, 2003, to the chairman and ranking member of
the Committee on Armed Services in the other body by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, in coming to agreement on the
tanker acquisition program authorized by section 135.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is further my understanding that section
135 of the conference report will authorize the Air Force to enter into
a single contract to acquire 100 767 tanker aircraft through a
combination of lease and purchase.
Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is correct. Section 135 authorizes the Air
Force to enter into one contract for 100 aircraft, 20 by lease and 80
by purchase, or more than one contract for the same combination of
aircraft.
Mr. TIAHRT. Finally, it is my understanding that section 135 of the
conference report authorizes the Air Force to enter into a multi-year
contract for the purchase of 767 tanker aircraft, and that payment
under this contract may be made at the time of aircraft delivery, a
process sometimes referred to as incremental funding.
Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is correct. The
conferees in their joint report language agree that this section would
``authorize the Secretary to enter into a multi-year procurement
program, using incremental funding.'' This language indicates that the
multi-year procurement program authorized by section 135 would allow
the Air Force to make payments as agreed to in the contract and that
the Air Force would not be required to have the full budget authority
required to purchase an aircraft in order to place an order for that
aircraft under the contract.
Mr. DICKS. We thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the letter sent to the Committee on Armed Services by
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz is as follows:
[[Page H10994]]
Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, Nov. 5, 2003.
The Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration
of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A
aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on
the best way to get this program started. Your most recent
amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20
of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to
implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it
acceptable.
Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the
critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the
constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed
chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then
buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year
until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in
Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile
for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will
add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The combination of these added
funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows
us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.
I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past
and look forward to working with you in the future. If you
require further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen
and ranking minority members of each of the defense
committees.
Sincerely,
Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most time-honored traditions of
America's servicemen and women is to keep their promise to leave no
troops behind on the battlefield. This revered tradition is based on
the principle that it would be wrong to leave those behind who have
served in sacrifice for their country. Our Nation should honor this
tradition, this principle of respect when it comes to the treatment of
veterans. No veterans should be left behind when it comes to providing
them the benefits they have earned.
Unfortunately, the Republican compromise on the disabled veterans tax
known as concurrent receipt leaves over 397,000 veterans behind,
397,000 veterans, most of whom have served our Nation in uniform 20 to
30 years. They would not benefit whatsoever from this so-called
compromise that represents a lot of broken promises and a lot of
patriotic veterans left behind.
Many of the military retirees who might be benefitted from this
compromise will never see its benefits because it is phased in over 10
years. How many World War II veterans will even be alive 10 years from
now?
When Republicans passed a $230,000 tax break just earlier this year
for wealthy Americans making over $1 million a year in dividend income,
those massive tax benefits were made effective this year. Why then are
veterans forced to wait 10 years to see a limited reduction in the
disabled veterans tax? Where is the fairness in that?
One hundred sixty Republicans in this House have co-sponsored the
Bilirakis bill to fully repeal the disabled veterans tax.
Unfortunately, only two of those 160 Republicans have signed the
discharge petition to require a vote on that bill.
Well, today there is a second chance to do what is right for
veterans. By voting yes on the motion to recommit we can repeal the
disabled veterans tax. If just a few of the 160 will join with
Democrats, we can repeal the disabled veterans tax and we can do it
fully and we can do it today. We can keep the promise we made to
veterans when we co-sponsored the Bilirakis bill.
Keeping promises and leaving no troops behind, those are
quintessential American values. On the eve of Veterans Day, let us
apply those American values to the treatment of our veterans. Our
promise to veterans should be more important than Republican Party
loyalty. Vote yes on the motion to recommit. Vote yes to keep our
promises to America's veterans.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection
Forces.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Projection Forces, I am pleased to highlight the issues
within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee.
This conference report increases the requested authorization for
programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Projection
Forces by $1.3 billion to $30 billion dollars. Authorization is
included for the administration's request of one Virginia class
submarine, 3 DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and
two cargo and ammunition ships.
Additional authorizations of $75 million for advance procurement of
LPD-17 and $248 million for SSN refueling overhaul are also included.
Our conference report addresses 100 aircraft KC-767 Air Force proposed
lease program by restricting the lease portion of the program to 20
aircraft, requiring the Air Force budget to procure the remaining 80
aircraft. This approach will save the taxpayer at least $2 billion over
the originally-proposed program.
We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls
in important requirements of the Department of Defense. An additional
$20 million to sustain a force structure of 83 B-1's, 23 aircraft above
the level planned; and an additional $208 million for Tomahawk
missiles, an additional $40 million for the Affordable Weapon, an
additional $100 million bomber R&D initiative for the next generation,
follow-on stealth, deep strike bomber.
In addition, the recommended mark includes several important
legislative proposals. First, a multi-year procurement authorization
for several programs. Second, a limitation on C-5A aircraft
requirement. Third, an electromagnetic gun initiative. Fourth, a
requirement that the Secretary of Defense complete two independent
studies on potential future fleet architectures for the Navy.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for
all his support in completing in conference report. I would also like
to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and
our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for
their leadership, commitment and steadfastness in completing this
process.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the
Committee on Armed Services for yielding me time and for his great
services to our country throughout his whole life which continues here
in Congress. As a veteran himself, his service on the Committee on
Armed Services is very informed and we thank him and recognize his
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the commitment of our Nation's
veterans. We will have a motion to recommit, as has been indicated, and
it is to support our veterans.
No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation
than our troops and our veterans. From the bitter cold winter at Valley
Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously
answered when called, gone where ordered, and defended our Nation with
honor.
As a Nation we have a sacred pact with those who have served us in
uniform. They have taken care of us and, in turn, we will always take
care of them. That is our solemn pledge.
Today, just before Veterans Day, we stand on the floor of the House
of Representatives prepared to vote on the Department of Defense
authorization conference report. And on this day we have young men and
women, the sons and daughters of America on the ground, engaged in war
in Iraq. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism and the
sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. But this bill in
many respects does not honor their service.
Democrats are fighting to live up to our promise to our veterans by
ending the unfair practice of the disabled veterans tax. The gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) will be offering the motion to recommit to
this effect. He is leading our fight for a complete and total repeal of
the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. We have made this
long-standing issue too hot to handle for the Republicans and they have
offered a proposal in today's conference report in response. Their
proposal is a step, but it is not nearly good enough.
[[Page H10995]]
The Republicans have put forth a proposal that leaves far too many
veterans behind. Under their Republican proposal, two-thirds of our
veterans, two-third of our veterans still will not receive one penny of
compensation for their disabilities.
The Republican deal will address the tax for some veterans but not
for others. For the select few it does address, the tax may not fully
end for them for 10 years. Many of these are veterans of World War II.
Ten years is a long time to wait in any event, but especially if you
are a World War II vet. That is not good enough.
America's veterans deserve better. On the battlefield of war our
soldiers pledge to leave no one behind. As a Nation, it must be our
pledge that after our soldiers come home we will leave no veteran
behind. Our veterans served for all of us. We must be there for all of
them.
In June, Democrats launched a discharge petition to give Members a
chance to vote to end completely the disabled veterans tax for all
military retirees. Two hundred and three Members, 201 Democrats, only 2
Republicans, signed the discharge petition, despite the fact that 160
Republicans have co-sponsored the legislation. So we know that our
Republican colleagues believe that this is the right course of action.
Democrats are giving you a way to honor our own commitment. The right
thing to do was obvious then when this discharge petition was signed to
completely end the disabled veterans tax.
The right thing to do today, just before Veterans Day, is also
obvious. Vote to recommit this bill with instructions to strip out the
failed Republican language on disabled veterans tax and add the
Democratic language to completely and totally end the disabled veterans
tax. Indeed, this language is the language of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a distinguished member of the Republican
Caucus.
The current language again leaves two-thirds of our vets behind. The
Democratic motion to recommit leaves no veteran behind. We have a moral
obligation to those who have paid the high price for our freedom, those
who have worn our Nation's uniform. Our words must be as bold as their
deeds, and we must honor what they have done for our country.
So let us give a great gift to our veterans on this Veterans Day. I
urge my colleagues to honor our veterans service and vote yes when the
opportunity comes for the motion to recommit.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Let me just respond just a second to the gentlewoman who just spoke.
The Democrats controlled this House for 40 years, and I went to Sonny
Montgomery, who was chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and
I asked him years ago, why do we not do something about this concurrent
receipt thing? And he said, we are not doing anything about that
concurrent receipt and we are never doing anything about that
concurrent receipt.
They had a Democrat President. They had a Democrat Senate. They had a
Democrat House. They could have done something about it, but they did
not, and now we get this phony posturing after a deal has been worked
out to really try to deal with the problem. I think that is a cheap
shot, Mr. Chairman. But that is not why I rise today.
I rise to support H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004. We are a Nation engaged in an ongoing global war
on terrorism. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are
deployed all over the world in support of Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill supports all of our service
members who are fighting terrorism and defending our homeland.
H.R. 1588 strikes a careful balance between ensuring that our
military is able to train in a realistic manner while remaining good
stewards of the environment. The bill amends the Marine Mammal
Protection Act so that it can be read and implemented in a common sense
fashion. The Navy, for example, will now be able use new sonar
technology vital to the protection of U.S. ships, submarines and global
interests, without harming marine mammals.
The bill also changes the Endangered Species Act to ensure that
military training lands are used for their primary purpose, to train
America's troops in realistic environments. These changes will protect
the environment and also enhance the readiness of our military
personnel.
H.R. 1588 also recognizes that the military services will face
significant challenges as personnel and equipment return home from war.
The level of effort necessary to resurge this equipment at our
maintenance depots will be extraordinary. This conference report
recognizes these consequences and includes additional funding for key
readiness accounts.
The bill includes $9.7 billion for military construction and family
housing projects around the world. This is an increase in the
President's budget of more than $420 million, with additional funds
targeted at projects to improve the facilities in which America's
service members live, work, train and operate. Such projects are
extraordinarily important to the quality of life for our military
personnel and their families, as well as U.S. military readiness.
The National Security Personnel System established in this bill will
provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to hire, fire and promote
a more agile workforce; the authority to tie pay to performance;
increased ability to classify positions and to administer pay and
allowances; and a better basis on which to establish a labor relations
system.
{time} 1100
The new personnel system will also ensure that employee
representatives are included in the planning, development, and
implementing of new human resources management systems. There also will
be a separate process to ensure that employee representatives
participate in the development and implementation of a new management
relations system.
There are some things that did not get in this that we were beat back
on in the Senate. I think the BRAC provisions were one that I wish were
changed. I think the firefighting provisions were very important to be
changed; but, in balance, H.R. 1588 will make real improvements in U.S.
military readiness and ensure the continued strength of U.S. Armed
Forces for years to come, and I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, with a defense budget of $400 billion and an
enormous range of issues, it is not easy to bring a conference to
closure, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as
well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what they have
achieved.
