[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3415-H3431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4200.

                              {time}  1309


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. LaHood (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 108-499 offered 
by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) had been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House 
Report 108-499.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Tauscher:
       At the end of title II, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2__. ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR ORDNANCE TECHNOLOGY AND FOR 
                   STRATEGIC CAPABILITY MODERNIZATION.

       (a) Air Force Conventional Munitions.--The amount in 
     section 201(3) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $25,000,000, of which--
       (1) $10,000,000 is to be available in program element 
     0602602F, Conventional Munitions, for ordnance technology 
     applicable to defeat of weapons of mass destruction and 
     hardened, deeply buried targets; and
       (2) $15,000,000 is to be available in program element 
     0603601F, Conventional Weapons Technology, for ordnance 
     technology applicable to defeat of weapons of mass 
     destruction and hardened, deeply buried targets.
       (b) Defense-Wide Strategic Capability Modernization.--The 
     amount in section 201(4) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by $11,557,000, 
     to be available for program element 0603910D8Z, Strategic 
     Capability Modernization.
       (c) Offset.--The amount in section 3101(a)(1) for weapons 
     activities is hereby reduced by $36,557,000, of which--
       (1) $27,557,000 is to be derived from the Stockpile 
     Services Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study; and
       (2) $9,000,000 is to be derived from the Stockpile Services 
     Advanced Concepts program.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment redirects funds in the defense 
authorization bill from new nuclear weapons to conventional programs 
that meet the same threats. The amendment that I am offering with the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen) transfers funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and 
advanced concepts to, instead, improve conventional capabilities and 
intelligence required to defeat hardened targets.
  The President called for international cooperation to control the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in a February speech at 
the National Defense University, but his vision is directly undermined 
by the contents of this defense bill. By calling for new, more usable 
nuclear weapons, the United States sends a message to the world that 
nuclear weapons are legitimate weapons that should be acquired. 
Resorting to nuclear weapons to destroy hardened targets is a 
disproportionate response with too many negative ramifications and 
little benefit.
  There are several reasons not to consider new nuclear bunker busters. 
Here are a few:
  First of all, the military has not asked for them.
  Second, they will produce massive collateral damage and expose our 
own troops to massive doses of radiation.
  Third, a nuclear strike against a WMD stockpile could release deadly 
agents into the atmosphere.
  Fourth, even the most powerful nuclear weapons cannot destroy bunkers 
over a certain depth, and rogue regimes will just dig deeper to avoid 
them.
  Fifth, an RNEP will cause mass casualties miles away from the 
targeted bunker and potentially harm our allies.
  And sixth and furthermore, developing new nuclear bunker busters 
would undermine decades of United States leadership aimed at preventing 
non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear weapons and encouraging 
nuclear states to reduce their stockpiles.
  They are also unnecessary because the United States already has 
conventional programs to defeat hardened targets.
  My amendment strengthens these conventional programs and improves 
intelligence needed to get at hardened targets. The costs of missing 
the target with a conventional weapon is bad enough, but missing it 
with a nuclear warhead is far worse. Even the hawkish Defense Science 
Board that advises the Pentagon recently stated that U.S. interests are 
best served by preserving into the future the half-century-plus nonuse 
of nuclear weapons.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California. The $27.6 million included 
in the bill by the House Committee on Armed Services for RNEP would 
support the Air Force-led study concerning the feasibility of modifying 
an existing nuclear weapon to destroy what are known as hardened and 
deeply buried targets.
  It has long been recognized that these hardened targets are 
increasingly being used by potential adversaries to conceal and protect 
leadership, command and control, weapons of mass destruction and 
ballistic missiles. I believe it is imperative that we finish this 
review as a part of a larger effort to ensure that we further our 
technological edge.
  I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that 
this funding does not authorize the production of any weapons. In fact, 
as a result of the compromise reached in last year's defense bill, any 
effort beyond a study is prohibited unless the President approves it 
and the necessary funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress. 
Some will claim that the military does not have a requirement for this 
weapon. I would have to disagree with that.
  Just yesterday, I spoke with the commander of STRATCOM, Admiral James 
Ellis, who assured me that a military requirement does exist for the 
RNEP study. Specifically, a military requirement for this study can be 
traced back 10 years to the Clinton administration when STRATCOM and 
the Air Combat Command both issued a mission needs statement for a 
method to defeat these hardened and buried targets. Since then, the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture

[[Page H3416]]

Review, the Defense Science Board and the Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have all identified a need for this study to go 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a new issue. We debated this same topic 
last year when we considered the defense bill and we, as a Congress, 
decided to go forward with this study. Furthermore, we rejected a 
similar amendment in full committee last week that would have cut 
funding for this study.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Tauscher amendment. 
Let us talk common sense on this issue. The key to neutralizing hard 
and deeply buried bunkers is solid and accurate and detailed 
intelligence. So let us remember. Remember the political fallout when 
we accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? We should 
remember that. Imagine the fallout literally and figuratively if we 
were to use a nuclear weapon to take out a bunker and we got the 
location wrong. No President would authorize the use of a nuclear 
weapon on a bunker without having solid rock intelligence on it. We 
need to have strong intelligence, and this should not go forward.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is both knowledgeable on this subject and 
a valued member of our subcommittee as well as the full House Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, there is a fundamental 
question here, and that is what is the role of nuclear weapons in 
America's national defense?
  Nuclear weapons have been an important part of deterrence over the 
last 40 years, and the key to their effectiveness is that we need to be 
able to hold at risk the things that people most value, particularly 
the leaders of countries whose interests and whose values are very 
different from our own. And the reality is that those countries are 
burrowing in their command and control facilities, their chemical 
weapons, their missiles; and we must continue to hold those at risk.
  Over 10 years ago under the Clinton administration, they identified 
the need for this new capability and had begun the process of studying 
it. But let us be very clear. This is not a new nuclear weapon. In 
fact, under the Clinton administration, they looked at using an 
existing nuclear bomb called a B-61 and hardening it. This is an 
extension of that idea so that it would be hardened even further so 
that it could penetrate further and hold those targets at risk.
  Bipartisan majorities of the Congress and two Presidents from two 
different parties have seen this need and the need to study whether 
this can be done. But the military has as well. In 1994 the Strategic 
Command came out with a missions-need statement that said they have to 
develop new ways to hold these targets at risk. The Air Force has 
requested this study, and the Nuclear Weapons Council, dominated by the 
Defense Department, has approved that request. Therefore, both the 
military and the political leadership over a long period of time have 
recognized the importance of this work.
  In addition, I think we need to understand what the other program, 
Advanced Concepts, is for. We used to do a lot of studying of nuclear 
weapons, their effects, the robustness and safety and security of our 
own weapons, but we stopped doing that a while ago; and we need to 
restart that because other countries, particularly Russia, are 
continuing to develop new nuclear weapons, and the United States must 
maintain its understanding of nuclear weapons, how they work, how they 
function over time so that we can understand and advise our own 
leadership about those capabilities. We can never be in a position to 
lose that expertise when other countries are continuing to develop it.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It has been 
opposed in the committee, and both the RNEP program and Advanced 
Concepts have received long-time support from this Congress.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from the State of Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauscher amendment 
for two reasons. Conventional precision-guided munitions are a better 
technical solution than the Robust Earth Penetrator for hardened and 
deeply buried targets; and because the fallout, both figurative and 
literal, from the use of nuclear weapons will make the Robust Nuclear 
Earth Penetrator an extensive showpiece rather than a usable weapon.
  We have the B-2. We have the means of delivering a JDAM missile, a 
5,000-pound bunker buster, and the EGBU-28. All of these are a better 
approach than a nuclear option. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of 
State, says that nuclear weapons are for deterrence, that we are not 
entering an era of nuclear war-fighting; and so if we are going to have 
to use something, then we want to make sure it is a conventional weapon 
to go after these deep underground targets.
  We have seen the fallout from what has happened in Iraq in this 
prison. Did the United States use tactics that were questionable? Think 
of what the fallout politically would be if we were using nuclear 
weapons in a war-fighting context. Conventional weapons are a much 
better choice. Let us approve the Tauscher amendment. Let us improve 
our intelligence. Let us improve the conventional capabilities. Why? 
Because they are usable. Nuclear weapons are not usable; conventional 
weapons are.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I remind the gentleman from Washington that we are not proceeding 
down the path of building. We are simply studying this weapon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), another great member of our subcommittee and the House 
Committee on Armed Services, who is very knowledgeable also on this 
subject.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to eliminate a 
research program designed to explore whether or not we can threaten 
deeply buried targets with an existing nuclear warhead. As the chairman 
of the subcommittee just said, to build an actual weapon requires 
Congress's approval. That is not what this amendment is about. This 
amendment is about whether we want to know what our options may be. And 
to stick our head in the sand and pretend that we are somehow safer if 
we do not know or to pretend we are somehow safer if we limit our 
options seems to me not only foolish but actually dangerous.
  I agree with the gentleman from Washington, it is about deterrence. 
But we do not deter anybody if they know we are not going to use a 
weapon. They have to have a realistic expectation that we might in 
order to discourage them to do something.
  Clearly, there is a trend toward burying things. It may be a 
leadership bunker. It may be a weapon-production facility. It may be 
weapons themselves. And today we are very limited in our ability to 
threaten things which are buried. The more limited we are, and 
especially the more we limit ourselves, the more it encourages 
potential adversaries to go underground.
  We have heard all these conclusions giving reasons why we should not 
use such a weapon. The problem is these are conclusions not based on 
scientific study and scientific fact, and they come with a political 
agenda. We ought to step back from political agendas and objectively 
study what the pros and cons of this approach are and then collectively 
make a judgment call on whether it is a good idea or not. But we are 
not anywhere close to that at this point.
  I am for putting all the money we need into research into 
conventional weapons that can accomplish the same goal; and if more 
money is needed to effectively and productively take advantage of those 
programs this year, then I am all for it. But this is so important that 
to limit our options at this time, to not even explore what the options 
are and what may be available to us, I think, is extremely 
shortsighted. Therefore, I urge Members to again this year, as we did 
last year, reject this amendment and vote ``no.''