I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the conference report thereon, but I
have some real concerns. First of all, I have already spoken to the
failure of the underlying bill to accrue properly the budget authority
that will be necessary to implement the compromise on concurrent
receipt or the provisions for lease purchase of 100 tankers. I am
concerned about the radical reform of civil service laws in the
Department of Defense and the dispensation this bill gives to the
Department of Defense from environmental laws that apply to everybody
else. Also, I am concerned about the new and cumbersome strictures on
cooperative threat reduction.
I am particularly disappointed in the provisions of this report that
deal with low-level nuclear weapons. I believe the conferees should
have stuck with the bipartisan compromise reached by the Committee on
Armed Services and set forth in the defense bill that we passed last
May. That compromise was sound enough that in July of this year when I
offered a motion to instruct, those provisions were accepted and upheld
by the House without dissent.
The administration began this year by stepping up its push for repeal
on a ban of low-level nuclear weapons research and development, a ban
which has been in the law for 10 years. There was little opposition
here to broadening research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but there
was bipartisan concern about going so far as engineering development.
And so both the House and Senate authorization bills proposed changes
to allow research into
[[Page H10996]]
low-yield nuclear weapons, but restricted any move into engineering
development.
The Senate, on the other hand, repealed the so-called Spratt-Furse
amendment entirely, but then backfilled the cavity with caveats barring
testing or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. They also added
language requiring specific congressional authorization to move into
development of any advanced nuclear concept project. These are the
provisions included in the conference report.
By contrast, the House version amended existing law rather than
repealing it. We explicitly authorized research, but we maintained a
bar on development beyond detailed feasibility studies, the so-called
6.2a level of research and development.
Our compromise may have similar in consequences to the Senate
approach, but I think it was superior in form because it makes clear
that it is the policy of the United States not to develop low-yield
tactical nuclear weapons. The House compromise, thus, gives stronger
assurance that Congress will be an equal partner if that policy is
reversed, if that decision is taken, and if there is a move to go
beyond research.
When we adopted the Spratt-Furse amendment in the early 1990s, it
came in the wake of an issue taken by the first President Bush whereby
we withdrew a number of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the
Soviets responded in kind. This was a step back and a step forward for
nuclear security throughout the world. This initiative helped us later
on to persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to forswear nuclear
weapons.
If today the United States should move toward renewed development of
nuclear weapons, especially weapons designed to be more usable due to
their low-yield warheads, it sends the wrong signal.
Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it does many
things I support, particularly for the quality of life for our troops,
and also because I trust that the effect of the language in the report
will be enough to forestall development of mini-nukes. I recommend
support for the bill.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who is chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a number
of component parts, concurrent receipt. It has a $500 million human
capital performance fund that will reward civil servants for
outstanding performance, something we have never had before. It has a
services acquisition reform act element that will reform the way we buy
and purchase services which can save literally billions of dollars for
America's taxpayers, and it has a national security personnel system
that we have created that will allow the Department of Defense to shed
the shackles of its 50-year-old civil service structure, because when
it comes to our civil service, the tradition of preserving traditions
has become a tradition. It is time for that to change.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come up
with some statements on this that I think are off the mark. They have
noted that this bill makes a mockery of labor-management relations.
This conference report includes chapter 71, the labor-management
relations in the list of nonwaivable chapters in title V of the U.S.
Code. The agreement sets up an extensive collaborative process that
requires the Department to work side by side with the unions and
employee groups in setting up the human resources management system for
the Department of Defense. The agreement sets up an extensive
collaborative process that requires the Department to work side by side
with the unions in setting up the process in which management and labor
work together in the future.
The second and third requirements are new to Federal law. No other
agencies are required to coordinate with their employees, a good
precedent.
Another gentleman said that the bill eliminates overtime pay for
civilian employees. That is absolutely false. Overtime pay is not
eliminated. The agreement, in addition to having $500 million in a
human capital performance fund for civil servants who perform in an
outstanding fashion, the agreement provides the Department the
authority to improve the current provisions in law relating to overtime
pay for some of the Department's most valuable employees. It asks for
this language not to scrap overtime pay; instead, they are asking for
authority not to be bound by the voluminous restrictions and
requirements in title V that dictate how, when, and where DOD is
authorized to administer overtime pay. This will allow the Department
of Defense to move into the modern age.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004. I want to
thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for their hard work on
this bill. I must, however, express my deep reservations with regards
to what I see as the inadequacy of the concurrent receipt provision.
This Congress is expanding concurrent receipt to only 30 percent of
disabled retirees. Where is our commitment to all of our veterans?
Congress must not forget those veteran retirees who will still be
denied their hard-earned retirement pay. All veteran retirees give at
least 20 years of service to this country. They have stood ready to
serve in times of war and times of peace. This country owes them more
than a tax on the disability compensation.
I fear the partial phase-in of concurrent receipt will create two
classes of veterans: those who will continue to suffer under the
disabled veterans tax and those who will be deemed disabled enough to
receive their compensation. Their sacrifice and service was equal.
Congress should treat them with the same equity with which they served.
Whether being drafted into service or volunteering, every disabled
veteran was prepared to give their last full measure. Each was prepared
to demonstrate the ultimate commitment; yet Congress cannot even muster
for them half a loaf.
Mr. Speaker, as we head home to observe Veterans' Day, this is no way
to honor our veterans. To divide veterans into the haves and have-nots
is not befitting the sacrifices they made. They gave our country 100
percent, whether in times of war or peace; and they deserve 100 percent
of what they earned.
In closing, I will be supporting H.R. 1588, but also will be
supporting the Marshall motion to recommit to expand concurrent receipt
to all of our disabled veterans.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is very
important that for the first time in well over 40 years we do something
about concurrent receipt.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
This is a solid bill that broadly serves our national security
interests and addresses the needs of our armed forces as we continue
the fight against terrorism. I will get to some of its strengths in a
minute. But first I want to thank you Chairman Hunter and Ranking
Member Skelton for the leadership you have provided in putting this
bill together. And I particularly want to recognize the ranking member
of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, Mr. Reyes, for his efforts on
this bill. Together we have tackled some very tough issues.
The first long range missiles and nuclear weapons were developed
almost 60 years ago. Yet today, we have no means to defend the
territory of the United States against even a single long range
missile, and have only recently begun to deploy defenses against
theater range missile threats. In December of last year, the President
announced his intention to enhance the capabilities of our Pacific
missile defense test bed to field a modest, initial defensive
operational capability to defend the territory of the United States by
the end of fiscal year 2004. The President requested $9.1 billion to
support that--and other--missile defense efforts.
I am pleased to report that this bill fully funds the request,
providing the resources required to meet this great and historic
challenge. The conferees have also agreed to shift
[[Page H10997]]
funds from longer term, less mature efforts in order to accelerate
nearer term fielding of systems like Patriot that are designed to
protect our troops deployed worldwide who face increasing threats from
theater range ballistic missile threat.
Some of the most difficult issues we addressed in this bill involve
nuclear weapons. Since the end of the cold war, we no longer face a
monolithic threat. The new national security environment in which we
find ourselves requires that we adopt a more flexible and adaptive
approach to planning for our strategic deterrent. It further requires
that we examine the weapons in our aging stockpile to determine if they
continue to meet the Nation's needs for a credible and robust
deterrent. Provisions of this bill would allow our scientists and
engineers the freedom to explore the full range of options for
defeating existing and emerging threats. At the same time, the bill
includes ``checks'' that reserve for Congress the authority to approve
the development of certain classes of new nuclear weapons.
The bill would also authorize the budget request of $6.4 billion for
the weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing for over
a decade, and NNSA programs continue to maintain the safety,
reliability and performance of the nuclear stockpile in the absence of
testing.
However, recognizing that circumstances may require a return to
testing at some point in the future, and that the current test
readiness posture of almost 3 years does not provide a real option for
any President, the conferees have included a provision that would
require the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain a readiness
posture of not more that 18 months.
The conference agreement provides strong support for the military
space and intelligence activities that have proven so effective in
Afghanistan, and more recently Iraq. Notably, the bill would promote
development of the U.S. commercial space-based imagery industrial base,
enhance space-based communications to support the warfighter, and
robustly fund development of unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance.
Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our armed forces are doing their
part everyday in places far from home. Let us do our part, and pass
this bill.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004. This critically important legislation provides
our brave men and women in uniform the tools they need to accomplish
their missions, but it also contains many provisions to improve their
quality of life.
This bill increases the combat capabilities of our Armed Forces with
appropriate levels of spending for readiness, procurement, research and
development. It funds programs such as the M1 Abrams tank and Bradley
fighting vehicles that are used in current conflicts, and transforms
our military to meet the threats of tomorrow with futuristic systems
like the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor. The bill provides funding to make
our homeland safe by combating terrorism at home and abroad and
continuing to develop a ballistic missile defense system.
Most important in this legislation, however, are the provisions aimed
to benefit our current and past servicemembers. H.R. 1588 provides a
4.1 percent pay raise, and it increases imminent-danger pay. It also
funds important military family housing, education and military
facilities. H.R. 1588 directs improvements to the TRICARE system and
survivor benefit, and it contains many other provisions for members of
the National Guard and the Reserves.
I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his tremendous dedication to
these quality-of-life issues.
This bill also recognizes the inherent unfairness that disabled
military retirees have their retirement benefits offset by the amount
of their disability benefits by providing concurrent receipt for more
veterans than have ever been covered before.
Finally, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for not
only their leadership of our committee but also for their work in
shepherding this bill through the legislative process. They recognize
that we owe all of our freedom and safety to our brave men and women in
uniform and that Congress can help them in a major way with the passage
of this bill. They also know how important this bill is to my district
and Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the home of the infantry where
37,000 active duty troops go to work every day.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1588.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
conference report, and I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) for yielding me this time.
I am happy to see we are finally making some progress on eliminating
the unfair disabled veterans tax, but it is not enough. We must keep
working to ensure that no disabled veteran has to give up their
hardearned military retirement pay just because they earn disability
compensation.
Under the Republican plan, veterans who are more than 50 percent
disabled will begin to receive a benefit that will be phased in over
the next 10 years; but this still leaves two-thirds of disabled
veterans behind. In Oregon, 5,500 disabled veterans are currently
penalized by this sick tax. Under this compromise, 2,000 veterans will
receive some sort of relief at some point over the next 10 years, but
the remaining 3,500 retired disabled veterans in Oregon who are
currently penalized by this sick tax will receive no benefit under this
Republican compromise.
While I am pleased we were able to take this first step, we cannot
stop until all of our Nation's military retirees who are disabled as a
result of service to this country are able to receive the compensation
they have earned and deserve. This is a promise we must keep.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is one I will
support. It will provide adequate pay, housing and training for the men
and women serving our country on active duty and in the Guard and
Reserves. It funds important modernization priorities that will ensure
that the weapons systems with which we equip our troops are the most
advanced and capable in the world for years to come.
{time} 1115
However, the report is not perfect. I am disappointed by the way in
which the conference report treats civilian employees of the Department
of Defense. Simply stated, the report will strip more than a third of
our Federal civilian employees, over 700,000 hardworking men and women,
of their most basic worker protections and rights.
I am sorry the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) left the
floor. He indicates 71 and some of the other articles that protect
Federal employees will not be waived. That is technically true, but the
bill allows them to be suspended for the next 10 years. So although
they technically cannot be waived, they will not be in effect at the
decision of the Secretary.
Let me be clear. I am not opposed to thoughtful reform of our civil
service system. However, the report goes too far. It will undo decades
of some of the most important worker protections enacted by Congress
and supported for decades by Republican and Democratic Presidents
alike.
Notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, I will support this
important agreement. I expect it to pass by a wide margin with broad
support from both House Democrats and Republicans who stand squarely
behind our troops and in favor of protecting our national security.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion to
recommit is among the most cynical and political motions I have seen in
my 23 years in Congress. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is a cheap
shot, cynically designed and crafted to politicize disabled veterans
and to mock the historic benefits increase contained in
[[Page H10998]]
this bill, $22 billion in the first 10 years and at least $57 billion
over the next 20 years for disabled veterans. For example, a 100
percent service-connected disabled veterans over the next 10 years may
see an increase of approximately $167,000. That is brand new money.
They do not have it now. Under this bill these deserving men and women
will get it. The same goes for those whose wounds are combat related or
rated 50% or above by the VA.
For the last 100 years, as we know, the unfairness of concurrent
receipt has been with us. For most of those years, the Democrats had a
hammer lock on the House and Senate and did nothing. In the early 90's
the Democrats had it all. Bill Clinton was in the White House for 8
long years. Yet nothing was done on the Bilirakis bill. Nothing was
done to reform concurrent receipt. Even this year, it wasn't in the
Democratic budget. We tried to make this a bipartisan effort--today's
motion is pure politics.
I am sickened by this kind of posturing. I know the game you are
playing. This is all about the next election. Our bill is a victory for
veterans. This will make a significant addition to the benefits
received by our disabled veterans. I hope Members will vote for it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for former Members of Congress because I
am a freshman this year, but had I been a Member of Congress in the
past, I definitely would be fighting strongly for the repeal of
concurrent receipt.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit to
provide full concurrent receipt for disabled military veterans. For
years, the lack of concurrent receipt, or as some have called it the
disabled veterans tax, has taken benefits from the pockets of deserving
military retirees. It is an embarrassment that Congress has gone this
long without taking care of that disabled veterans tax. I am glad that
some veterans will get relief under this bill. But all veterans deserve
relief. This is a matter of keeping sacred promises.
The so-called compromise today is leaving a lot of veterans behind,
including 2,038 veterans in Maine who would get benefits if we enacted
full concurrent receipt for all.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit to provide a
full benefit to all veterans. If that fails, I definitely will support
the final bill to give relief to at least some of our deserving
veterans, including 1,219 in Maine who will now get concurrent receipt
under this bill. That is a good step forward.
But I will not give up and I will keep working until all veterans get
full concurrent receipt and we eliminate the unfair disabled veterans
tax on these veterans.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support
on the eve of Veterans' Day of a full compensation and total concurrent
receipts for all of our veterans. I want the unwarranted tax against
veterans to be eliminated. I do not like the fact that 390,000 of our
veterans will be left behind in this bill and will be supporting the
motion to recommit but will add my support to this legislation because
I hope that we can take a baby step in order to make a giant step
toward providing for all our veterans.
I would ask my colleagues to go back to the drawing boards on helping
our civil service employees at DOD, because overtime is a precious
commodity for those trying to provide for their families. Then I think
it is appropriate that we hear from Secretary Rumsfeld and Paul
Wolfowitz on an exit strategy that will help our young soldiers on the
front lines in Iraq because we do believe they are fighting for our
freedom but it is crucial that we understand the loss of life has
exceeded all speculation. And then, of course, I do appreciate the
compromise that has allowed us to buy more equipment for the Air Force
and the Boeing compromise of lease and option to purchase. This
approach will be an effective way to balance need and costs.
And then on the eve of this very fine Veterans Day, let me pay
tribute to all of our veterans, our combat wounded, and particularly
those young men and women on the front lines in Iraq, those families
who have lost their loved ones in Iraq and, yes, those who languish in
our hospitals who are wounded. It is time now that we stand for them
and provide the full support that they need. Let us leave no veteran or
soldier behind.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1588 the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004. I am
supporting this legislation because our fighting men and women deserve
to be properly funded. However, I have grave concerns in regards to how
this legislation has been handled by the majority party in the House
Armed Services Committee. I stand with Ranking Member Ike Skelton in
expressing my dismay that Democratic members were not consulted on very
important provisions of this significant legislation. This
Authorization bill while momentous cannot truly be considered the work
of this entire body if it was not inclusive of Democratic members. Even
so, I add my appreciation to Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Skelton
for their sincere commitment to our Armed Forces.
civil service reform
My concern is most evident in the lack of power civil service reform
addressed in this bill. The bill claims to protect collective
bargaining rights but removes all of the protections provided under the
current law. Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code sets forth
requirements for federal agencies to engage in good faith bargaining
with unions and protects against discrimination based on union
membership. This bill claims to make Chapter 71 nonwaivable but
essentially allows the Department of Defense to waive Chapter 71
requirements for the 6-year period following enactment. During these 6
years, the Department of Defense can unilaterally establish a new labor
relations sytem after only minimal consultation with unions and minimal
notification to Congress. This new system will supersede all existing
agreements negotiated between the Department of Defense and its unions.
During the 6-year period, the Secretary of Defense will have the
authority to decide what issues will be bargained, whether labor-
management impasses will be resolved by an outside third party, and
what protections union members will have against discrimination. This
authority will allow the Department of Defense to run roughshod over
its unions for the 6 years, making a mockery out of the collective
bargaining process. Mr. Speaker the lack of proper protection for our
hard working civil service employees is unacceptable. My concern for
civil service reform in this bill does not end with collective
bargaining rights. In addition, this Authorization removes many vital
due process and appeal rights for Department of Defense employees.
Perhaps most striking is the fact that this bill removes the
requirement that Department of Defense employees must receive
additional pay for working overtime, working on holidays or weekends,
or working in jobs involving unusual physical hardship or hazard. Both
the House and Senate voted recently to protect overtime pay for private
sector employees. Mr. Speaker it is disheartening that we are removing
many basic rights from our civil service employees that we would
normally guarantee for most Americans.
Concurrent Receipts
Mr. Speaker I rise in full support with my Democratic colleagues in
asking for the immediate elimination of the disabled veterans tax. I
will support the motion to recommit. This Authorization bill leaves
two-thirds of our military retirees to continue having their
compensation compromised by this tax. Disabled military retirees should
not be prohibited from receiving the full amount of their retirement
pay while still receiving the full amount of their full disability
compensation--these benefits are their entitlement; after all, we are
forever indebted to them for their service. Our disabled veterans
should be amongst our most cherished and recognized individuals in
society, they deserve better than to be penalized for their sacrifice
in battle. This body must move as a whole to adopt the proposal on
concurrent receipts and eliminate this tax that is an undue burden on
our disabled veterans who have already sacrificed enough for their
nation.
Exit Strategy for Iraq
Mr. Speaker while this Authorization bill provides necessary funding
for our brave fighting men and women this body must insist on receiving
a report on the exit strategy from Iraq. It is pertinent that this
Congress be informed how long our soldiers will have to face mortal
danger. How can we reasonably assume the cost of funding our Armed
Services when we have little information as to when our current
conflict will end? Secretary Rumsfeld has an obligation to this body
and indeed to our brave
[[Page H10999]]
troops to report on the administration's exit strategy from Iraq.
Chinook Helicopter
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this Authorization bill while supporting the
needs of our Armed Forces may not address the need for greater
protection for the Chinook helicopter that is widely used by our Armed
Forces. The tragic loss of life that occurred by the downing of Chinook
helicopters in Iraq illustrates the need for the implementation of
defense technology to provide greater protection for the Chinook
helicopters. Indeed, the Chinook is a vital instrument used by our
Armed Forces to transport troops and supplies to our fighting forces on
the ground. However, it is also one of our most vulnerable pieces of
our military arsenal. The infrared technology aboard the Chinook makes
it more susceptible to ground-to-air missile attack. I am disappointed
that this Authorization bill may not address the need for modifications
to the Chinook helicopter that can counteract its vulnerability. We
must not allow our Armed Forces to lose more brave men and women
because we did not address this glaring need, let's move to insure the
safety of all fighting equipment.
While I have grave concerns about this momentous legislation I am
voting in support of this Authorization. I do so because we must
support our Armed Forces, as well it is long overdue that our civil
service and defense employees receive pay increases.
I am also heartened by the purchase compromise reached with Boeing in
this legislation. Boeing and their supporting suppliers who are based
in Texas are innovative, when called upon, they are capable of
responding to national security and civil market needs. It is also
important in the future that contracts with the Department of Defense
rely on both the lease and purchase of this vital equipment.
Mr. Speaker I hope in the future that such significant legislation as
this will involve the debate and full consideration of this entire
body.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I profoundly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this
legislation but, my friends, we know that it is 1,200 pages long, it
spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and no one in this body
save the conference members have had more than 3 hours to read this.
It is a fine thing to stand up and say we support our troops, and we
all do. But the fact is we should not be voting on this today because
we have not read it. We should vote next week on this, after we have
had time to think about this seriously. If we truly care about our
veterans, let us care enough to read the legislation, and if we truly
care about our troops, let us care enough to read this legislation.
I will vote ``present'' because I do not have enough information to
vote yea or nay, and I regret that profoundly.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman
from Missouri, who is a classmate, for yielding me this time. I want to
compliment him and Chairman Hunter on this bill. We have worked for 2
years on the tanker provisions in this legislation. I am convinced that
modernizing our tankers is absolutely crucial to national security. The
gentleman from Missouri and I have worked for many years to implement
and upgrade the B-2 bombers which fly out of Whiteman, Missouri. We
have found that in all of these deployments that tankers are absolutely
crucial.
I must tell the House that the condition of our tankers today is not
good. The KC-135-Es have significant corrosion. They were all built
between 1957 and 1963 in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. I
have been on them. I have talked to the pilots who fly them. I have
talked to General Handy, General Jumper and they are convinced that
replacing these tankers is one of the most important things we can do
to preserve our military capability. When you think about it, every
time we deploy, we have to have tankers. We have to have EA-6-Bs, those
jammers. Both of them are very, very old and both of them need to be
replaced and we need get on with it.
One of the things that I am concerned about that we still have not
addressed since the Bush administration took office is the fact that we
are short in procurement still 30 to $40 billion. The big argument in
the tanker issue is lease versus buy. The only reason we had to do a
lease is the Air Force did not have the money to buy these airplanes.