[[Page H3417]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for a 
number of reasons. First, there are serious doubts within the 
scientific community about whether the so-called bunker busters will 
actually be able to destroy deeply buried targets. Second, why would we 
even want to use a first-strike nuclear weapon? The RNEP would result 
in high levels of radioactive fallout and would put civilians and U.S. 
troops in harm's way. And, finally, if we decide to develop new 
tactical nuclear weapons, that means resume testing at the Nevada test 
site; and for those of us who live downwind, those are fighting words.
  Supporters of these weapons say that they do not necessarily lead to 
testing. But if we are going to spend a half billion dollars over the 
next 5 years on a new weapons program, we are going to have to test it 
at some point or, quite frankly, we are just throwing away taxpayer 
dollars that should go to other weapons programs that actually stand a 
chance of defending Americans.
  I close with a comment from an editorial in today's Salt Lake 
Tribune: ``If the strategic foolishness of the project were not enough 
to condemn it, the waste of money should be. At a time when we have so 
many genuine national security needs, every dime piddled away on Cold 
War technology not only fails to save lives, it actually endangers 
them.''
  I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauscher amendment, which I am 
pleased to cosponsor. The amendment improves the military's ability to 
penetrate deeply buried targets by redirecting funds from nuclear 
options that will never be used to conventional methods that could be.
  For too long, the debate over the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator has 
focused on the utility of the weapon and not its consequences.
  In the real world, no President or operational commander is going to 
be launching a nuclear device to strike a deep bunker. The fallout 
would render the target area off limits to reconnaissance by U.S. 
troops for too long. The harm to any local population would be 
devastating. The geopolitical reaction would be severe.
  The Tauscher amendment invests $25 million in conventional 
penetrating technologies, which represent a much more realistic 
alternative to meeting the requirement.
  Why on Earth should we spend millions of dollars to study or produce 
a weapon we will never use? It is a definition of wasteful government 
spending. Vote for the Tauscher amendment.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), our distinguished chairman of the full 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about the most basic part of our military 
strategy. The gentleman who just spoke said if we do not use these 
weapons, they are a total waste, and people used to say why do we have 
all these nuclear weapons that could kill the Russians 100 times over? 
The reason we had them was so we would never have to kill a single 
Russian because we would have a deterrent.
  Whom do we have to deter? Do we deter a private in a barrack? Do we 
deter a housewife in her home in the land of our adversary? Do we deter 
children in a school or people in a hospital?
  The answer is no. The very best deterrent target is the people who 
pull the trigger, and that is the leadership of the adversarial nation, 
that is, the people who make the decision to attack the United States. 
Those are the people who like to go deep.
  Hitler had a bunker. Saddam Hussein had a bunker. The people in North 
Korea have bunkers. We have to have this type of a program to hold the 
leadership at risk. This is deterrence. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I think the point that the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen) was making and that I am making is that we think 
there are conventional alternatives to a nuclear weapon that are 
usable. So my concern is if we have a conventional approach with JDAMs, 
with the 5,000-pound bunker buster, EGBU-28, three very good 
conventional approaches to go after deeper targets, we should keep 
working and spending our money on those options.
  My concern is his concern. We will not use this weapon. Even if we 
build it, we will not use it, because nuclear weapons are the weapon of 
last resort for deterence.
  We have improved our military capability by having developed our 
conventional capability with the B-2, with the B-1s, the B-52s, with 
JDAMs, with the small diameter bomb, because they are usable; and that 
is more of a deterrent. When the enemy knows we can use that weapon and 
it will be effective, it is more of a deterrent than a nuclear weapon. 
We just will not use it. That is the problem, and it is a waste of 
money.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

                              {time}  1330

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks) is right that we do need to develop our 
conventional intelligence capabilities, and that is why there is such a 
significant commitment in this bill to continuing those programs that 
do so. But we also recognize that there are limitations to what we can 
do with those conventional weapons and what we can hold at risk.
  Nuclear weapons are useful because they are unusable. That is the 
core of deterrence.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), another cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, let me just pick up on where we left off. 
We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve 
deterrence. This weapon is not necessary. It is not only unnecessary, 
it is counterproductive at a time when we are trying to get countries 
like Iran and North Korea and countless other want-to-be nuclear 
countries to give up their nuclear ambition.
  And it raises a fundamental question: How long can we move the world 
in one direction while we move in another direction, and do we want to 
backslide into an era that we finally emerged from where we had a 
nuclear weapon for every tactical mission?
  They are not practical, they are not necessary, and this weapon will 
not come close to destroying or hardening up the hardened, deep 
geological targets for which they are reputedly available. To the 
extent we want to go after a target like that, we have bombs for that 
effect, and you can dial a yield. In addition, we have conventional 
weapons that serve this purpose.
  This is not necessary. And anyone who thinks this is a minor item, 
the justification indicates that $480 million needs to be spent for 
this particular program over the next 5 years. This is a major item in 
the defense budget.
  This amendment should be adopted.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, as our final speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman and I have been making this amendment 
for 3 years, $500 million on a program for a weapon which is unusable. 
Can you imagine on the first day of Shock and Awe if we had dropped a 
nuclear bunker buster in the middle of Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein, 
and he was not in the command bunker, he was not there at all? The 
catastrophe for our

[[Page H3418]]

country across the whole world would have been disastrous. We found him 
in a spider hole, 5 feet deep.
  You cannot drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city. It is an 
unusable weapon.
  Our threat is that Iran and North Korea and other terrorist groups 
are trying to get a nuclear weapon. We cannot preach temperance from a 
bar stool; you cannot tell a kid not to smoke while holding a Camel 
cigarette in your hand.
  If we want other countries to disavow the desire to develop nuclear 
weapons, we cannot be developing new usable nuclear weapons, which is 
what the Republican majority, the Bush administration, wants to do. We 
must use our political and our moral high ground to convince every 
other country in the world to disavow that interest.
  This is the worst public policy decision that the Bush administration 
is making. We started a war in Iraq because of our fear of him having 
nuclear weapons. We are sending a signal to Iran, to North Korea, to 
Syria, to Egypt, to every other country in the world, that nuclear 
weapons are usable and we will use them. Well, they will develop them 
as well, Mr. Chairman, and the next generations of Americans will be 
less secure, not more secure.
  Vote for the Tauscher amendment if you care about the security of the 
children and the grandchildren in our country. It is the only way in 
which we can convince this military-industrial complex that they could 
not have won in Iraq if they had used nuclear weapons. They would have 
destroyed our capacity for evermore to be a political and moral force 
in the world.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say that we are not spending half a 
billion dollars to develop a new weapon. First of all, this is a 
modification of an old weapon, and everyone very well knows that.
  Secondly, the study period is only $122 billion.
  Thirdly, the proponents of this amendment are saying, let us just 
stick our heads in the sand and not study this.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment. This amendment is 
not worthy of passing this House.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the 
Amendment being offered by a number of my distinguished colleagues 
including Ranking Members Skelton and Spratt, both of whom played large 
roles in crafting the Defense Authorization Act. This Amendment would 
take the responsible course of action by transferring $36.6 million for 
studying the feasibility of developing new nuclear weapons, including 
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and direct it instead towards 
increasing both intelligence capabilities to get at heard and deeply 
buried targets and providing improved conventional bunker-busting 
capabilities. This Amendment allows our nation to develop a strategy 
and the proper equipment to fight our enemies even when they go below 
ground to evade us. However, where this Amendment truly succeeds is in 
the fact that it keeps our nation from breaking our long held belief in 
nuclear disarmament.
  This Defense Authorization in its present form that endorses the 
development of new nuclear weapons sets a dangerous precedent that will 
be seen worldwide. This Administration seeks to lift the ban on 
developing low-yield nuclear weapons which so far have not yet proven 
effective. The goals we hope to achieve with these low-yield nuclear 
missiles can also be accomplished by conducting research on the use of 
conventional missiles in penetrating and destroying enemy bunkers. If 
we allow ourselves to research and develop these more accessible 
nuclear weapons it will only encourage other foreign nations to do so 
as well. Our nation already faces great challenges in keeping 
traditional nuclear weapons out of the hands of rogue nations, if we 
allow ourselves to develop these new low-yield nuclear weapons our 
nuclear disarmament efforts will be seen by the global community as 
hypocrisy.
  Ever since the use of nuclear weapons in World War II our nation and 
the global community has realized the devastating potential that a 
nuclear war poses. With the end of the Cold War, our nation has 
rightfully sought the course of nuclear disarmament. While this effort 
is far from complete, what we do know is that the grave danger of a 
nuclear war is still very much a possibility. If we allow this Defense 
Authorization to pass without this Amendment then we will have retarded 
our nuclear disarmament efforts of the past few decades.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher) will be postponed.


                Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  The Clerk designated the amendments en bloc, as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House 
     Report 108-499 consisting of amendment No. 10; amendment No. 
     12; amendment No. 13; amendment No. 15; amendment No. 16; 
     amendment No. 17; amendment No. 18; amendment No. 19; 
     amendment No. 20; amendment No. 21; amendment No. 22; 
     amendment No. 23; amendment No. 24; amendment No. 26; 
     amendment No. 27; amendment No. 28; amendment No. 29; 
     amendment No. 30; amendment No. 31; and amendment No. 32.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 409, after line 13), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT CERTAIN VOLUNTARY SERVICES.

       Section 1588 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Voluntary services to support programs of a committee 
     of the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve as 
     authorized by the Secretary of Defense.''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)(1), by inserting ``and (a)(8)'' 
     before the period at the end.
       At the end of subtitle G of title X (page 385, after line 
     10), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROGRAM FOR 
                   TRANSPORTING HOUSEHOLD GOODS OF MEMBERS OF THE 
                   ARMED FORCES.

       The Secretary of Defense may not implement the new program 
     for the transportation of household goods of members of the 
     Armed Forces and their dependents beyond phase I of the 
     program, which includes the testing of electronic bill 
     processing at 14 sites, until the Secretary submits to 
     Congress a report evaluating whether Phase I met its 
     objectives and whether it is in the best interest of the 
     Department of Defense and members of the Armed Forces to move 
     forward to Phase II of the program.
       In section 1001(b)(3) (page 350, line 5), strike ``section 
     1522'' and insert ``section 1519''.
       At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 358, after line 
     2), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. __. FISCAL YEAR 2004 TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

       Section 1001(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1582) 
     is amended by striking ``$2,500,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$3,000,000,000''.

     SEC. __. REPORT ON AMOUNTS REMITTED AND REIMBURSED DURING 
                   FISCAL YEAR 2004 UNDER SECTION 1007 OF PUBLIC 
                   LAW 108-136.

       Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal year 2004, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on amounts remitted and 
     reimbursed during fiscal year 2004 under section 1007 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 
     (Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1585; 10 U.S.C. 2241 note).
       Page 393, line 17, insert ``by striking'' after ``is 
     amended''.
       Page 456, line 20, insert after ``title'' the following: 
     ``are available upon the enactment of this Act and''.
       At the end of title I (page 27, after line 10), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1__. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR PATRIOT MISSILE PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Additional Amounts.--The amount in section 101 for Army 
     procurement, missiles, is hereby increased by $90,000,000, to 
     be available for Patriot missiles.
       (b) Offsetting Reductions.--(1) The amount in section 101 
     for Other Support Space Programs is hereby decreased by 
     $27,000,000, to be derived from Titan Space Boosters (SPACE).
       (2) The amount in section 301(4) for operation and 
     maintenance, Air Force, is hereby reduced by $15,000,000, to 
     be derived from the transportation working capital fund.
       (3) The amount in section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, defense-wide, is hereby reduced by 
     $48,000,000, to be derived from the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     System Interceptor program element (PE 63886C).
       At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 28, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2__. PROGRAM INCREASES.

       (a) Nano-composite Hard-coat for Aircraft Canopies.--The 
     amount provided in

[[Page H3419]]

     section 201(2) for research development, test and evaluation, 
     Navy, is hereby increased by $5,000,000, to be available for 
     Nano-composite hard-coat for aircraft canopies in Program 
     Element 0205633N.
       (b) Command-and-Control Service Level Management.--The 
     amount provided in section 201(3) for research development, 
     test and evaluation, Air Force, is hereby increased by 
     $5,000,000, to be available for command-and-control service 
     level management in Program Element 0207443F for best-
     commercial practices and enterprise wide architectures for 
     military command-and-control applications.
       At the end of subtitle A of title III (page 43, after line 
     3), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3__. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZATION FOR AIR FORCE OPERATIONS 
                   AND MAINTENANCE.

       The amount authorized to be appropriated in section 301(4) 
     is hereby reduced by $10,000,000, to be derived from the 
     transportation working capital fund.
       Strike section 215 (page 36, lines 1 through 9).
       Strike section 2818 (page 514, lines 1 through 16) and 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2818. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF VETERANS MEMORIAL AT 
                   MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL TORO, CALIFORNIA.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to Congress 
     a report on whether the City of Irvine's anticipated future 
     uses of the former MCAS El Toro property would permit the 
     establishment and maintenance of a veterans memorial at no 
     cost to the Federal Government.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Dicks

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 117(b) insert ``no later than March 1, 2005'' 
     after ``program'' (page 25, line 10).


         Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XXXI (page 556, after line 10), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 31__. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SITE ACCELERATION 
                   COMPLETION.

       (a) Additional Amount.--The amount in section 3102 is 
     hereby increased by $50,000,000, to be available under 
     section 3102(1) for defense site acceleration completion.
       (b) Offset.--The amount in section 301(4), operation and 
     maintenance, Air Force, is hereby reduced by $50,000,000, to 
     be derived from the transportation capital fund.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title III (page 43, after line 
     3), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3__. ELIMINATION OF BACKLOG IN PROCESSING FORENSIC 
                   EVIDENCE COLLECTION KITS AND ACQUISITION OF 
                   SUFFICIENT STOCKS OF SUCH KITS.

       The Secretary of Defense shall take such steps as may be 
     necessary to eliminate the current backlog in the processing 
     of forensic evidence collection kits used by the Department 
     of Defense, to shorten the time period between the use of 
     such kits and their processing in the future, and to ensure 
     an adequate supply of such kits for all domestic and overseas 
     United States military installations, including the military 
     service academies, and for units of the Armed Forces deployed 
     in theaters of operation.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 825. REQUIREMENT TO TREAT SURETIES IN SAME MANNER AS 
                   FINANCING INSTITUTIONS WHEN CONTRACTORS 
                   DEFAULT.

       (a) Amendment to Title 31.--Section 3727(c) of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``surety on a 
     bond provided in connection with a contract or other'' before 
     ``financing institution''.
       (b) Amendment to Revised Statutes.--Section 3737(b) of the 
     Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 15) is amended in the first 
     sentence by inserting ``surety on a bond provided in 
     connection with a contract,'' before ``or other financing 
     institution''.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII (page 337, after line 15), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 825. PROVISIONS RELATING TO CREATION OF JOBS IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES BY DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Authority To Exclude Certain Sources on Basis of 
     Creation of Jobs in United States.--Section 2304(b)(1) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) would create jobs in the United States.''.
       (b) Requirement To Include Creation of Jobs in United 
     States as Evalation Factor.--(1) Section 2305(a)(3)(A) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (B) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) shall include the creation of jobs in the United 
     States as an evaluation factor that must be considered in the 
     evaluation of proposals; and''.
       (2) Section 2305(a)(3)(B) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``clause (iii)'' and inserting ``clause (iv)''.


           Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

               TITLE XXXVI--SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 3601. ADDITION OF LANDSCAPING AND PEST CONTROL SERVICES 
                   TO LIST OF DESIGNATED INDUSTRY GROUPS 
                   PARTICIPATING IN THE SMALL BUSINESS 
                   COMPETITIVENESS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 717 of the Small 
     Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act of 1988 
     (15 U.S.C. 644 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) landscaping and pest control services.''.
       (b) Landscaping and Pest Control Services.--Section 717 of 
     the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act 
     of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 644 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f), and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Landscaping and Pest Control Services.--Landscaping 
     and pest control services shall include contract awards 
     assigned to North American Industrial Classification Code 
     561710 (relating to exterminating and pest control services) 
     or 561730 (relating to landscaping services).''.


         Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 409, after line 13), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONAL 
                   PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR FIREFIGHTING USE TO 
                   SUPPORT FEDERAL EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 2576b of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Subject'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law and subject''; and
       (B) by striking ``a firefighting agency in a State'' and 
     inserting ``the United States Forest Service'';
       (2) in subsections (b)(2) and (c), by striking ``recipient 
     firefighting agency'' and inserting ``Forest Service'; and
       (3) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following 
     new subsections:
       ``(d) Priority for Rural Firefighting Agencies.--(1) 
     Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     use the existing property disposal program of the Forest 
     Service, known as the Federal Excess Personal Property 
     Program, to facilitate the reutilization of Department of 
     Defense personal property described in subsection (a) by 
     firefighting agencies in rural areas.
       ``(2) An agreement under paragraph (1) shall not provide 
     for the reutilization of Department of Defense aircraft by 
     the Forest Service until the end of the one-year period 
     beginning on the date on which the Secretary of Agriculture 
     submits a report to the Committee on Agriculture and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate detailing 
     measures taken by the Forest Service in response to National 
     Transportation Safety Board Recommendations A-04-29 through 
     A-04-33.
       ``(3) The transfer of Department of Defense personal 
     property described in subsection (a) to the Forest Service 
     for reutilization by firefighting agencies in rural areas 
     shall be afforded a property disposal priority at least equal 
     to the priority given the military departments and other 
     entities within the Department of Defense.
       ``(e) Definition of State.--The term `State' includes the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any 
     territory or possession of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2576b. Excess personal property: reutilization to 
       assist firefighting agencies''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 153 
     of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 2576b and inserting the following new item:


[[Page H3420]]


``2576b. Excess personal property: reutilization to assist firefighting 
              agencies.''.


        Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Brown of South Carolina

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X , insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. EXPANSION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS PERSONAL 
                   PROPERTY DISPOSAL PROGRAM TO INCLUDE HEALTH 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Inclusion of Health Agencies.--Section 2576b of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Transfer to State Health Agencies.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may expand the program authorized by this section to 
     include the transfer to State health agencies of personal 
     property of the Department of Defense that the Secretary 
     determines is--
       ``(1) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense; and
       ``(2) suitable for use in responding to health or 
     environmental emergencies.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2576b. Excess personal property: reutilization to 
       assist firefighting agencies and health agencies

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 153 
     of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 2576b and inserting the following new item:

``2576b. Excess personal property: reutilization to assist firefighting 
              agencies and health agencies.''.


        Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Brown of South Carolina

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle A of title XXVIII, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 28__. CONSIDERATION OF COMBINATION OF MILITARY MEDICAL 
                   TREATMENT FACILITIES AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES 
                   OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Department of Defense Consideration of Joint 
     Construction.--(1) Subchapter I of chapter 169 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 2816. Consideration of joint construction and use of 
       military medical treatment facilities and health care 
       facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs

       ``In the case of the budget submitted under section 1105 of 
     title 31 for any fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     include in the budget justification materials submitted to 
     Congress in support of the budget a certification that, in 
     evaluating for inclusion in the budget for that fiscal year 
     any military construction project for construction in the 
     United States (or a territory or possession of the United 
     States) of a new military medical treatment facility, the 
     Secretary, after consulting with the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs, evaluated the feasibility of carrying out the 
     project so as to establish with the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs a joint medical facility that--
       ``(1) could serve as a facility for health resources 
     sharing between the Department of Defense and the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs; and
       ``(2) would be no more costly to each Department to 
     construct and operate than separate facilities for each 
     Department.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such 
     subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``2816. Consideration of joint construction and use of military medical 
              treatment facilities and health care facilities of the 
              Department of Veterans Affairs.''.

       (b) Department of Veterans Affairs Consideration of Joint 
     Construction.--Section 8104(b) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) In the case of a prospectus proposing the 
     construction of a new or replacement medical facility, the 
     Secretary's certification that the Secretary, after 
     consulting with the Secretary of Defense, evaluated the 
     feasibility of carrying out the project so as to establish 
     with the Department of Defense a joint medical facility 
     that--
       ``(A) could serve as a facility for health resources 
     sharing between the Department of Defense and the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs; and
       ``(B) would be no more costly to each Department to 
     construct and operate than separate facilities for each 
     Department.''.


          Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Illinois

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V (page 200, after line 24), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 598. AUTHORITY FOR REMOVAL OF REMAINS OF CERTAIN PERSONS 
                   INTERRED IN UNITED STATES MILITARY CEMETERIES 
                   OVERSEAS.

       (a) Removal and Transportation of Remains.--Upon receipt 
     from a qualifying survivor of an application with respect to 
     a person interred in a United States overseas military 
     cemetery, the Secretary of Defense may, upon approval of such 
     application, provide for--
       (1) the removal of the remains of that person from the 
     cemetery in which interred; and
       (2) transportation of such remains to a location in the 
     United States selected by such qualifying survivor.
       (b) Requirement for Approval of Applications.--(1) An 
     application under this section may be approved only if the 
     application presents sufficient evidence that, at the time of 
     the initial disposition decision (as defined in paragraph 
     (2)), there was a misunderstanding or error related to that 
     disposition decision that the Secretary finds warrants 
     approval of the application.
       (2) In paragraph (1), the term ``initial disposition 
     decision'', with respect to the remains of a person who died 
     outside the United States and was interred in a United States 
     overseas military cemetery, means a decision by a family 
     member (or other designated person) as to the disposition (in 
     accordance with laws and regulations in effect at the time) 
     of the remains of the person with respect to whom the 
     application is submitted, such decision being to have the 
     remains interred in a United States overseas military 
     cemetery (rather than to have those remains transported to 
     the United States for interment or other disposition in the 
     United States).
       (c) ABMC Assistance.--The American Battle Monuments 
     Commission shall provide the Secretary of Defense with such 
     assistance as the Secretary may require in carrying out this 
     section with respect to cemeteries under the jurisdiction of 
     the Commission.
       (d) Time for Application.--An application under subsection 
     (a) must be submitted to the Secretary of Defense not later 
     than the end of the two-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (e) No Expenditure of Federal Funds.--No costs associated 
     with the removal and transportation of remains provided for 
     under subsection (a) may be paid by the United States.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) United states overseas military cemetery.--The term 
     ``United States overseas military cemetery'' means a cemetery 
     located in a foreign country that is administered by the 
     Secretary of a military department or the American Battle 
     Monuments Commission.
       (2) Qualifying survivors.--The term ``qualifying survivor'' 
     means the following, in the order specified.
       (A) The surviving spouse.
       (B) All surviving children (including adoptive children), 
     acting concurrently.
       (C) A birth parent or, if both survive, both birth parents, 
     acting concurrently.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Baird

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VII (page 306, after line 13), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 723. STUDY OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

       (a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct 
     a study of mental health services available to members of the 
     Armed Forces.
       (b) Persons Covered.--The study shall evaluate the 
     availability and effectiveness of existing mental health 
     treatment and screening resources--
       (1) for members of the Armed Forces during a deployment to 
     a combat theater;
       (2) for members of the Armed Forces returning from a 
     deployment to a combat theater, both--
       (A) in the short-term, post-deployment period; and
       (B) in the long-term, following the post-deployment period;
       (3) for the families of members of the Armed Forces who 
     have been deployed to a combat theater during the time of the 
     deployment;
       (4) for the families of members of the Armed Forces who 
     have been deployed to a combat theater after the member has 
     returned from the deployment; and
       (5) for members of the Armed Forces and their families 
     described in this subsection who are members of Reserve 
     components.
       (c) Assessment of Obstacles.--The study shall provide an 
     assessment of existing obstacles that prevent members of the 
     Armed Forces and military families in need of mental health 
     services from obtaining these services, including--
       (1) the extent to which existing confidentiality 
     regulations, or lack thereof, inhibit members of the Armed 
     Forces from seeking mental health treatment;
       (2) the implications that a decision to seek mental health 
     services can have on a military career;
       (3) the extent to which a social stigma exists within the 
     Armed Forces that prevents members of the Armed Forces and 
     military families from seeking mental health treatment within 
     the Department of Defense and the individual Armed Forces;
       (4) the extent to which logistical obstacles, particularly 
     with respect to members of the Armed Forces and families 
     residing in rural areas, deter members in need of mental 
     health services from obtaining them; and
       (5) the extent to which members of the Armed Forces and 
     their families are prevented or hampered from obtaining 
     mental health treatment due to the cost of such services.
       (d) Identification of Problems Unique to Reserves.--The 
     study shall identify potential problems in obtaining mental 
     health treatment that are unique to members of Reserve 
     components.
       (e) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the

[[Page H3421]]

     study conducted under this section not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report shall 
     contain the results of the study and make specific 
     recommendations--
       (1) for improving the effectiveness and accessibility of 
     mental health services provided by Department of Defense to 
     the persons listed in subsection (b), including 
     recommendations to ensure appropriate referrals and a 
     seamless transition to the care of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs following separation from the Armed Forces;
       (2) for removing or mitigating any obstacles identified 
     under subsection (c); and
       (3) for steps that can be taken by the Department of 
     Defense or Congress to bring parity to mental health services 
     available to members of Reserve components and members of the 
     Armed Forces on active duty.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle F of title V, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 560. BOARD OF VISITORS OF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 
                   ACADEMY.