That is why we have got to get the procurement account up, General
Myers says somewhere between 100 and $110 billion. We are at $72
billion. We have got work yet to be done here.
I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill that deal
with worker rights. We are going to continue to work on that. I hope
that down the road we can exempt shipyards from those new restrictions.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SKELTON. Who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has the right to
close.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker. This is deadly serious business
that we are about. We are providing for the troops, those who wear the
uniform of the United States of America as provided by the Constitution
of the United States. This is of the highest calling of our Congress.
No, all the provisions in this bill do not meet with my approval
wholeheartedly or with others'. But on the other hand there is so much
in this bill that takes care of the troops, their families, their
needs, their capability of waging war, and we are at war, Mr. Speaker.
With that in mind, I hope that every person in this Chamber, despite
the misgivings of some provisions, will support this bill with the
understanding that in so doing, a vote for this bill is a vote of
confidence and appreciation for those who are wearing the uniform and
those families at home in whose prayers those young soldiers, sailors,
airmen and Marines are.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, number one, to congratulate the Committee on
Armed Services, led by Chairman Hunter, Chairman Hefley and Ranking
Member Skelton. It is a good bill. I rise in support of the bill and
against the motion to recommit.
Primarily, though, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for the work that he has done over the years on
the issue of concurrent receipt. Veterans all over America will
appreciate the determination and the tenacity that he has brought to
this issue of concurrent receipt. Today is a recognition of total
dedication and hard work and not willing to give up, while it has been
very frustrating on occasion. The gentleman from Florida has done an
outstanding job. I just want to rise today to say that. It is a
heartfelt thanks to the gentleman from Florida and on behalf of all the
veterans all over our great country for him having been able to make
this happen today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for their
leadership in pulling together a good bill. Not all of the provisions
of this bill are satisfactory to everyone in this Chamber and
ultimately I think this bill will pass, but I want to give us an
opportunity to improve the bill by increasing the tax cut that this
bill contemplates for disabled American veterans.
I have heard a reference to this being cynical. I have heard a
reference to the history of the House in which there were other
opportunities to end the disabled veterans tax, but I am a new guy here
and I think today we have an opportunity to do what is right. If it was
right 20 years ago or 50 years ago or 10 years ago, it is right now.
I am going to offer a motion to recommit. I want everybody to
understand what that motion to recommit does.
[[Page H11000]]
{time} 1130
It leaves the entire bill intact. It changes nothing in the bill with
the exception of one thing: it instructs that the House conferees go as
far as they can toward the Senate position with regard to the disabled
veterans tax, also known as concurrent receipt. If we do that, we
effectively eliminate the disabled veterans tax. We are not doing that
in this bill.
We do give a tax cut to disabled veterans in this bill. It is the
compromise, frankly, that has been forced as a result of all of the
attention brought to this issue during this session by many veterans
groups, by many on the Democratic side, by the discharge petition that
I filed earlier, and because so many people have supported the
Bilirakis bill in the past. Right now we have got about 370 cosponsors
of the Bilirakis bill. House Resolution 303 is designed to end the
disabled veterans tax. There are many on the other side of the aisle
who have signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 303 to end the disabled
veterans tax. We have got an opportunity to do that right now with this
motion to recommit. It is a rifle shot. It does only one thing, and
that is do right by our veterans.
Some have said that we cannot afford more than this. I like tax cuts.
While I was the mayor of Macon, I led the fight to lower our property
taxes for the first time in 20 years. I think I am one of the few
Democrats, fewer than 10, I suspect, that voted for the compromise
administration tax cut that we passed earlier this year. I will vote
for other tax cuts as well.
We have got to prioritize our tax cuts. We will have an opportunity
right now to give tax cuts to disabled veterans that they well deserve
and that we can afford if we are willing to put that tax cut toward the
top of the priority list. Others here have voted for tax cuts beside
this one. Now is an opportunity to vote for this. That is why I am
doing this motion to recommit.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is not a Johnny-come-lately
on concurrent receipt. He has led this fight longer than I have been a
Member of the United States Congress.
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as to the issue of concurrent receipt,
which the other side keeps referring to as a tax on disabled veterans,
as the Members know, and I appreciate all the kind remarks that I have
received from both sides of the aisle, but I have worked on this for 18
years, and during the first half of those 18 years, the other party was
in charge, and we have to ask ourselves what was done during all that
period of time. I say to the Members nothing, nothing. I am searching
my mind to try to find out how many hearings we were able to have on
this issue during that period of time. We may have had one. I am not
even sure we had even that. Never in any of their budgets had they even
put a single penny into their budgets for full concurrent receipt, even
the most recent ones. The discharge petition would bring H.R. 303 on
the floor. There is going to be a motion to recommit, which basically
says we have got to have the entire amount.
Why did you all not crank those dollars into your budget? You have
not chosen to do so.
The gentleman has talked about his discharge petition. My discharge
petition back in the early 1990s, 1993 I believe it was, failed. Where
were all the signers from that side of the aisle back in 1993, or
whatever that year was, when we had that discharge petition? Politics,
I might say, politics, politics.
Starting January 1 of next year, the proposal will phase in full
concurrent receipt for all retirees who have disability ratings 50
percent or more. It expands the combat-related special compensation
program to cover all 100 percent combat-related disability categories,
as opposed to those that are 60 percent now. It also extends these
benefits to the Reserve and National Guard, who have not been getting
it up to now.
Despite this breakthrough, Mr. Speaker, full concurrent receipt
remains a priority goal for all of us. Only let us show it. Rather than
just discharge petitions, let us put the dollars into the budget, if we
will, on both sides of the aisle if we are really serious.
I ask everybody to vote for this bill and to oppose the motion to
recommit, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Department of
Defense authorization conference report. But before I address the
issues raised by this bill, I want to thank the staff for their hard
work on this bill. I especially appreciate the efforts of Bill Natter
of the Committee staff and Bill McCann from my personal staff. I also
want to extend a special thank you to Faye Virostek, who has worked in
my office as a Brookings Fellows for almost a year. Faye is
tremendously talented and dedicated. She has contributed greatly to my
work on the Armed Services Committee and to my office, and I wish her
the best as she prepares to return to her permanent executive branch
job.
I did not sign the conference report because I object to the
exclusion of the minority members of the Conference Committee from
deliberations over several important issues. In some cases, we were
able to work constructively to reach reasonable compromise, but in
others the majority was unwilling to work with us in an attempt to
produce a consensus position. I do not believe that our Nation's
interests or this institution are well-served by this process.
For example, the conference report mirrors the House report language
to rewrite the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act,
two critical environmental laws.
In addition, the resolution on concurrent receipt of disability and
retirement benefits fails to resolve the unfairness and hardship faced
by many veterans. I believe the debate needs to be continued on this
very important issue, and I was disappointed that the majority chose to
adopt a half-measure rather than solving the problem in its entirety.
I also am dismayed that efforts to clarify the Berry amendment
failed. This is not a failure of the conference process, but it is a
serious blow to the textile industry in Massachusetts and across the
country.
Having said that, I believe the conference report is on the whole a
solid proposal. At a time when members of our Nation's military are
being asked to make tremendous personal sacrifices, this bill
represents a step in the right direction.
I recognize the importance of providing a truly bipartisan
authorization package in order to maintain the world's most capable
military. To this end, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
Threats and Capabilities, where I serve as ranking member, authorized
increased spending on DARPA, chemical and biological defense, and
special operations. I applaud Subcommittee Chairman Saxton for his
leadership and work on these issues, and I also want to thank Ranking
Member Skelton for all of his efforts.
While this bill generally represents a sound approach to most of the
issues before the Committee, I am disappointed that its flaws were not
corrected. In the coming months, I hope that we will be able to move
forward and address the shortcomings in this conference report.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to offer my support to
this conference report. The conference report includes a much needed
pay raise and much needed support for our military families. In typical
fashion, however, my Republican colleagues have taken a good bill and
bogged it down with extraneous and extreme measures. The conference
report does not include the stronger House language on Buy America and
allows research on low-yield nuclear weapons--a practice prohibited by
Republicans and Democrats over the last 20 years because it violates
the non-proliferation treaty and makes it easier for questionable
regimes to obtain nuclear weapons. The conference report also exempts
the military from complying with two of our most important
environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
When this authorization process began, Secretary Rumsfeld came to
Congress and told us that in order to maintain readiness, they needed
exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Resources Conservation Recovery
Act, Superfund, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. Fortunately, the Congress saw fit to exclude most of
what the DOD asked for with regard to environmental exemptions.
The conference report directs the Secretary of Interior to substitute
the Department of Defense's land management plan, known as an
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, for critical habitat
designation under the Endangered Species Act, if the plan provides a
``benefit'' for threatened species. Further, the conference report does
not require that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
benefit the species.
This is a much lower standard than the current law, not to mention
the DOD has enough trouble coming up with a management plan for
[[Page H11001]]
things it is supposed to know about, let alone fish and wildlife. If
the military is able to escape the critical habitat designation,
private property owners will have to bear the burden of providing for
the recovery of threatened and endangered species. This is simply not
right.
Just this week, the Committee on Resources passed a bipartisan
reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. That legislation
was the culmination of over 4 years worth of hearings and the testimony
of dozens of witnesses. Contrary to what happened in the committee of
jurisdiction, where they were able to successfully compromise to
address the definition of harassment, the language in the conference
report would overturn a recent court decision and construct a wall
against any further litigation against the Navy.
Over the last 5 years our troops have toppled a dictator in Iraq,
stopped a genocide in Kosovo, and defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Our troops prepared for those missions without exemptions from our
cornerstone environmental laws--laws that administration officials and
the General Accounting Office do not believe are hampering our military
readiness.
Indeed, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark
recently stated, ``Additional exemptions aren't needed. I spent a lot
of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the
environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops
under my command.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves why we are
passing language that neither the Resources Committee nor a four-star
general deem necessary.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this conference
report. I must draw a line in the sand. My Republican colleagues have
got to stop looking for ways to put bad and extraneous language in good
bills in an attempt to force the hands of those who disagree with them.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us. I
wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their
leadership in completing action on this legislation, which provides our
military--and the men and women who serve in it--the resources they
need to keep America strong in the 21st century. The military pay
increase and the enhanced benefits for active and reserve personnel
recognize the valiant efforts of the men and women who have ably served
our Nation, and the development and procurement of state-of-the-art
weapons systems will provide them with the tools they need to continue
their mission of excellence.