       Section 9355 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 9355. Board of Visitors

       ``(a) A Board of Visitors to the Academy is constituted 
     annually. The Board consists of the following members:
       ``(1) Six persons designated by the President.
       ``(2) Four persons designated by the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives, three of whom shall be members of the 
     House of Representatives and the fourth of whom may not be a 
     member of the House of Representatives.
       ``(3) Three persons designated by the Vice President or the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate, two of whom shall be 
     members of the Senate and the third of whom may not be a 
     member of the Senate.
       ``(4) The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the House of Representatives, or his designee.
       ``(5) The chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the Senate, or his designee.
       ``(b)(1) The persons designated by the President serve for 
     three years each except that any member whose term of office 
     has expired shall continue to serve until his successor is 
     designated. The President shall designate persons each year 
     to succeed the members designated by the President whose 
     terms expire that year.
       ``(2) At least two of the members designated by the 
     President shall be graduates of the Academy.
       ``(c)(1) If a member of the Board dies or resigns or is 
     terminated as a member of the board under paragraph (2), a 
     successor shall be designated for the unexpired portion of 
     the term by the official who designated the member.
       ``(2) If a member of the Board fails to attend two 
     successive Board meetings, except in a case in which an 
     absence is approved in advance, for good cause, by the Board 
     chairman, such failure shall be grounds for termination from 
     membership on the Board. A person designated for membership 
     on the Board shall be provided notice of the provisions of 
     this paragraph at the time of such designation.
       ``(d) The Board should meet at least four times a year, 
     with at least two of those meetings at the Academy. The Board 
     or its members may make other visits to the Academy in 
     connection with the duties of the Board. Board meetings 
     should last at least one full day. Board members shall have 
     access to the Academy grounds and the cadets, faculty, staff, 
     and other personnel of the Academy for the purposes of the 
     duties of the Board.
       ``(e)(1) The Board shall inquire into the morale, 
     discipline, and social climate, the curriculum, instruction, 
     physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and 
     other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides 
     to consider.
       ``(2) The Secretary of the Air Force and the Superintendent 
     of the Academy shall provide the Board candid and complete 
     disclosure, consistent with applicable laws concerning 
     disclosure of information, of all institutional problems.
       ``(3) The Board shall recommend appropriate action.
       ``(f) Within 30 days after any meeting of the Board, the 
     Board shall submit a written report concurrently to the 
     Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Air Force, 
     and to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 
     with its views and recommendations pertaining to the Academy.
       ``(g) Upon approval by the Secretary, the Board may call in 
     advisers for consultation.
       ``(h) While performing duties as a member of the Board, 
     each member of the Board and each adviser shall be reimbursed 
     under Government travel regulations for travel expenses.''.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle G of title V (page 174, after line 
     15), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF COMBAT INFANTRYMAN BADGE 
                   AND COMBAT MEDICAL BADGE WITH RESPECT TO 
                   SERVICE IN KOREA AFTER JULY 28, 1953.

       (a) Standardization of Requirements With Other Geographic 
     Areas.--(1) Chapter 357 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3757. Korean defense service: Combat Infantryman 
       Badge; Combat Medical Badge

       ``The Secretary of the Army shall provide that, with 
     respect to service in the Republic of Korea after July 28, 
     1953, eligibility of a member of the Army for the Combat 
     Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge shall be met 
     under criteria and eligibility requirements that, as nearly 
     as practicable, are identical to those applicable, at the 
     time of such service in the Republic of Korea, to service 
     elsewhere without regard to specific location or special 
     circumstances. In particular, such eligibility shall be 
     established--
       ``(1) without any requirement for service by the member in 
     an area designated as a `hostile fire area' (or by any 
     similar designation) or that the member have been authorized 
     hostile fire pay;
       ``(2) without any requirement for a minimum number of 
     instances (in excess of one) in which the member was engaged 
     with the enemy in active ground combat involving an exchange 
     of small arms fire; and
       ``(3) without any requirement for personal recommendation 
     or approval by commanders in the member's chain of command 
     other than is generally applicable for service at locations 
     outside the Republic of Korea.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3757. Korean defense service: Combat Infantryman Badge; Combat 
              Medical Badge.''.

       (b) Applicability to Service Before Date of Enactment.--The 
     Secretary of the Army shall establish procedures to provide 
     for the implementation of section 3757 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), with respect to 
     service in the Republic of Korea during the period between 
     July 28, 1953, and the date of the enactment of this Act. 
     Such procedures shall include a requirement for submission of 
     an application for award of a badge under that section with 
     respect to service before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and the furnishing of such information as the Secretary 
     may specify.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. __. ARMY COMBAT RECOGNITION RIBBON.

       (a) Requirement Similar to That for Navy Combat Action 
     Ribbbon .--(1) Chapter 357 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3757. Combat recognition ribbon

       ``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     establish a combat recognition ribbon to recognize 
     participation by members of the Army in combat. The Secretary 
     shall award the combat recognition ribbon to each member of 
     the Army who meets the criteria for that ribbon based upon 
     service performed after August 1, 1990.
       ``(b) Criteria for Award.--The Secretary shall establish 
     the criteria for award of the combat recognition ribbon. To 
     the maximum extent practicable, the criteria for the award of 
     such ribbon shall be based upon, and be similar to, the 
     criteria for award of the Navy Combat Action Ribbon, 
     including any special criteria for service during a 
     particular period of time or in a specific location.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The combat recognition ribbon may not be 
     awarded to a member of the Army with respect to the same 
     period of service as service for which the member was awarded 
     the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medic Badge.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3757. Combat recognition ribbon.''.

       (b) Implementation for Service Before Date of Enactment.--
     The Secretary of the Army shall establish procedures to 
     provide for the implementation of section 3757 of title 10, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a), with respect 
     to service during the period beginning on August 1, 1990, and 
     ending on the date of the enactment of this Act. Such 
     procedures shall include a requirement for submission of an 
     application for award of a ribbon under that section with 
     respect to service before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and the furnishing of such information as the Secretary 
     may specify. Such procedures shall be established not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.


          Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of part I of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 
     535, after line 7), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 28__. MODIFICATION OF LAND EXCHANGE AND CONSOLIDATION, 
                   FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Property To Be Transferred to Secretary of the Interior 
     in Trust.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 2837 of the Military 
     Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division 
     B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1315) is amended--

[[Page H3422]]

       (1) by striking ``may convey to'' and inserting ``may 
     transfer to the Secretary of the Interior, in trust for''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``Washington, in'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``Washington. The Secretary 
     of the Army may make the transfer under the preceding 
     sentence, and the Secretary of the Interior may accept the 
     property transferred in trust for the Nisqually Tribe under 
     the preceding sentence, only in conjunction with the 
     conveyance described in subsection (b)(2).''.
       (b) Increase in Acreage To Be Transferred.--Such subsection 
     is further amended by striking ``138 acres'' and inserting 
     ``168 acres''.
       (c) Qualification on Property To Be Transferred.--
     Subsection (a)(2) of such section is amended--
       (1) by striking ``conveyance'' and inserting ``transfer''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``or the right of way described in 
     subsection (c)'' and inserting ``located on the real property 
     transferred under that paragraph''.
       (d) Consideration.--Subsection (b) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``conveyance'' and inserting ``transfer''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``fee title over the 
     acquired property to the Secretary'' and inserting ``to the 
     United States fee title to the property acquired under 
     paragraph (1), free from all liens, encumbrances or other 
     interests other than those, if any, acceptable to the 
     Secretary of the Army''.
       (e) Treatment of Existing Permit Rights; Grant of 
     Easement.--Such section is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Treatment of Existing Permit Rights; Grant of 
     Easement.--(1) The transfer under subsection (a) recognizes 
     and preserves to the Bonneville Power Administration, in 
     perpetuity and without the right of revocation except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), rights in existence at the time of 
     the conveyance under the permit dated February 4, 1949, as 
     amended January 4, 1952, between the Department of the Army 
     and the Bonneville Power Administration with respect to any 
     portion of the property transferred under subsection (a) upon 
     which the Bonneville Power Administration retains 
     transmission facilities. The rights recognized and preserved 
     include the right to upgrade those transmission facilities.
       ``(2) The permit rights recognized and preserved under 
     paragraph (1) shall terminate only upon the Bonneville Power 
     Administration's relocation of the transmission facilities 
     referred to in paragraph (1), and then only with respect to 
     that portion of those transmission facilities that are 
     relocated.
       ``(3) The Secretary of the Interior, as trustee for the 
     Nisqually Tribe, shall grant to the Bonneville Power 
     Administration, without consideration and subject to the same 
     rights recognized and preserved in paragraph (1), such 
     additional easements across the property transferred under 
     subsection (a) as the Bonneville Power Administration 
     considers necessary to accommodate the relocation or 
     reconnection of Bonneville Power Administration transmission 
     facilities from property owned by the Tribe and held by the 
     Secretary of the Interior in trust for the Tribe.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (c) of such 
     section is amended by inserting ``of the Army'' after 
     ``Secretary''.
       (2) Subsection (e) of such section (as redesignated by 
     subsection (e)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``conveyed'' and inserting ``transferred'';
       (B) by inserting ``of the Army'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (C) by striking ``the recipient of the property being 
     surveyed'' and inserting ``the Tribe, in the case of the 
     transfer under subsection (a), and the Secretary of the Army, 
     in the case of the acquisition under subsection (b)''.
       (3) Subsection (f) of such section (as redesignated by 
     subsection (e)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``of the Army'' after ``Secretary'' both 
     place it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``conveyances under this section'' and 
     inserting ``transfer under subsection (a) and conveyances 
     under subsections (b)(2) and (c)''.


               Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 409, after line 13), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1077. PLACEMENT OF MEMORIAL IN ARLINGTON NATIONAL 
                   CEMETERY HONORING NONCITIZENS KILLED IN THE 
                   LINE OF DUTY WHILE SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES 
                   OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall place in 
     Arlington National Cemetery a memorial marker honoring the 
     service and sacrifice of noncitizens killed in the line of 
     duty while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.
       (b) Approval of Design and Site.--The Secretary of the 
     Army, in consultation with Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
     shall approve an appropriate design and site within Arlington 
     National Cemetery for the memorial marker provided for under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Use of Federal Funds.--Federal funds shall not be 
     required or permitted to be used for the design and 
     construction of the memorial marker provided for under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Authority To Accept Donations.--(1) The Secretary of 
     the Army may accept gifts and donations of services, money, 
     and property (including personal, tangible, or intangible 
     property) for the design and construction of the memorial 
     marker provided for under subsection (a).
       (2) The authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept 
     gifts and donations under paragraph (1) shall expire on the 
     date that is five years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 479, in the table following line 9--
       (1) in the item for Robins Air Force Base, strike 
     ``$15,000,000'' and insert ``$21,570,000''; and
       (2) in the total at the bottom of the table, strike 
     ``$398,714,000'' and insert ``$405,284,000''.
       Page 483, line 2, strike ``$2,493,679,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,500,249,000''.
       Page 483, line 5, strike ``$398,714,000'' and insert 
     ``$405,284,000''.
       Page 492, line 7, strike ``$114,090,000'' and insert 
     ``$107,520,000''.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Israel

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I (page 27, after line 10), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN ARMY PROCUREMENT FUNDS.

       (a) Increase for Certain Helicopter Items.--The amount 
     provided in section 101(1) for procurement of aircraft for 
     the Army is hereby increased by $4,000,000, of which--
       (1) $2,000,000 shall be available for procurement of the 
     Aircraft Wireless Intercom System; and
       (2) $2,000,000 shall be available for procurement of 
     bladefold kits for Apache Helicopters.
       (b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 101(5) for 
     Other Procurement, Army, is hereby reduced by $4,000,000, to 
     be derived from amounts for Information Systems.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Hobson

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle F of title V (page 172, after line 
     9), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 5__. ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLEGE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL 
                   GUARD.

       (a) Authority.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Secretary concerned may, in 
     recognition of the unique position of the District of 
     Columbia in the Federal system, provide financial assistance 
     to eligible members of the National Guard of the District of 
     Columbia for expenses of such a member while enrolled in an 
     approved institution of higher education in a degree, 
     certificate, or other program (including a program of study 
     abroad approved for credit by the institution of higher 
     education) leading to a recognized educational credential at 
     the institution of higher education. Any such assistance may 
     be provided only during the program applicability period 
     specified in subsection (i).
       (b) Authority Subject to Availability of Appropriations.--
     The authority provided in subsection (a) is subject to the 
     availability of appropriations for that purpose.
       (c) Eligibility.--To be eligible for financial assistance 
     under this section, a member of the National Guard of the 
     District of Columbia must--
       (1) be a member of the National Guard of the District of 
     Columbia for not less than the 12 consecutive months 
     preceding the commencement of the tuition assistance and 
     continue to be such a member while receiving such assistance;
       (2) agree to serve one year in the National Guard of the 
     District of Columbia for each academic year of assistance 
     provided;
       (3) be enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a program of 
     education referred to in subsection (a) at an institution of 
     higher education; and
       (4) if already enrolled, maintain satisfactory progress in 
     the course of study the member is pursuing in accordance with 
     section 484(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1091(c)).
       (d) Covered Expenses.--Expenses for which financial 
     assistance may be provided under this section are the 
     following:
       (1) Tuition and fees charged by an approved institution of 
     higher education involved.
       (2) The cost of books.
       (3) Laboratory expenses.
       (e) Amount.--(1) The amount of financial assistance 
     provided to a member of the National Guard of the District of 
     Columbia under this section shall be prescribed by the 
     Secretary concerned, but may not exceed $2,500 for any 
     academic year. The Secretary concerned shall prorate 
     assistance under this section for members who pursue a 
     program of education on less than a full-time basis.
       (2) A member may not receive more than $12,500 under this 
     section.
       (f) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to require an institution of higher education to 
     alter the institution's admissions policies or standards in 
     any manner to enable a member of the National Guard of the 
     District of Columbia to enroll in the institution.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``approved institution of higher education'' 
     means an institution of higher

[[Page H3423]]

     education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)) that--
       (A) is eligible to participate in the student financial 
     assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
       (B) has entered into an agreement with the Secretary 
     concerned containing such conditions as the Secretary may 
     specify, including a requirement that the institution use the 
     funds made available under this section to supplement and not 
     supplant assistance that otherwise would be provided to 
     eligible students from the District of Columbia National 
     Guard.
       (2) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' 
     means--
       (A) the Secretary of the Army, in the case of the Army 
     National Guard of the District of Columbia; and
       (B) the Secretary of the Air Force, in the case of the Air 
     National Guard of the District of Columbia.
       (h) Annual Report.--At the close of each year during which 
     the program under this section is in effect, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report on the effectiveness of the program in improving 
     recruiting and retention for the District of Columbia 
     National Guard. Each such report shall include such 
     recommendations for changes in law or policy as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate. In the first such report, the 
     Secretary shall include an analysis of means for improving 
     the effectiveness as a recruitment and retention incentive of 
     any program providing tuition assistance for members of the 
     District of Columbia National Guard in existence as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (i) Program Applicability Period.--Financial assistance may 
     be provided under this section to eligible members of the 
     National Guard of the District of Columbia for periods of 
     instruction that begin during the three-year period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a number of amendments, some of them technical 
in nature, others amendments cleared with both sides. They include 
amendments by myself, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson) and by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with the en bloc amendments put 
forward by the chairman. We have examined them thoroughly and discussed 
them thoroughly. I think they are certainly worthy of passing.
  However, if I may comment on other amendments, much has been said, 
Mr. Chairman, about the contractor situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
would like at this moment to make reference to two amendments that were 
adopted in the committee that were passed out onto the floor, and I 
would like to make reference to them now, two outstanding amendments.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) had an amendment that 
requires the chairman or ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, the Secretary of Defense to provide copies of contract 
documents within 14 days to the committee, and it also allows greater 
transparency in the contracting system, particularly when we have been 
having so many problems in Iraq and elsewhere. This is critical to our 
oversight responsibility, and I compliment the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cooper).
  There was another amendment that was adopted in the committee that we 
should make reference to today offered by the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie), which requires guidance previously recommended by 
the GAO on how to manage contractors that support deployed forces.
  It requires report and contractor oversight, rules of engagement in 
Iraq, and requires better information gathering on how many security 
contractors are in Iraq. It directly responds to concerns raised in a 
letter that I sent to the Secretary of Defense on April 2.
  We are on top, I think, as a result of these two amendments by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie), to make sure that we are tending to the deep concern 
we have about the contractor use and the contractor hiring in those two 
countries.
  I do agree with the chairman on the en bloc amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time, because I always have to 
follow the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in 
this area, to just thank all the staff that have been working this 
armed services bill. The committee staff has been tirelessly working 
this bill, putting it together in the subcommittees, full committee and 
now on the floor, and I want to thank everyone who has been part of 
this product.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Ortiz) offered an amendment at full committee markup on May 12, 
2004, and that the amendment was passed by the committee within a 
manager's amendment. Unfortunately, however, the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) was not printed in the committee 
report 108-491.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is an unfortunate error 
that the amendment was not printed in the report. The Ortiz amendment 
was adopted by the full committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I ask unanimous consent 
that a copy of the amendment accepted at full committee be made part of 
the record.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I support that request.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield, for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the en bloc 
amendment, and especially my amendment dealing with the Comp Demo.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly review my 
proposed amendment to H.R. 4200.
  My amendment is a simple, highly targeted, and non-controversial 
effort to better balance the way that small business set aside, SBSA, 
goals are met by Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. 
Presently, these goals are unevenly distributed with some product and 
service sectors experiencing a disproportionate rate of small business 
set aside while other small businesses in other product or service 
sectors see little in small business set-aside contracts come their 
way, despite the fact that there are capable small businesses involved 
in those industries. This can obviously work to deny a large number of 
small businesses the benefits of the small business set aside program 
that Congress has long supported.
  My amendment would address this problem through a small, targeted 
improvement of an existing Federal law called the Competitiveness 
Demonstration Program (P.L. 100-656), also known as the ``Comp Demo'' 
law.
  The legislative history of Comp Demo shows that it was enacted to 
prevent disproportionate assignment of small business set aside goals 
into a small, unrepresentative number of NAICS codes. It began when 
Congress took major steps to enhance competition

[[Page H3424]]

and diversity in small business procurement opportunities by enacting 
section 921 of P.L. 99-661, which requires that small businesses 
receive a ``fair proportion'' of Government contracts in each industry.
  That effort later led to the enactment of the Comp Demo law. 
Essentially, Comp Demo recognized that in certain NAICS codes, work was 
being disproportionately set aside, even though overall small business 
participation in the open market-place in these industries was high. 
While these industries had too much work set aside, many more 
industries have seen little or no set-aside contracts come their way, 
despite representation of capable small firms in those other 
industries.
  My amendment would build on the existing Comp Demo law by adding the 
NAICS codes for landscaping services and exterminating & pest control 
services to the existing Comp Demo list. These two NAICS codes would be 
added to the existing Comp Demo list which presently includes the NAICS 
codes for: (1) construction, (2) refuse systems and related services; 
(3) architectural and engineering services, and (4) non-nuclear ship 
repair.
  Under the Comp Demo law, Federal agencies may not set aside 
procurements for small businesses in these designated NAICS codes, 
provided small businesses otherwise win 40 percent of all prime 
contract awards in that NAICS code. This means that small businesses 
are required to win a minimum of 40 percent of the prime contract 
awards. If they do not win that minimum amount, small business set-
aside for that NAICS code would be automatically reimposed.
  The effective result of both the current Comp Demo law and my 
amendment is to assure that small business set aside awards are more 
evenly distributed across all NAICS codes and benefit the greatest 
number of small businesses in the largest number of product and service 
sectors possible.
  Indeed, the existing Comp Demo law has shown that small businesses in 
the four NAICS codes on the current Comp Demo list compete for, and 
win, large numbers of contracts, though on an unrestricted basis. The 
intent of the Comp Demo program is to ensure that each agency balances 
its procurement needs so that set aside contracting opportunities for 
small businesses are as widely distributed as possible across as many 
industries as possible.
  Also important is the fact that the Comp Demo amendment does not 
affect 8(a) or HUB Zone set asides. They are not impacted by either the 
current Comp Demo program or my amendment's proposed improvement of the 
current law.
  It is also worthy to note that my proposed amendment of the Comp Demo 
law has no budgetary impact--that is, amending the program to include 
landscape services and exterminating and pest control services will not 
increase the federal deficit.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, the existing Comp Demo program and my amendment 
to it will require a more even distribution of small business set 
asides across a larger number of NAICS codes. It does not change or 
reduce the size of agency small business aside goals; it just makes the 
programs benefits available to a greater number of small businesses 
across a larger number of industries.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Hunter) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and their outstanding staffs on both sides for 
working with us on this tanker amendment.
  One of the things that I am convinced of, and I am even more 
convinced today, is we need to start a program of tanker replacement. 
Every single airplane that bombed in Afghanistan and in Iraq had to be 
refueled multiple times.
  One of the reasons we are a superpower is because we have got these 
tankers. All of the original planes were built between 1957 and 1963. I 
have been to Tinker Air Force Base, I have seen the condition of these 
planes. The corrosion is significant and the cost of maintenance is 
going right through the roof. It is time to move out on this program.
  The people who made mistakes in the contracting are being disciplined 
in the process, in the criminal process, and we should look at this on 
the merits. The chairman's amendment lays out a process whereby we can 
go forward.
  If the chairman wants to explain it, I would be glad to yield to him. 
But basically we are going to have an analysis of alternatives, then we 
are going to have a negotiation session on the contract, then we are 
going to have a panel review with the Secretary of Defense; and we hope 
that by March 1, we will be able to finalize this and enter into an 
agreement to go forward with the 767 tanker.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has analyzed it correctly. We 
call this ``Fresh Start.'' It is based on the premise that the tanker 
fleet is the keystone to the projection of American air power. Even our 
tactical air, coming off of carriers in Afghanistan, for example, had 
to drink four or five times from tankers going to target and coming 
back. Of course, the long-range stuff, all of our deep-strike 
capability hinges on tankers.
  So our idea was, we take the mess, that is, all the personalities, 
all of the charges and countercharges, and we move that all aside; and 
we say, we are going to address the one thing we should be addressing, 
which is the requirement for our country.
  We are going to take the requirement, and we are going to have a 
``Fresh Start'' on tankers and use a blue ribbon panel of people with 
good judgment, and they are going to pass judgment on the business 
deal.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the key thing here is, 
we are buying an off-the-shelf aircraft. That means no development 
costs whatsoever.
  I asked the chairman of the Boeing Company today what it would cost 
if we had to develop a new airplane, just in development before we got 
into production. He said $15 billion to $18 billion, and it would take 
a number of years to do that. So that option is not good.
  I do not believe this House wants to buy this airplane from AirBus, 
so therefore before the 767 line goes down next year, we have got to 
enter into this agreement, militarize that line, and use it for 
tankers, which are so critical to our national security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me 
just say to the gentleman, I think it would be a massive mistake for 
the United States to buy foreign in this very important part of our 
national security.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, this is a point we want to make. If we can 
get this done, we can do this for a lot less money than any of the 
other options, and we can do it with an American airplane; and we have 
blocked obsolescence before in the C-141s. If we had that problem, we 
will undermine our military capabilities. So this amendment in this en 
bloc is very important for us to move forward. And I commend the 
chairman and ranking member for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson).
  (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the en 
bloc amendments. I do have some reservations about one of the 
amendments included in it.
   I oppose the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from 
Washington State.
   DOE does not have the authority to reclassify, on its own, high 
level waste as low level waste. Yet, they proposed to do just that so 
that they could send some of this waste to WIPP. The $350 million DOE 
requested for the ``high level waste proposal'' cleanup projects 
included funds for activities that a Federal court has ruled violated 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
   To address this, we did two things: (1) We required an external 
scientific study (the National Academy of Sciences) before any laws 
regarding high level waste are rewritten; (2) We removed $100 million 
for activities clouded by litigation, but allowed for the possibility 
of reprogramming if additional funds are needed, and asked DOE to 
provide the House and Senate defense committees with a list of projects 
it feels it can proceed with and why.
   While my colleague's amendment retains the external scientific 
study, it restores DOE's high level waste cleanup funds to $300 million 
by transferring $50 million from the transportation capital fund for 
Air Force operations and maintenance.
   I continue to oppose this amendment. First, because this could have 
a negative effect on