I am particularly pleased with provisions in the legislation that
demonstrate Congress's commitment to the role of submarines as an
essential part of a strong naval fleet. Passage of the conference
report today will represent the final step in a historic agreement to
permit multi-year procurement for the Virginia-class submarine. This
agreement will encourage more rapid and cost-effective production of
this important system--saving the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $115
million per submarine--while giving the United States Navy new
capabilities to respond to future threats. Multi-year procurement will
also provide greater stability in southeastern New England's defense
industry, and I know that the people of Rhode Island are proud to have
a role in this important aspect of military transformation. I wish to
convey my deepest gratitude to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member
Skelton of the Armed Services Committee, as well as Chairman Jerry
Lewis and Ranking Member Jack Murtha of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, for their work to help this effort reach fruition.
This legislation takes another step toward providing concurrent
receipt to our Nation's disabled military retirees, though the language
falls short of our obligations. As a cosponsor of H.R. 303, I believe
we must fulfill our promises to our Nation's veterans by allowing them
total access to both their retirement pay and disability benefits. Next
Tuesday, our Nation honors those Americans that have protected our
Nation, and we must honor their service by providing them with the
benefits they have earned.
Unfortunately, today's agreement contains language that may undermine
important civil service safeguards for civilians within the Department
of Defense, as well as existing environmental protections. I urge
Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton to schedule hearings on
these topics in the coming months so that our committee may exercise
appropriate oversight authority and ensure that the implementation of
these new policies does not undermine decades of efforts by Congress to
protect our environment and federal workforce.
Overall, this legislation represents an important investment in the
defense of our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Authorization Conferees
should be commended for rejecting efforts to undermine the agreement
signed by President Bush that provides important protections for how
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads is to be closed. It was particularly
critical because this is a very sad week in Puerto Rico, as Puerto Rico
has lost three of our young men and one woman who were serving on
active duty in Iraq. It would have been a cruel irony for the Defense
authorizers to remove fundamental BRAC protections for Puerto Rico at
the same time Puerto Ricans were paying the ultimate sacrifice by
serving our country.
Last spring the U.S. Navy announced downsizing plans for Roosevelt
Roads. The Navy followed its announcement with the planned departure
from the Vieques training range--a result that was the fruit of
innumerable debate and struggle. In subsequent testimony to Congress,
the Navy professed high operational costs and personnel requirements
stemming from the continued operation of Roosevelt Roads and implied
the base should close.
Of course, downsizing and the implications of closure have taken
their toll and it has been a sordid year for Roosevelt Roads, those who
work or worked there and Ceiba, Puerto Rico--the community the base has
called home for the past 60 years. The Navy's own pronouncements
estimated the base brought $300 million annually to the local economy.
The region around base, with 14 percent unemployment, can ill afford a
drawn out redevelopment process.
During negotiations with defense appropriators and the U.S. Navy, we
reached a compromise that was enacted under which Roosevelt Roads would
close in a 6-month timeframe in accordance with the BRAC (base
realignment and closure) process. This compromise would afford the Navy
a quick departure and cost savings, while keeping with the important
protections and procedures required by BRAC. It would also provide
Puerto Rico with the much-needed economic development opportunities
provided through redeveloping the base. This proposal was agreed to and
signed into law on September 30.
In the midst of the defense authorization conference, out of scope
proposals surfaced to thwart such progress. The proposals ranged from
requiring a report to Congress and subsequent 360-day waiting period
for any and all Roosevelt Roads property disposals to mothballing, or
leaving the base on inactive status, allowing the land to waste away
without a clear plan for redevelopment and creating additional
uncertainty among the community. While I appreciate that all out of
scope items in conference have been dropped, I fear that punitive
efforts may surface yet again as base closure and redevelopment
continues.
The recent proposals are stalling tactics void of merit and driven by
angry politics stemming from deep resentment held by those who strongly
opposed closing the Vieques training range. Let the past become the
past. Let's move forward with the best interest of the U.S. military
and the American citizens in Puerto Rico in mind.
If enacted such tactics would have continued to cost the Navy money
and drain personnel resources, while hindering meaningful economic
opportunity for Puerto Rico. Under such a scenario, American citizens
in Puerto Rico would remain without jobs while base redevelopment plans
sat in limbo.
Puerto Ricans care deeply about their common citizenship and continue
to serve valiantly in our military. What should soldiers think of such
punitive, political squabbling about a base closure at home, while they
fight overseas? As it was President Bush who authorized the Navy's
departure from Vieques, he too has stated on many occasions that we all
should avoid politicizing military affairs when our troops are abroad.
I have included for the Record a letter cosigned by fellow Members of
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Such support is much appreciated.
Further, I want to thank Ranking Member Ike Skelton and his Senate
counterpart Carl Levin for their strong commitment and leadership on
this issue.
I find it troubling that the bipartisan deal that took place on
Defense Appropriations might someday be undermined by such resentful
politics, especially given the difficult challenges we now face, and
the sacrifices we ask of our troops. I will continue to fight against
these punitive efforts while at the same time I will pursue dialogue
with those colleagues who may still consider punishing action against
my constituents.
It certainly would be in the best interest of the Navy, the people of
the local community, and the future of Roosevelt Roads to set these new
proposals aside, and continue working to redevelop the base and
rejuvenate the local economy. We Members of Congress have more pressing
matters to consume our time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, given our current military situation in
Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is incumbent upon us to send an
unequivocal message of support for our troops
[[Page H11002]]
who are currently in the field. It is equally important that we provide
veterans--those who have made sacrifices in order to protect the safety
of our country, the benefits they have rightfully earned.
Not since the Korean War have we as a country relied on the members
of our reserve forces and National Guard as we do now. We are depending
on them to preserve the peace in Iraq and protect our safety at home.
We have uprooted them from their families, taken them away from their
jobs and put them in the line of fire. Yet, it is not uncommon that
after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, members of the Reserve forces
return home without the basic benefits they so rightfully deserve.
While this legislation is far from perfect, it takes an important step
by ensuring that activated members of the Reserve forces and National
Guard and their families receive health benefits.
Importantly, this legislation extends the increase in ``combat pay''
and a Family Separation Allowance for all of our troops who are
currently serving in the military. Given the sacrifice that our troops
make in the name of protecting our country, it is only right to
guarantee that they and their families have adequate financial
resources in their time of need.
Additionally, this legislation addresses the unfair Disabled Veterans
Tax. It allows certain disabled military retirees to receive both their
retirement and disability benefits. However, it only allows concurrent
receipt of these benefits for one-third of the approximately 700,000
disabled veterans. I believe this is sorely inadequate and is the
reason why I voted to recommit this bill so conferees could have the
chance to repeal the entire Disabled Veterans Tax and let all disabled
veterans rightfully receive both their military benefits as well as
their retirement benefits.
While I do not believe this bill is perfect and I am particularly
concerned with certain provisions regarding civil service reform and
the environment, I do believe that given our current military
obligations, it is essential that we support our troops. By extending
benefits for our troops and veterans, we are guaranteeing that those
who have dedicated their lives to serving our country are not left
behind during this critical time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference
Report of H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act. This bill contains
anti-environmental provisions that roll back fundamental protections of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA).
H.R. 1588 exempts the military from protecting endangered species.
Provisions in this Conference Report compromise the survival of some
300 threatened and endangered species living on military lands by
prohibiting the designation of critical habitat as mandated under the
ESA. Instead, military lands will be managed under Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plans, prepared by the Secretary of Defense.
Currently, such plans have no definitions, no standards, and no limits.
Such sweeping changes in the management of species living on military
lands are completely unnecessary. Sea otters and toads do not and will
not prevent our military from being the best trained and prepared in
the world. But if for some reason the toads rise up, the military
already has, but never has used, a national security exemption as part
of ESA. The military has shown so little previous concern with this
issue that it was only in March of this year that the Department of
Defense began developing guidance on how to assess and process
exemptions requests inappropriate situations.
Marine mammal protection is under its greatest fire today. Although
unnecessary from the start, a full exemption from the MMPA was granted
for military readiness activities in the version of this bill that
passed the House on May 22, 2003. The Senate version of the bill
contained no MMPA exemption for any reason. How then did it come to
pass that the Conference Report we debate today broadens the exemption
to include scientific research activities by the Federal Government?
The Conference Report, agreed to by Republican conferees behind closed
doors, opens gaping loopholes in the management of marine mammals and
creates unequal standards for ocean users. This is both unfair to the
marine mammals struggling to survive and to the shipping, fishing, and
tourism industries, which will now be held to different standards under
MMPA than scientific researchers and the Navy.
The ``encroachment'' of civilian communities on military managed
lands is a serious problem as the separation between where people live
and where the military trains decreases. As such, there has never been
a more necessary time for the military to look out for the public's
best interest. The public wants and needs a healthy and well-managed
environment and for the military to be held to complying with our
nation's fundamental environmental protection laws. The military should
be listening to its neighbors and respecting their requests, and
Congress should have listened to its constituents and prevented the
weakening of the ESA and MMPA.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588, to authorize
military spending for fiscal year 2004. This bill authorizes the
funding necessary to defend our country and promote our interests
throughout the world. The bill makes significant enhancements to our
combat capabilities, continues our efforts to transform the military to
meet the terrorist threats of the 21st century, and provides a number
of new benefits to American soldiers throughout the world.
Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect
the national security of our nation. When our soldiers are sent in to
war, it is the Congress's responsibility to make sure that all
resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.
I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably
in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf
of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. Much
of the funds in this bill will go directly to support our troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under this bill our men and women in uniform will receive a 4.15
percent average increase in base pay. At the same time the bill reduces
the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from the
current 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent, and eliminates out-of-pocket
expenses completely by fiscal year 2005. The bill also extends special
pay and bonuses for active duty personnel through the end of 2004.
Family separation allowance for service members with dependents is
increased, from $100 to $259 per month. The special pay rate for those
subject to hostile fire and imminent danger is increased from $150 to
$225 per month. The legislation also extends TRICARE health coverage to
National Guard members and reservists and their families if such
servicemembers have been called to active duty. The bill also
authorizes nearly $10 billion for military construction, family
housing, medical facilities, and child development centers.
This legislation also continues the transformation of our military to
meet new challenges of the global war on terror. The bill funds
research and procurement of countermeasures to protect troops and the
homeland from chemical, biological, and nuclear attack. It increases
weapons and equipment procurement for Special Operations Forces. It
funds programs to dismantle, secure, and eliminate weapons of mass
destruction and facilities in Russia and the former Soviet republics.
There are several significant shortcomings in this legislation,
however, that I would like to discuss.
This conference report contains an inadequate proposal to address the
Disabled Veterans Tax imposed on our military retirees. Under current
law, military retirees are taxed one dollar of their retirement pay for
every dollar they receive in veterans disability compensation. Denying
service-disabled men and women the benefits they have earned breaks our
promise to those who placed their lives on the line for America's
freedom. Any veteran with a service-connected disability, regardless of
the length of his or her military service, can retire from a federal
civilian job and receive both retired pay and disability compensation
without penalty.
America's troops are united as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and
here at home. Our veterans were united as they fought for our country.