[[Page H3425]]

a number of bases, including those in New Mexico, and, second, to the 
extent that this softens the message we sent to DOE that we do not want 
them reclassifying waste on their own.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member and 
the chairman for including in this en bloc amendment an amendment 
drafted by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and me.
  In essence, what our amendment does is ask the Department of Defense 
to study the availability of mental health services for our returning 
soldiers and their families. I have been to Walter Reed on many 
occasions, and we are providing outstanding physical health care and 
mental health care for those folks. But when people come back to their 
small rural towns, we need to make sure if they are suffering the 
emotional after-effects from the things they have seen and experienced, 
that they get the help they need, so they can return to their families, 
return to their work and not suffer lasting impacts.
  For 23 years before serving in Congress, I worked as a psychologist, 
often with veterans and in VA hospitals; and I know we can provide care 
that will help our warriors return home. We need to do that.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for making sure this will 
happen and look forward to working with them when the report is 
returned from the DOD.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, among the amendments included in the en 
bloc is an amendment known as the Hastings amendment.
  The Department of Energy requested $350 million for accelerated 
clean-up of defense sites, old nuclear weapons production sites, where 
some of the world's most radioactive nuclear waste is stored.
  The chairman's mark authorizes 250 of the $350 million that DOE asks 
for. I am glad to see us go close to at least 300. I wish we could have 
gone to 350. But the amendment before us does leave out the fence or 
the conditions or the limitations that DOE would have imposed.
  Both of these provisions, both the additional money taking us to $300 
million and the lack of any fence of conditions are steps in the right 
direction, and I commend the gentleman for his amendment and urge 
everyone to support it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for 
including my amendment in the en bloc amendments.
  My amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the 
backlog in rape and sexual assault evidence collection kits, reduce the 
processing time of those kits, and provide an adequate supply of those 
kits at all domestic and overseas military installations and military 
academies.
  This amendment is similar to legislation this House passed earlier 
with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) that uses DNA 
technology to really convict rapists and to put them behind bars.
  We know from the Department of Defense report that there are many 
kits that are gathering dust, that are not being processed. We know 
that rapists will strike up to eight times according to the FBI. They 
rate it the second worst crime preceded only by murder. And it is 
unconscionable that these are not being processed.
  This merely helps convictions and helps protect men and women in the 
military. I thank very much the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
for working to have this included.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore 
$50 million cut by the House Armed Services Committee from the 
Department of Energy's proposed nuclear waste cleanup budget.
  It is important that the Federal government meet its legal and 
contractual cleanup obligations.
  By returning $50 million to the Defense Site Acceleration Completion 
account, this amendment helps make certain that funds are available to 
ensure the Federal government continues the progress being made at 
cleaning up our Nation's nuclear waste sites.
  Although the Committee decreased the portion of the nuclear waste 
cleanup budget related to high-level liquid waste, the remainder of the 
cleanup budget was fully authorized by the Committee. I am grateful for 
the support shown for cleanup by Armed Services Committee Chairman 
Hunter and Subcommittee Chairman Everett. However, I offered this 
amendment because I believe Congress ought to make certain that the 
funds deemed necessary for cleanup next year by the Department of 
Energy, and included in the President's budget, are made available.
  The Committee's action to cut funding for high-level liquid waste 
cleanup comes after a Federal district court ruling on high-level 
waste. While agreement on this matter has not yet been realized between 
the Department of Energy and the States in which affected waste sites 
are located, I believe it is important for the Congress to make 
available the funding so that planned cleanup activity does not have to 
be postponed due to unavailability of funds.
  By adding back $50 million, my amendment helps advance cleanup 
progress next year.
  The Federal government has a responsibility--a responsibility under 
the law...a contractual responsibility with the affected States...and a 
moral responsibility--to cleanup its nuclear waste sites.
  At the Hanford cleanup site in my Washington State congressional 
district, there are 177 underground tanks containing more than 50 
million gallons of liquid waste that are affected by this funding.
  For many, those figures may be difficult to imagine--but for the 
people I represent in Washington State, the more than 50 million 
gallons of radioactive, nuclear waste is very real.
  The citizens of Washington State did not invite this waste into our 
State--in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, the Federal 
government moved farmers from their land and uprooted several small 
communities from a 586 square mile area along the Columbia River to 
make room for a top-secret effort that ultimately helped lead to an end 
of the Second World War, and over the decades that followed, to victory 
in the Cold War. The legacy of this nuclear production is the more than 
50 million gallons of liquid waste.

  It is the Department of Energy's obligation to cleanup these wastes--
and I will hold the Department responsible for getting this work done. 
I pushed this amendment to restore $50 million to the cleanup budget 
because it is essential that the funds be available to keep cleanup on 
track. I also firmly believe that the State of Washington must be 
involved in these decisions. I have opposed and will oppose any effort 
to force a solution on Washington State. Department of Energy officials 
have expressed their commitment not to pursue a change in the law that 
does not have the support of the affected states--and that commitment 
is constructive to resolving this matter.
  It has been my consistent view that the Department of Energy and 
States have a shared responsibility to resolve the current situation--
and I want to strongly reiterate that for the sake of cleaning up this 
massive volume of waste, reducing its potential threat to health and 
the environment, and to make certain cleanup progress is not 
jeopardized, that the sooner this matter is resolved, the better. I 
know the Department of Energy and States are committed to cleaning up 
these wastes--and continued disagreement only makes that shared goal 
more difficult. I will keep pushing for a resolution and I will 
continue working to make certain funds are available for cleanup work.
  I also want to express my great respect and appreciation to Mr. 
Simpson of Idaho and Mr. Barrett of South Carolina for the assistance 
and support they provided for this amendment and for success in adding 
$50 million to the cleanup budget.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by my esteemed colleague, Representative Doc Hastings 
of Washington. For over 50 years, the United Sates has stored the 
legacy of our Nation's nuclear weapons programs at sites throughout the 
Nation. For example, the Savannah River Site, which is located in my 
district, has 35 million gallons of radioactive nuclear waste in 49 
storage tanks. Like the Savannah River Site, other facilities 
throughout our Nation must ensure the American public is protected 
against the environmental risk

[[Page H3426]]

posed by such waste. However, we all bear this responsibility because 
this waste represents a security created on behalf of all Americans. As 
a result, this Congress has the duty to reduce the environmental risk 
posed by this waste in a safe, expeditious, and cost effective manner.
  A vote in favor of the Hastings amendment fulfills this obligation 
because it maintains the current accelerated cleanup schedules and 
saves the American taxpayers billions of dollars across our Nation's 
nuclear complexes. The problem of nuclear waste will not solve itself. 
There is no doubt the less priority we give to cleaning up our nuclear 
waste today, the greater costs we impose on the public tomorrow. The 
Hastings amendment responsibly places our country in a better position 
to fulfill its duty of expediting environmental cleanup to save costs 
in the long run.
  I urge my colleagues to support the American taxpayer by voting in 
favor of the Hastings amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to add my voice 
in support of the Baird-Kennedy amendment that will ensure that mental 
health services are available to our troops. Just like it would be 
crazy to send troops into a prolonged battle without medics and 
surgeons to tend to their physical wounds, it would also be 
inappropriate to send soldiers to the battlefield without support from 
professionals capable of dealing with their mental health issues. Poor 
mental health can hamper a soldier's ability to do his or her job, and 
can thus jeopardize the safety of comrades, and the success of the 
mission. Moreover, mental health issues can persist even after the 
soldier comes home, affecting their families, their workplace, our VA 
hospitals, and our society. Our troops deserve top-quality mental 
health services, for their own sake and for the sake of the Nation.
  Such support and resources must include adequate and appropriate 
mental health care to minimize the impact that the trauma of combat, 
separation from one's family, and other stresses associated with 
deployment have on the health of our troops. We also owe it to those 
who sacrifice for the country to give them every opportunity to return 
to their families intact, mentally as well as physically.
  In pursuit of these goals, this amendment to the House's National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 would require the Pentagon to 
conduct a comprehensive study of the availability, accessibility, cost 
and effectiveness of the mental health services available to U.S. 
military personnel deployed to combat theaters. In addition, it 
requires the Secretary to examine the post-deployment mental health 
screening procedures used for soldiers returning from combat theaters, 
as well as treatment availability for families of deployed 
servicemembers.
  This is a sensible approach to an important problem. We have seen in 
Abu Ghraib, and in recent reports of sexual promiscuity and abuse in 
our military--that the stresses of war can bring about behaviors and 
emotional responses that are fundamentally incompatible with American 
values and our mission overseas. We need to prevent these problems 
whenever possible, through mental health interventions, and treat 
victims when others go astray. First we need to find out the need for 
and availability of care.
  I commend my colleague from the Science Committee, Congressman Baird, 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, today is a significant day for 
families throughout the United States. Not just because the House of 
Representatives is passing the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005, but also because 3\1/2\ years of perseverance are 
beginning to pay off. Thanks to Chairman Duncan Hunter of the House 
Armed Services Committee, Chairman Chris Smith of the House Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, Chairman David Drier of the Rules Committee, their 
staffs, and mine, family members of those who are buried in an overseas 
United States military cemetery will finally have an avenue into the 
Department of Defense to present evidence that the decision to leave 
the remains of their loved ones overseas was based on a 
misunderstanding or error.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It gives families with 
loved ones buried in an overseas military cemetery a way to present to 
the Department of Defense that they should be allowed to bring the 
remains of their family member home and, if ultimately approved, to do 
so at no cost to the United States. There is a 2 year period from the 
date of enactment of this bill for application and I believe that 
amount of time is sufficient and fair. In the coming weeks as this bill 
moves into conference, I will be commenting on my amendment and what I 
believe a ``misunderstanding'' or ``error related to the disposition 
decision'' means. I merely wanted to take this opportunity to thank the 
respective chairmen and my colleagues for supporting my amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the Committee 
Chairman and Ranking Member for allowing this amendment to be 
considered. I have had great bipartisan support in raising this issue, 
most notably my colleague from California, Ms. Harman.
  My amendment directs placement of a memorial in Arlington National 
Cemetery honoring noncitizen service members killed in the line of duty 
while serving in the United States Armed Forces. The amendment 
designates the Secretary of the Army to coordinate and direct this 
effort. In addition, the amendment allows for the collection of private 
donations for design and construction, while restricting the use of 
Federal funds. It is no cost to the taxpayers and has no budgetary 
implications for the DoD bill. Finally, authority for accepting 
donations and pursuing the memorial expires 5 years after the date of 
enactment.
  Honoring our service members is a process that begins on the 
battlefield through ensuring that our troops have the best equipment 
and other essentials. It continues as we welcome them home upon 
returning from war, when we fly the POW-MIA flag, when we care for them 
and their families and, ultimately, when we lay them to rest with 
appropriate remembrance and tribute.
  Many American military heroes, past and present, were born outside of 
the United States. From the thousands of noncitizens who fought for our 
independence as a Nation, to those who fought for the Union Army during 
the Civil war, to the more than 36,000 noncitizen members of today's 
Armed Forces, these men and women have sacrificed for our country and 
the preservation of our precious freedom.
  Our country is united in its support for our service men and women 
who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom. 
As of the end of March, we have lost 24 noncitizen service members in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, including a member of my district, Lance 
Corporal Jesus Suarez Del Solar.
  It is time that we appropriately recognize their bravery, valor, and 
patriotism. Arlington, the Nation's premier military cemetery and 
shrine honoring the men and women who served in the Armed Forces, is a 
particularly fitting place for this tribute. I encourage you to support 
this bipartisan effort.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give bipartisan 
support to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, on his amendment 
to H.R. 4200, the Defense authorization bill. This proposal would allow 
for procurement officials within the Department of Defense to include 
the creation of jobs in the United States as an evaluation factor.
  The House Armed Services Committee and Chairman Hunter's office have 
reviewed this proposal and has found it to be acceptable.
  As Mr. Manzullo has indicated, procurement officials don't have the 
ability to consider whether procurement will add jobs or take away jobs 
from U.S. shores. They can't consider it in a Best Value determination 
and analysis of the impact on U.S. jobs is not part of acquisition 
planning schemes. The premise behind this proposal is to help our 
procurement agents to help the American job market and our workers by 
using taxpayer dollars to support them.
  The amendment is included as an evaluation factor and doesn't require 
vendors to create jobs here. It does, however, give an incentive to 
companies--foreign and domestic--to foster job creation here. It 
supports insourcing and gives the job-creators an edge in the 
evaluation process.
  For example, if there are multiple firms that are competing for a 
contract, companies that create jobs here in the United States get 
extra consideration versus those that don't. It becomes a competitive 
advantage. You can also have a solicitation where no firm creates jobs. 
Thus, the solicitation would be unaffected by the provision. Finally, a 
foreign firm could be in the final selection process with a domestic 
firm, where the foreign company wins the contract because they pledge 
to create jobs in the United States while the domestic company plans 
not to add any new jobs. Enforcement would be done by past performance 
evaluations.
  With this amendment, we would demonstrate that this Congress is 
committed to creating more jobs in the United States and providing the 
necessary environment to entice business to stay here.
  I am particularly concerned with the huge disparity that exists in 
the awarding of procurement contracts to minority and women-owned 
businesses--or M/WBEs here in the United States. Mr. Manzullo's 
amendment, if passed, would yield positive benefits that would work to 
repair this disparity by a significant margin.
  I offer as a snapshot of the disparity that exists on a nationwide 
scale a study of one State.
  A primary complaint heard from the business owners interviewed in 
connection with the study released in 2001 was that large firms tended 
to be favored for selection as

[[Page H3427]]

contractors because of their experience, size, certain bidding 
practices and selection procedures. Nonminority male firms were seen as 
the recipients of State contracts because a large percent of them had 
been in business longer, had more resources, and generated 
significantly greater revenues than M/WBEs. Some key examples are 
listed below:
  Discrepancies existed between the numbers of employees of M/WBEs 
compared to nonminority firms. Nine percent of M/WBEs had more than 50 
employees, whereas nonminority male firms had a more even distribution 
among the staff size categories, with 16 percent of nonminority male 
firms having more than 50 employees.
  Thirty-eight percent of the businesses earned $1 million or less in 
gross revenues for the year 2000. Twenty-three percent of nonminority 
male firms earned greater than $10 million, while 12 percent of 
nonminority women firms and 10 percent African American firms earned 
more than $10 million in 2000. A very small number of Native American 
firms were surveyed, thereby creating unreliable data. Nonetheless, of 
the 7 Native American firms surveyed, 2 (40 percent) of these firms had 
gross revenues greater than $10 million.
  African American firms had the highest percentage of applicants of 
any ethnicity for a business start-up loan. However, only 25 percent of 
the African American applications were approved at least once, while 
nonminority male firms had a success rate of 75 percent.
  Generally, M/WBEs were more likely to bid as subcontractors than were 
nonminority male firms. For example, 69 percent of African American 
firms reported bidding as a subcontractor 1 or more times since 1995. 
Even greater percentages were found for Hispanic American firms (100 
percent), Native American firms (100 percent), Asian American firms (80 
percent), and nonminority women-owned firms (78 percent). In contrast, 
fewer firms owned by nonminority males reported bidding as 
subcontractors during the study period (60 percent).
  Fifty-one percent of African American firms reported that it is 
commonplace for a prime contractor to include a minority subcontractor 
on a bid to meet the ``good faith effort'' requirement, and then drop 
the minority subcontractor after winning the award. Only 21 percent of 
nonminority women firms agreed with this statement. Nonminority male 
firms disagreed (51 percent) with this statement, as did Hispanic, 
Asian, and Native American respondents collectively (54 percent or 13 
out of 24).
  If we extrapolate the above data nationwide, the disparities show the 
clear need for the Manzullo amendment. Mr. Chairman, I support his 
amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 11 printed in House Report 108-499.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Wamp

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Wamp:
       At the end of title XXXI of the bill (page 556, after line 
     10), add the following new section:

     SECTION 3134. IMPROVEMENTS TO ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL 
                   ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       (a) State Agreements.--Section 3661 of the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 7385o) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``Pursuant to agreements 
     under subsection (a), the'' and inserting ``The'';
       (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``provided in an 
     agreement under subsection (a), and if''; and
       (3) in subsection (e) by striking ``If provided in an 
     agreement under subsection (a)'' and inserting ``If a panel 
     reports a determination under subsection (d)(5)''.
       (b) Selection of Panel Members.--Section 3661 of that Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 7385o) is further amended in subsection (d) by 
     amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     select individuals to serve as panel members based on 
     experience and competency in diagnosing occupational 
     illnesses. For each individual so selected, the Secretary 
     shall appoint that individual as a panel member or obtain by 
     contract the services of that individual as a panel 
     member.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Defense Authorization Act of 2001, which was 
actually signed into law in the fall of 2000 by President Clinton, 
included the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
Act, EEOICPA, which we wrote and passed to compensate workers who 
became ill as a result of their work in the Department of Energy 
facilities across the country. There are nine major sites affected, and 
I represent Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which handles the largest number of 
affected workers in the country.
  This is a critical issue for many of us, and we have been very 
involved for a number of years. The Department of Energy has had 
definite problems administering the program, and some of those programs 
are brought about by statutory issues that need to be remedied.
  Part B of this program is actually administered by the Department of 
Labor, and people affected qualify for $150,000 lump-sum payments. That 
has gone relatively smooth. But part D of this program is the DOE 
portion, and we have had numerous problems identified under subtitle B 
relative to the claims process, a lack of communication, long delays, 
et cetera.
  Now, the GAO, which we need to listen to in this case, has made 
recommendations for changes to the Department of Energy. The Department 
of Energy has made rules changes, but we now need statutory changes. 
And that is what this amendment actually addresses, three issues that 
cannot be done by rules. They need to be done by statute here in an 
amendment, and we have the full support of the Department of Energy; 
and the administration is asking that these three changes be adopted.
  Number one, this amendment eliminates the pay cap for physicians and 
lets the market set the rate. One of our problems today is that the 
statute sets physician pay at $69 an hour when, indeed, occupational 
medicine physicians are paid in the market $130 to $150 an hour. We do 
not have enough physicians to meet this caseload; and, therefore, we 
have a backlog. This will help us alleviate the backlog.
  Number two, this amendment eliminates restrictions on hiring 
authority. Today, the Department of Energy can only hire temporary or 
intermittent experts when, indeed, we need Federal and contract 
employees full time on the job to move this program forward. This has 
severely impaired DOE's ability to staff this necessary program and to 
move it smoothly.
  Thirdly, this amendment will eliminate the requirements that an 
application for a benefit can go forward if, indeed, the State has an 
agreement in place. Not all States do. Based on the feedback for the 
advocates of the program and the States at the local level, DOE is 
moving away from this requirement, and we need to statutorily change 
the legislation. This will affect 80 percent of the workers.
  With all due respect to a few people in this body that may be opposed 
to this, I know it does not do everything; but we shopped these issues 
around to the committees of jurisdiction, and this is all we could get. 
I would like to do more.
  There were amendments offered to the Committee on Rules that I said I 
would be happy to support. They were not ruled in order, and you do 
have some committees of jurisdiction weighing in.
  This is what we can do. And I hope that even though people will 
express their discontent today on the floor with the Department of 
Energy which we all have experienced because it is a very frustrating, 
very complicated program and there was great bipartisan cooperation in 
bringing it about, I hope that they can support this amendment in the 
final analysis because this clearly will help immediately many workers 
who are waiting in line. That is the bottom line.
  While it does not get to everyone, there are States that do not have 
agreements in place. They may not have a willing payer in their State 
or whatever the issue is. Eighty percent of the workers affected will 
be expedited if this amendment is adopted and