They remain united today in their love for our nation. But the Disabled
Veterans Tax compromise before the House today seeks to divide them. It
leaves behind more than 390,000 disabled military retirees--more than
two-thirds of those who would receive full compensation under HR 303.
Those retirees with a Purple Heart or combat-related disability would
be eligible this January. Others who have 50 percent or greater
disability would have to wait for ten years to receive their full
benefits. Those with less than 50% disability still will not receive
one penny of compensation for their disabilities.
Because this compromise is phased in over a ten-year period, many of
our older veterans, particularly those from World War II and the Korean
War, may not live long enough to receive the full benefits to which
they are entitled. In my district in Maryland, there are 1,519 veterans
who are now subject to the Disabled Veterans Tax. This bill leaves
1,000 of them behind.
More than 85 percent of the members of this House have cosponsored HR
303, yet the compromise before us falls far short. Many of my
colleagues also signed the discharge petition that would compel the
House to consider this bill. For these reasons, I urged my colleagues
to support the motion to recommit. It would have stripped from the bill
the inadequate compromise language that only helps two-thirds of
America's veterans, and replace it with full, immediate concurrent
receipt. Our disabled military retirees deserve no less.
I am also disappointed that conferees chose to include in this bill a
far-reaching plan to revamp the DOD civilian employee system.
[[Page H11003]]
Under this agreement, more than 700,000 civilian workers in the Defense
Department will lose fundamental protections that have been in place
since President Kennedy's administration. These protections were put in
place to safeguard against the patronage, political favoritism, and
nepotism that were rampant before the advent of the civil service
system.
These DoD employees will lose many of their current due process
rights. The conference report retains the right of employees to appeal
to the Merit Systems Protection Board but only as an appellate body. As
a result, DoD civilian employees would have far fewer rights to appeal
personnel actions than other civilian employees have. They would lose
guarantees on overtime pay, hazard pay, weekend pay, and holiday pay.
Finally this provision empowers Secretary Rumsfeld and all future
Secretaries of Defense to create an entirely new personnel system for
DOD civilians. I am also very concerned that enactment of these
provisions will set a dangerous precedent that will lead to erosion of
protections in other federal department and agencies. In these times of
uncertainty and turmoil, we are asking more of our civil servants than
ever before in our history. To remove these important safeguards now is
the wrong thing to do.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have failed to provide
the full concurrent receipt to our veterans that they deserve, and that
we have eroded some of the civil service protections for Defense
Department employees. However, I will support this legislation because
it provides additional resources for our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and throughout the world as they prosecute the global war on terrorism.
Our military must be given every available tool for its arsenal as it
combats emerging threats to our soldiers and our homeland.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 1588, the FY 2004 Department of Defense Authorization bill.
However, I believe that this bill is far from perfect. It does not
fully support veterans' disability issues, collective bargaining for
civilian personnel, and protection for the environment. It is
unfortunate that these issues suffered due to the political process. I
did support the motion to recommit in hopes that these critical issues
could be further discussed, but that motion failed.
If we were not in a time of war I would not support this bill. Yet,
our brave men and women deserve all the protections and assistance we
can provide, and I will do all I can to support them.
While I am voting against the report, I do support the outcome of the
Conference Committee regarding overseas voting provisions for the
military. I am pleased that language referring to ballots submitted by
members of the military stationed overseas was not included in the
report. The issue of ensuring the integrity of overseas military
members' ballots has been addressed in the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA), and I believe we must await the full implementation of HAVA
before considering any changes. Therefore, I did not believe that some
of the suggested changes were necessary.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in this
conference report. I regret that I must oppose it.
I support our troops and our veterans, and applaud the conference
report's improvement in pay for our troops, but there are far too many
things wrong with this bill. For example, under H.R. 1588,
environmental standards are weakened and worker rights are severely
limited. Yet again, the Republicans have placed a higher priority on
partisanship and special interests than doing what is right for our
country and our service men and women.
But, of all the many problems with this conference report, the most
disappointing is the section on concurrent receipt that fails to end
this horrendous policy for many of our disabled veterans. For months,
the Republicans have refused even to allow a vote on H.R. 303 which
would end the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. But now in
a half-hearted attempt to appear responsive to the overwhelming demands
of Democrats and veterans groups to repeal this tax, the Republicans
have thrown our veterans a bone--a partial repeal of the concurrent
receipt policy.
It is estimated that, under the Republican plan, two-thirds of
disabled veterans will not receive one penny of compensation for their
disabilities. This is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve all of the
benefits that they have earned. Our veterans have sacrificed in order
to ensure our freedom and safety. Congress must now do its part.
Congress can and must completely end the disabled veterans tax--
immediately.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Ranking
Democrat Ike Skelton for their leadership on this important bill.
Our young men and women in uniform are performing magnificently right
now in Iraq in a difficult and developing mission. They are also
performing magnificently in Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world
where the global war on terror takes us. It falls to the Congress to
make sure our troops have what they need to prosecute this war on all
fronts. Certainly all of Congress agrees that our soldiers in the field
deserve to get all they need, no matter what.
The central feature of today's bill is a huge step forward on the
issue of concurrent receipt. Finally, we are acknowledging the inherent
unfairness of having long-time service members chose between retiree
pay and disability. We didn't get nearly what we wanted, nor what these
military retirees deserve . . . but we made significant progress on
advancing the cause of expanding the phase-in of concurrent receipt.
This bill provides much needed support for our military including: a
pay raise of 4.15 percent for uniformed services, further reducing out-
of-pocket expenses for servicemembers, increasing allowances for family
separation and danger pay, and modestly increasing the force structure
of the Army and active Reserves and National Guard.
DOD did not get all the power it wanted when it comes to contracting
out civilian jobs, but I am very uncertain about what lies ahead for
civilian workers. We made some progress in the negotiations, but the
strong language in the House bill put quite a pall over the future of a
viable civilian service. We have a very tough road ahead. And, I
maintain the Secretary is just wrong on this one--a strong civilian
workforce performs the core functions of the military better, and
cheaper, in-house.
Today's package, and our passage of it speaks, we hope, to the needs
of our military and offers them the concrete understanding that this
Congress considers our military men and women our ultimate
responsibility.
As we move forward, I will be working to do more to ensure our
military retirees eventually get a full concurrent receipt.
I will keep a very close eye on the plans and activities of the
Department of Defense as they proceed with their plans for civil
service workers. I want to ensure that our civil service workers remain
the viable, strong workforce our national security demands.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588 the
Defense Authorization Conference Report. While this conference report
has some deficiencies it also has a number of positive points that I
support.
Inititally when this Defense Authorization was drafted compromises
were reached that would allow the DoD to have flexibility and at the
same time providing labor protections. Unfortunately, the conference
report language has been redrafted and allows DoD to wipe away these
protections. It is unfortunate that civilian defense employees are not
receiving the same protections. I would hope that we can work to ensure
workers rights at the Pentagon. These men and women serve our country
and are also fighting to protect our freedoms.
While this conference report has begun to address the issue of
concurrent receipts for veterans it does not fully solve the problem.
We need to make sure all veterans receive this benefit. It takes a step
in the right direction, but it does not fully solve the problem.
This conference report also calls on the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the House Intelligence Committee a report on the preparation
for and conduct of our military operations under Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
I am thankful that the F-22A Raptor received additional funding. The
Raptor is the new front line jet fighter for our Air Force. This
aircraft will give us complete air superiority. I am proud to say that
we build this radar system in my district.
The Authorization also contains additional funding for the Shadow 200
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. This vehicle which is again built in my
district played a vital role in Iraq in providing our troops with an
aerial view of the battlefield to give our troops a tactical advantage.
Because of the success of this vehicle the National Guard is now
interested in the unit and has requested funding for it.
I am happy to say an amendment I inserted into the Defense
Authorization has been accepted and will be a part of this
authorization. My Amendment calls for employee surveys of leadership
and management performance. This survey will help to promote efficiency
and allow for the recognition of achievement and increase best
practices in an agency. It is important that we allow employees to take
ownership of where they work and to make them part of the team.
Again, I rise in support of this conference report.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report for the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.
I would first like to recognize our Committee leadership, Chairman
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, for the bill they have crafted to
address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our Committee has a
long tradition of working across party lines to ensure the readiness
and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am pleased to have
participated in yet another cooperative effort with my
[[Page H11004]]
Armed Services colleagues. Unfortunately, this bipartisan spirit did
not extend to the more controversial aspects of the Defense
Authorization Act, especially the reworking of the civil service system
and yet another compromise on the Disabled Veterans Tax. On the
balance, however, this bill establishes good policy for our troops when
they need it the most.
H.R. 1588 offers the pay and benefit measures that our Armed Forces
deserve. We put together another healthy across-the-board pay raise--
4.15 percent--as well as targeted raises of up to 6.25 percent for mid-
grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers.
We have also extended special pay provisions for the men and women
deployed around the world. Hostile fire and imminent danger pay will be
raised from $150 per month to $225 per month through December 1, 2004,
while family separation allowance (FSAA) will increase from $100 to
$250 per month.
In an effort to address the issue of military readiness, H.R. 1588
also includes TRICARE health benefits for deploying Reservists. We have
been undermining our own system by relying on Reservists to be ready to
go when called but failing to provide them the required medical
coverage to ensure deployment-level readiness. Through this new
authorization, the Department of Defense can provide immediate medical
and dental screening and care for selected Reservists who are assigned
to a unit alerted or notified of mobilization. Non-mobilized
Reservists currently without health insurance will also be able to
enroll in TRICARE on a cost-share basis. With the burden on our
Reserves at an all-time high, providing basic coverage is the least we
can do for those called to serve.
One of the worst aspects of this legislation is the wholesale
dismantling of our Department of Defense civilian workforce. Under the
conference report before us, some 700,000 federal employees will be
stripped of their rights and protections in the current civil service
system and placed at the mercy of political appointees in DoD. The
Defense Authorization Act, as written, provides no guidelines for a new
civilian personnel system; rather, it gives almost unchecked power to
Secretary Rumsfeld to create a system of his own design. We have heard
testimony about pay for performance and pay banding, but none of this
is codified in the legislation. It opens the door to political
patronage and cronyism--the very abuses which the civil service system
was enacted to prevent in the first place. Our committee held exactly
one hearing on the civil service portions of this bill, and that
hearing was held only after Committee Democrats raised an outcry. The
hearing was hastily organized with one day's notice and hardly allowed
for the in-depth examination due such a sweeping proposal. Let me be
clear--this process has been a farce and nothing less than a slap in
the face to our DoD civilian workforce. We praise these men and women
in one breath, and in the next, dismiss them as expendable. In passing
this provision, Congress will abdicate its constitutional
responsibility and cede our authority in this matter to the Executive
Branch. I am deeply disappointed that the Administration felt it
necessary to interfere in this conference and prevent us from adopting
the much more moderate and sensible legislation crafted in the Senate
under the leadership of Senator Collins.
Likewise, I am dissatisfied with the partial rollback of the Disabled
Veterans Tax. For years I have cosponsored and supported legislative
efforts to allow disabled veterans to receive their full retirement
annuity in conjunction with VA disability pay, and year after year, we
are only able to come up with half-hearted measures. The so-called
solution before us will take ten years to rectify the unfair penalty.
Our veterans cannot wait until 2014 to finally see the compensation
they rightfully earned, in numerous cases many years ago. It is
shameful that our Republican colleagues are unwilling to budget the
funding for those who have already made so many sacrifices in behalf of
our Nation but yet are all too willing to send more young men and women
down the same path in harm's way. I truly hope that we can reexamine
this phased-in approach next year and accommodate all disabled veterans
equally and immediately.
As the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces, I am happy to report that we have done well by the major Army
and Air Force acquisition programs under our jurisdiction. The bill
carefully balances current hardware needs with development and
procurement of future systems. Modernization of our Bradley Fighting
Vehicles and Abrams tanks will ensure the capability of our heavy armor
divisions and our industrial base. I am particularly pleased that we
have funded the Stryker Medium Armored Vehicles at the Administration's
request for both procurement and research and development. Stryker
represents the bridge between current Army legacy systems and the
networked Future Combat System; through Stryker, our soldiers will hone
the skills necessary for the transformation to the fast and lethal
warfare of the 21st century.
I would like to thank the Committee staff for their tireless work
over the past several months in putting together the best bill
possible. I would especially like to thank the Tactical Air and Land
Forces Subcommittee professional staff, J.J. Gertler, Bill Natter, and
Doug Roach, for their dedication, professionalism, and invaluable
expertise throughout the year's work.
We have a bill that we can largely be proud of. Again, I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit
the Defense Reauthorization Conference Report. We must say no to the
veteran disability tax and support concurrent receipt.
As a veteran, and as a Member of Congress, it is my duty to fight for
the veterans who fought for our freedom. We must make sure that our
veterans receive the benefits and healthcare that they have more than
earned.
To take money away from our veterans while giving tax cuts to the
wealthy is disgraceful.
I don't understand how House Republicans can vote to cut $14 billion
from veterans' benefits, and then send 130,000 troops to Iraq.
While America's wealthiest receive huge tax cuts our soldiers die
overseas. And for those that do come home, they want to cut their
benefits. Our soldiers deserve better.
Right now, 520,000 veterans' benefits claims are still pending in the
VA. Some of these claims involve soldiers that served as long ago as
the Korean War.
I have even introduced a bill to try to solve this problem, H.R. 1264
that will help reduce this backlog of claims. This is the type of help
our veterans need.
It is shameful that our disabled veterans cannot receive disability
pay without receiving a cut in their pension. Veterans should not be
forced to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar that
they receive in disability pay. A veteran must not be punished for
being disabled.
I cosponsored H.R. 303, the concurrent receipt bill. And I signed the
petition that would have brought this bill to the House floor despite
Republican opposition.
Our veterans are simply waiting for what they are owed--their
disability pay and their full pensions.
Our veterans are dying at a rate of 1,000 a day. The Republican plan
will not aid the veterans that need help now.
Under the Republican plan only one-third of the disabled veterans
will get the help that they need. This is unacceptable and our veterans
deserve better.
Our veterans need our help. Let's not keep them waiting any longer.
I urge my colleagues to support concurrent receipt and send this
report back to conference.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill when it was on
the House Floor and, unbelievably, it's gotten worse in Conference. I
am frustrated that on the week before Veterans Day, the conference
report keeps moving further away from what the military, veterans, and
Americans need. The most fundamental function of our national
government is the defense of our nation. Today, this function is more
important, and we are spending more on national defense than ever
before. The conference report that we are debating this morning carries
a $401.3 billion price tag, which means that the United States will be
spending over a billion dollars a day, and more on our military than do
the next 25 nations combined. This bill certainly spends enough to do
the job, however it is full of provisions that not only waste tax
dollars, but even threaten Americans' health and safety.
I am pleased that the Defense Authorization bill starts to reduce the
tax on disabled Veterans, which is long overdue. However, I am
disappointed that the bill would only partially end the tax--leaving
out two-thirds of military retirees affected by the tax and forcing
those covered to wait 10 years for full benefits.
I am also extremely disappointed that the conferees chose to
eliminate the 1993 ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. The House bill
allowed research but maintained the ban on development activities that
could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new
low-yield nuclear weapon. However, conferees accepted the Senate
language that also allowed research but eliminated the ban.
Fortunately, Congressional approval is required before these dangerous
weapons can be produced, and I hope that this never occurs. Producing a
new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons increases the likelihood
they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place
since World War II. Developing new types of nuclear weapons sends the
wrong message to other nations. America must lead by example if the
threat of nuclear weapons is going to be eliminated.
This bill is missed opportunity to focus on real priorities. The
anti-environmental provisions in this bill are especially frustrating.
Instead of addressing real threats to readiness,
[[Page H11005]]
the administration and the Republicans in Congress are taking on an
easier target, dolphins. Using defense as cover, they are proposing
changes to environmental laws that have nothing to do with defense
readiness.
As the largest owner of infrastructure in the world and also the
biggest polluter, the Department of Defense should be setting the best
example, not getting permission from Congress to cut corners on the
protection of the environment and the health of our communities.
The Conference Report includes modified House language that would
prohibit designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species
Act if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Secretary of Defense
will provide ``a benefit'' for endangered and threatened species on
military lands. However, there is no definition of ``benefit.''
We have seen that critical habitat designation is not the problem on
military lands. This conference report misses the real threat to
military readiness: encroachment of development around bases. This is
the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and
forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways, and
this is the real threat to our ability to train and maintain the
world's mightiest fighting force.
Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Camp Pendleton,
California, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to fly
planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has led
the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which recognizes
the long-term operations of military installations must involve a
partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal
Government. It provides the military, environmental organizations and
local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common
enemies of military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal
is completely absent from the legislation coming before us.
The Conference Report also retains controversial House language that
would reduce protections for marine mammals. New language, added in
conference, would also apply the weakened standards to any research
activities by the Federal Government (or contractors), creating a
double standard as current law would continue to apply to citizens and
the private sector.
In addition, key conservation terms of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act are altered in order to overturn a recent Federal court of appeals
decision regarding the impacts of Navy sonar technology. The bill
allows the Department to exempt itself from what's left of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It
excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the
States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions. This
contradicts language passed unanimously this week by the Resources
Committee--the House committee with exclusive jurisdiction over the
MMPA--which does not contain any special standards or exemptions for
DOD. This has raised the ire of both Democratic and Republican
Resources Committee Members participating in the Conference.
Not only are these provisions harmful, they are also unnecessary.
Under current law the Department can already waive environmental laws
when it's necessary for national security. There has never been a case
where a waiver has not been granted for military necessity.
The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental
level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to
set the highest standards. Given adequate resources and the right
orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are
missing that opportunity. As the wealthiest and most powerful country
in the world, we ought to be able to figure out how to better address
this problem without compromising the environmental survival of what we
are fighting to protect.
It is arrogant and hypocritical to let the Federal Government off the
hook for environmental regulations. We will impose them on small
business or local governments but not on us ourselves.
I oppose this conference report because we are spending too much on
the wrong things and not enough on strategies that will make our
Department of Defense more sustainable over time. The spending is too
heavy on weapons research and too light on relieving the stress on our
fighting forces. We can and must do a better job shaping our Nation's
defense policy.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1588, the Department
of Defense Authorization bill, which includes concurrent receipt for
disabled military retirees and veterans. Currently, disabled retiree
and veterans' benefits are offset by the amount of disability pay that
they are eligible to receive. The legislation corrects that unfairness.
Members of Congress representing hundreds of thousands of retirees
and veterans came together to achieve a significant, victory for
disabled retirees and veterans. We fully support our soldiers--past and
present.
The bill is fair, responsible, and appropriately recognizes the
service of our nation's disabled retirees and veterans. It establishes
a concurrent receipt for more disabled military retirees and veterans
than ever before, and provides them with the retirement income they
have earned and deserve.
Under current law, a disabled military retiree or veteran could be
entitled to $1,000 a month in military retirement and $300 a month in
disability. But the amount of the disability payment is subtracted from
the retirement pay, leaving the soldier with a check for $700 in
retirement and $300 in VA disability. A retiree or veteran is no better
off if they suffered a disability than if they didn't. The legislation
eliminates this inequity.
Active duty combat retirees and veterans who are 60 percent disabled
and above now have full concurrent receipt. The key part of the
agreement expands full concurrent receipt to all combat retirees and
veterans with a Veterans Administration disability between 10 percent
and 100 percent.
The agreement not only provides a full concurrent receipt benefit for
active duty retirees and veterans, but also for reservists and national
guardsmen who currently do not qualify for concurrent receipt under
either Purple Heart or combat-related disability pay. The reservists
and national guardsmen will receive full concurrent receipt if their
disability is between 10 percent and 100 percent.
The legislation establishes benefits for those remaining retirees and
veterans at 50 percent disability and above. They presently do not
receive any benefits. That means every disabled military retiree and
veteran with a disability greater than 50 percent will be entitled to
concurrent receipt.
It also creates a 13-member bi-partisan commission appointed by
Congressional leaders and the White House. Under the commission, for
the first time since 1946, there will be a top-to-bottom review of the
disability system. The commission's goal is to review the disability
system to ensure that the appropriate benefits are provided to our
retirees and veterans.
From World War II to Vietnam, from the Persian Gulf War to the War on
Terror, we provided our active military with the tools they need to do
their jobs, and our retirees and veterans with the proper benefits for
their years of service. The concurrent receipt agreement follows that
tradition and honors those who have served our country.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of
the military and I'm well aware of the unconventional war we face
against terrorists. However, I continue to oppose the nuclear weapons
related provisions in this year's defense authorization bill.
No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which
our nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by
terrorists. At issue is whether Congress needs to resort to repealing
the Spratt-Furse prohibition on nuclear weapons development and
encouraging the production of new weapons.
There is a disconnect in the federal government between weapons
development and the realistic application of nuclear weapons. Advocates
of new nuclear weapons see them as just another tool in the War on
Terror, without realizing nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent, not
as first-use weapons.
Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and new nuclear
weapons, argue that the current authorization language is strictly
limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy
labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of weapons
development--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for
our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first
be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The federal
government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout
is lengthy and disappointing, at best.
Like many Utahns, I come from a family of downwinders. My father, as
well as other loved ones, developed terminal cancer after he was
exposed to radiation from Cold War nuclear weapons tests conducted by
the federal government. I do not believe that we should even consider a
resumption of nuclear weapons testing when rational alternatives have
not been fully explored.
I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen
consequences of weapons testing. Advances in containment technology are
certainly possible, however, the current circumstances do not lend
themselves to a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and I will do
everything in my power to avoid that end result.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in opposition to
the very limited provision to address the unfair disabled veterans tax
in the Defense Authorization Act.
Currently, veterans who retire with 20 years of honorable service and
who also have a
[[Page H11006]]
service-connected disability are not permitted to collect both military
retired pay and VA disability compensation. In essence, they are paying
for their own retirement. We must stop penalizing our disabled veterans
in this cold and unfeeling manner.
Our nation's veterans and many, many Members of this House have been
fighting for so long for the elimination of this tax for all retirees.
We are now so close to victory. We cannot settle for the partial
concurrent receipt measure that is included in this bill.
This proposal is simply unacceptable. It gives less than half a loaf
and spreads it over ten years. It is naive at best and callous at
worst.
The proposal leaves approximately 400,000 military retirees without
relief. In my state of California, fully 38,000 are left out of this
Republican proposal.
Many of the deserving veterans will die before the ten years are up
and before they receive their full concurrent receipt.
This bill will set up yet another complicated administrative system
for our veterans to wade through.
And worst of all, this bill as presented today unfairly pits veterans
against other veterans.
We must restore earned and deserved benefits to all eligible military
retirees. If this Defense Authorization Conference Report continues to
leave out two-third of deserving veterans, I cannot vote for its
passage.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report
on the National Defense Authorization Act. It was a pleasure to serve
as an outside conferee to H.R. 1588 for education provisions that will
benefit our nation's military, schools and students across the world.
In addition to Impact Aid, H.R. 1588 provides additional assistance
to local educational agencies (LEAs) that benefit dependents of members
of the Armed Services and Department of Defense civilian employees. $30
million is authorized to be used as general revenue by LEAs that are
impacted by the presence of military installations.
Every Member recognizes the importance of funding for special
education. H.R. 1588 recognizes that the Department of Defense also has
a role in helping school districts provide these necessary services.
The conference report makes available $5 million from the Department of
Defense's budget to help school districts provide special education
services to children with severe disabilities who have a parent who is
on active duty in the uniformed services or who is a foreign military
officer.
Now more than ever our military families rely on Department of
Defense schools overseas. H.R. 1588 expands the eligibility for space-
available, tuition-free attendance at Department of Defense Dependents
Schools (DODDS) overseas to the dependents of mobilized reservists who
are called to active duty and whose overseas tour is voluntarily or
involuntarily extended beyond one year. Current admissions policy
permits the dependents of reservists called to active duty from an
overseas location to enroll in DODDS on a space-available, tuition-free
basis, but denies such admission to reservists mobilized from the
continental United States. As the number of reservists deployed
overseas continues to increase, it is imperative that we recognize the
needs of these men and women as well as the educational needs of their
children.
Finally, today's Conference Report recognizes the future needs of our
military. H.R. 1588 enables the Secretary of Defense to develop a more
comprehensive and attractive array of educational programs in science,
mathematics and engineering. Educational programs in technical fields
will help to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and
technical entrepreneurs, all of whom may contribute to the future
technological superiority of our military forces.
Congress and the American people support our brave military for their
commitment and their sacrifice. The recent war in Iraq shows the
importance of preparation and equipment for our military as they work
to defend freedom and liberty across the globe. In addition to these
vital education provisions, the Conference Report to be passed today
will provide the necessary resources and training for our troops at
home and abroad.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this
Conference Report.
While I have continuing problems with the process of how this bill
was negotiated, excluding the participation of most Democratic-
appointed conferees, and how no time has been allowed for Members of
this body to review the final version of the bill on which we are
voting this morning, it is not for reasons of process that I oppose
this bill.
I oppose this bill because it does not do right by our disabled
veterans; it does not do right by the hard-working, faithful, and
patriotic civilian workforce of the U.S. Department of Defense; and it
does not do right by our commitment--including the declarations of our
current president--to halt the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
However, first I would like to summarize several of the items in this
bill that I strongly support and for which I have fought for many
years.
I support the extension of TRICARE for non-deployed National Guard
and Reservists and their families. Under current law and Pentagon
policy, reservists become eligible for TRICARE, the Defense
Department's health care system, once they are on active duty. This
conference report will ensure that TRICARE is provided to those Guard
and Reservists who lack coverage or who are not eligible for coverage
offered by an employer. Guard and Reservists will be required to pay 28
percent of TRICARE premium and can stay in the program for one month
before and six months after mobilization. This program is authorized
for one year, until September 30, 2004, but I will continue to fight to
ensure these changes become permanent.
I also support the provision in this conference report to allow
lawful permanent resident military members to achieve naturalized
citizenship after serving honorably for one year in the regular
components of the military and our Ready Reserves. It also allows non-
citizen spouses, unmarried children, and parents of citizens and non-
citizens serving in the U.S. military who are killed as a result of
such service, to file or preserve their application for lawful
permanent residence. This provision does not provide any benefits if
family members are out of status or are illegal aliens.
I support the increases in Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation
Allowance. The higher rates authorized in this bill will be $225 per
month for hazardous duty pay and $250 for family separation allowance.
These higher rates will be provided to all eligible military members,
not just those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I strongly support the 4.1 percent pay increase for military
personnel and the targeted increases for mid-grade and senior non-
commissioned officers and mid-grade officers.
I also strongly support the increased authorizations for the
equipment, supplies, logistical support so badly needed by our deployed
military personnel and those in training, as well as the increases in
research, development, testing and evaluation of new equipment and
materials that will be required for an effective and modern fighting
force. Our uniformed men and women deserve the very best equipment to
carry out their duties and missions, and I believe this bill helps
provide them with these materials.
Unfortunately, I cannot support a bill that will still leave two out
of every three disabled veterans subject to the so-called Disabled
Veterans Tax. This conference report includes a plan to provide
concurrent receipt of military retirement and Veterans Affairs (VA)
disability benefits to military retirees with disability ratings of 50
percent or high that would be phased in over the next ten years.
According to a report released by Veterans Affairs Committee Ranking
Member Lane Evans, a veteran himself of the Vietnam War, the plan
authorized in this bill will help only 160,000 of the approximately
560,000 disabled military retirees that are subject to the tax. To be
eligible for relief, retirees must have 20 years of service and
disability ratings of 50 percent or above. As is already provided for
in current law, veterans who meet the criteria for a combat-related
disability, popularly known as ``Purple Hearts Plus,'' will receive
full disability and retirement benefits, if they have twenty years or
more of service.
I believe that the Conference Report should have included the
provisions of H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003, which
I and the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to
bring to the House floor for action earlier this year. It would cover
all of our disabled veterans, not just one out of three. Three days
from now we will remember our veterans and celebrate Veterans Day. I
cannot do this in good conscience if I support legislation in which
two-thirds of retired veterans who have service-related disabilities
will be left behind and will be required to continue to pay tax on
their disability.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report that scraps
existing civil service laws and protections for the more than 746,000
civilian employees whose daily work and sacrifices ensures the
effective running of the U.S. Department of Defense. This Conference
Report removes all collective bargaining protections contained in
current law; it removes all basic due process protections for
employees; it strips Defense Department employees of basic appeal
rights; and it removes the requirement that Defense Department
employees receive additional pay for working overtime, working on
holidays or weekends, or working in jobs involving unusual physical
hardship or hazards. Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Conference Report on H.R. 1588
because it lifts the ban on research and development of a new
generation of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons that was first
enacted in 1989 during
[[Page H11007]]
the Administration of President George H.W. Bush. This new program will
allow the United States to pursue a new generation of nuclear weapons
of a type most likely to be used in battle, which I fear may lead to a
new nuclear arms race on a global scale.
I also have other grave concerns regarding this bill, such as the
weakening of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, which I do not have time to go into this morning.
I regret that I must vote in opposition to this very important bill,
but I simply cannot short-change our disabled veterans, the Defense
Department workers, and the very security of our nation and the world
from nuclear attack.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for
the conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This Member would like to offer particular
thanks to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the Ranking
Minority Member on the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their work on this important bill.
Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the Armed
Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and the Ranking Member of the
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), for their critical work on
authorizing $3 million for the frontage levee segment protecting the
Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska. Indeed, this Member
is very appreciative for the inclusion of this provision in the
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the Nebraska National Guard Camp Frontage Levee Segment
is a central element of the Clear Creek portion of the Western Sarpy
Levee project. Completion of the Guard camp segment must coincide with
the other elements of the Western Sarpy project to assure coordinate
progress on completing this governmentally complicated flood protection
project. Indeed, without building this section of the levee along the
Platte River simultaneously with the construction of the entire levee
system it will not work; there would be a gap in the levee that would
only accentuate the flooding risks and flood volume that would affect
the Nebraska National Guard Camp unless this project moves forward with
the rest of the levee construction project.
Previously, the Clear Creek Project was authorized at $15.6 million
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) to provide
protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, I-80, and U.S. 6,
BNSF RR (Amtrak Line), telecommunication lines and other public
facilities. In the FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress
included $500,000 for construction start-up costs.
The Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska, provides
training for Nebraska and other states' Army guard units to maintain
mission readiness. The Ashland Guard Camp levee is an essential element
of the Clear Creek structure on the western side of the Platte River
since it also is that part of Clear Creek nearest to the Lincoln
wellfield. Planning and design funds for the Guard's segment have been
previously provided by the Congress to the Department of Defense
through the Military Construction appropriations bill. Planning has
resulted in development of a more cost-effective frontage levee to
replace a previous ring-levee approach.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member again expresses his appreciation
and urges his colleagues to vote in support of the conference report
for H.R. 1588.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Marshall
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, because the conference report does far too
little to end the disabled veterans tax, I oppose the conference report
in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Marshall moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 1588 to the committee of conference with
instructions to the managers on the part of the House to
include, in any further conference substitute recommended by
the committee of conference, provisions that, within the
scope of conference, maximize the number of persons who will
be eligible for full concurrent receipt of military retired
pay and veterans disability compensation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit to conference will be followed
by 5-minute votes on the adoption of the conference report; the motion
to instruct on H.R. 6 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner); and the motion to instruct on H.R. 1 offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188,
nays 217, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 616]
YEAS--188
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
NAYS--217
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
[[Page H11008]]
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--30
Ackerman
Berman
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cox
Davis (AL)
Fattah
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lipinski
Majette
McInnis
Meehan
Napolitano
Ortiz
Paul
Quinn
Rangel
Reyes
Towns
Wu
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1157
Mr. VITTER and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WHITFIELD and Mr. TANCREDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 362,
nays 40, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 617]
YEAS--362
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--40
Baldwin
Blumenauer
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Dingell
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lynch
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne
Sabo
Sanders
Schakowsky
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Baird
Becerra
NOT VOTING--31
Ackerman
Berman
Brown (OH)
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cox
Davis (AL)
Emerson
Fattah
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lipinski
Majette
McInnis
Meehan
Napolitano
Ortiz
Paul
Quinn
Rangel
Reyes
Towns
Wu
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1204
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________