[[Page H3428]]

allows DOE to move forward, getting the physicians, hitting the panels 
on time, and making this program more effective. It is very 
complicated, but we need to make these changes today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for 
trying to fix the Sick Worker Compensation program at the Department of 
Energy. His State of Tennessee has 3,000 claims from sick workers 
pending, and I have two facilities in my district where workers are 
waiting for their claims to be processed.
  This amendment primarily increases the rate of pay for DOE to attract 
more doctors to review claims in the physicians panel, which is useful 
but does not fix structural flaws in this program.
  The GAO panel has found that even after claims go through a 
physicians panel, there is no willing payer and that by order from DOE, 
that is no one to pay these claims for at least 20 to 33 percent of 
valid claims.
  When there is no willing payer, as we have in States like Alaska, 
Colorado, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky, and we have workers in 
Nevada, construction workers in New Mexico, Idaho, California and in 
most other States that DOE cannot find willing payers, without a 
willing payer, workers who get a finding from the physicians panel will 
have a piece of paper from DOE saying their illness was caused by 
exposure to radiation at DOE sites, but they will not get paid.
  I support an amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland) that fixed this problem, but it was rejected by the 
Committee on Rules.
  DOE also does not have a clear mechanism to value claims, inviting 
additional litigation when the goal of Congress was to take DOE out of 
the business of fighting sick workers who have served our Nation by 
building our Cold War deterrent.
  This amendment does not fix that either. The Department of Energy's 
record is catastrophic. Two and a half years into the program, of the 
23,000 people who have applied for compensation, the Department of 
Energy has rejected 5 percent of them and completely processed about 6 
percent of them. In other words, 94 percent of applicants are still 
waiting for their cases to be addressed.
  Sick workers were told help was on the way. Four years later, DOE is 
projecting its caseload will not be completed for at least another 3\1/
2\ years. I reluctantly oppose this amendment, as it offers a minor 
technical fix to a program that remains structurally flawed. Throwing 
more money at DOE only rewards it for failing to compensate sick 
workers and will make it harder in the future to make real improvements 
to the program.
  There is a bipartisan amendment on the Senate side that I hope many 
of our colleagues will be able to support in conference. In the 
meantime, I reluctantly call on my colleagues to oppose the Wamp 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of time.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this 
amendment even though I know that it does not do all the things that we 
all want it to do, but because there is not sufficient jurisdiction 
here to take care of all the things in this bill.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman and my other colleagues 
who have constituents deeply affected by this for a real comprehensive 
solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague Representative Wamp, to modify the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). The 
modifications offered in this amendment will address current obstacles 
in addressing the backlog of cases needing review by physician panels 
under this program. The report for this bill notes, with bipartisan 
support, that such remedies were needed to allow timely physician 
review panel determinations. This amendment is a step forward toward 
assuring that workers receive the speedy assistance and, where found 
appropriate, compensation that we in Congress intended. therefore, I 
strongly support it.
  Yet I have to observe that this vote, while an important and positive 
step, is not by itself enough. I have had the fortune of knowing some 
of these workers personally and have become familiar with their 
frustration at the glacial pace of processing of their claims through 
the Department of Energy. One was Raymond Ruiz, a former worker at Los 
Alamos and a respected 2-term legislator in the State of New Mexico. 
His case was finally taken up by a physician panel, but he did not live 
long enough to receive compensation for his asbestos-related disease. 
Before his death his colleagues in the State legislature passed a joint 
memorial requesting reforms in this program. Other New Mexicans have 
applied under Part D of EEOICPA and most have been backlogged.
  In addition to this amendment we need to address three things in the 
implementation on this part of EEOICPA. First, we need to ensure that 
the management of the program is sound and effective. The Department of 
Energy has not created an acceptable track record. It is now working to 
improve its practices, but it is possible we may need to consider 
moving the program out of DOE, if that will speed up the appropriate 
resolution of claims. Second, we need to assure that medical 
determinations are speedy as well as proper. This amendment is a step 
in that direction, as are recent adjustments DOE has made to its 
procedures, but we may need to make other improvements to eliminate the 
backlog in a timely way. Third, we will need to address solutions to 
the cases in which ``willing payers'' are not available.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. But we still have 
work to do to ensure EEOICPA provides the help we in Congress intended 
for these workers. I look forward to considering additional idea, 
including insights from the General Accounting Office report currently 
in preparation, and ideas that may be discussed in the other body.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, this issue is not about moving the program to 
the Department of Labor. That is another issue for another day. That 
may come up at a later time. This is about making the program as it is 
currently written work much better. That is why I really hope that 
everybody that has a dog in this hunt will help us do this today.
  It is just one step forward, but it needs to be made short of 
sweeping reforms, which I know are pending before the Senate, but that 
is a whole different issue, and a lot of people have to get back in 
line and start over if that does happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the author of the amendment that 
I wish I could have supported.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, why do we not just do the right thing 
when it comes to this issue, just do the right thing, help all the 
workers who need help? I appreciate the effort of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) to improve this program, but I cannot support his 
amendment.
  Unfortunately, DOE's management of this program has been a miserable 
failure. After spending millions of dollars, they can only point to one 
claim having been paid through March of 2004. Not only is DOE's claims 
processing moving at a snail's pace, but by the Department's own 
admission, as many as 50 percent of the claimants may not have a 
willing payer. This means that regardless of how quickly DOE processes 
a claim, many sick workers will get nothing but an IOU.
  The gentleman from Tennessee's (Mr. Wamp) amendment does nothing to 
address this larger problem of a willing payer, which affects my 
constituents in Ohio and other nuclear workers in Alaska, Colorado, 
Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico, and we do not 
fully understand the

[[Page H3429]]

magnitude of this problem as GAO acknowledges that it is not possible 
to effectively audit DOE's databases.
  Meanwhile, I have a June 7, 2002, DOE letter saying that the 
Department is compiling a list of sites which would not have a willing 
payer. Nearly 2 years later, DOE's Under Secretary testified in the 
Senate, and I am quoting, ``DOE has proposed a study by the National 
Academies that would commence when sufficient cases have been through 
the State program to provide meaningful data regarding the finding of 
willing payers.''
  How long can DOE study this obvious problem? Enough is enough. If DOE 
will not face the problem, then it is our responsibility to take action 
because DOE apparently thinks that conducting a study is going to help 
sick workers.
  The Senate has been noted as working on an amendment in a bipartisan 
fashion. I went to the Committee on Rules with a simple amendment that 
would have made significant progress in resolving the willing payer 
issue. My amendment was not made in order. Processing claims more 
quickly falls far short of addressing the glaring flaws in this 
program.
  The intent of this program is not to compensate our Cold War veterans 
based on geography. We should be paying comprehensive reform of this 
program so that all meritorious claims can be paid in a timely manner.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Tennessee 
who is proposing this amendment has been very involved in Energy 
Employees Compensation issues and I thank him for that. Surely, in 
proposing this amendment, he has good intentions.
  However, because the amendment fails to accomplish real reform of the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, I must rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  It has been almost 3\1/2\ years since Congress passed the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. This bill was 
passed in an attempt to bring justice to the thousands of energy 
workers who incurred illnesses--in many cases deadly--as a result of 
their work at Department of Energy facilities. In my state of New 
Mexico, there are over 1,200 workers who have filed such claims.
  Yet after 3\1/2\ years, less than 3 percent of the cases filed with 
the Department of Energy have been processed. This means that the vast 
majority of the men and women who have filed claims through this 
program--many of whom will die before they ever see a compensation 
check--are being denied justice.
  Conversely, the Department of Labor has processed over 95 percent of 
the claims in its area of responsibility. DOE recognizes that it has 
failed yet now it wants more money. Surely I am not the only member on 
this floor who shudders at the prospect of throwing millions more at a 
department that has failed this program and these people for almost 4 
years.
  Unfortunately, this amendment does not include crucial components 
that are necessary for real reform. By real reform, I mean identifying 
a willing payer for all claims submitted by energy employees, taking a 
hard look at how DOE has spent money on the program so far with so few 
results, and addressing the reasons for the stark difference in 
progress on claims between the Department of Energy and the Department 
of Labor.
  If this amendment were part of a larger reform package, I may have 
looked upon it more favorably. I joined Representatives Strickland of 
Ohio, Udall of Colorado, Tauscher of California, and Cooper of 
Tennessee, in submitting an amendment to the Rules Committee that would 
have called upon the President to send legislation to Congress 
proposing a willing payer. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not 
make this amendment in order.
  Because this amendment falls so far short to real reform, I cannot 
vote for it. Passing this amendment without other crucial reform 
components rewards the Department of Energy for its failure. The 1,200 
people in New Mexico who have filed claims simply cannot afford the 
status quo.
  I recommend a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I support efforts to streamline the 
claims process for DOE workers seeking compensation for illnesses 
resulting from exposure to toxic substances and other hazardous 
materials, and I will vote in favor of the amendment.
  The changes in this amendment will not insure payments to claimants 
in states like Kentucky where there is no willing payor to cover 
compensation costs. DOE lacks the authority to direct the DOE 
contractors or their insurors who employed these workers at the Paducah 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant to pay compensation claims even if the claims 
are approved by DOE physicians panels. More important, the Paducah 
uranium enrichment plant is no longer a DOE-run facility. Plant 
operations were privatized in 1998 and DOE cannot direct that private 
operator, USEC, to pay claims approved by DOE physician panels. Only 
the current DOE contractor employees at Paducah will have a willing 
payor. So, depending on what state you live in, even if you prove that 
your illness is work-related, you may never receive a dime in 
compensation.
  Of the 23,000 claims filed with DOE, 2,874 were filed by my 
constituents because of illnesses they contracted while working at the 
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Those workers and thousands like them 
across the country deserve more.
  I do support the amendment because if Congress takes no other action 
this session repairing this program, this will at least help expedite 
the DOE claims process. But I think all former and current workers in 
the DOE complex would be much better served if we fixed the willing 
payor problem once and for all and moved the administration of the 
entire DOE program to the Department of Labor. That is still my goal as 
we look to the future.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 25 printed in House Report 108-499.


             Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Ryun of kansas

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
       At the end of title XII (page 432, after line 16), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 12_. MILITARY EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN SENIOR 
                   OFFICERS AND OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES AND 
                   TAIWAN.

       (a) Defense Exchanges.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     undertake a program of senior military officer and senior 
     official exchanges with Taiwan designed to improve Taiwan's 
     defenses against the People's Liberation Army of the People's 
     Republic of China.
       (b) Exchanges Described.--For the purposes of this section, 
     the term ``exchange'' means an activity, exercise, event, or 
     observation opportunity between Armed Forces personnel or 
     Department of Defense officials of the United States and 
     armed forces personnel and officials of Taiwan.
       (c) Focus of Exchanges.--The senior military officer and 
     senior official exchanges undertaken pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall include exchanges focused on the following, 
     especially as they relate to defending Taiwan against 
     potential submarine attack and potential missile attack:
       (1) Threat analysis.
       (2) Military doctrine.
       (3) Force planning.
       (4) Logistical support.
       (5) Intelligence collection and analysis.
       (6) Operational tactics, techniques, and procedures.
       (d) Civil-Military Affairs.--The senior military officer 
     and senior official exchanges undertaken pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall include activities and exercises focused 
     on civil-military relations, including parliamentary 
     relations.
       (e) Location of Exchanges.--The senior military officer and 
     senior official exchanges undertaken pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall be conducted in both the United States and Taiwan.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``senior military officer'' means a general or 
     flag officer of the Armed Forces on active duty.
       (2) The term ``senior official'' means a civilian official 
     of the Department of Defense at the level of Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense or above.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my colleague the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for her help in cosponsoring this 
amendment and her continuing efforts to seek a peaceful and stable 
Pacific Rim. I also want to thank the DOD for their support of this 
amendment.
  Taiwan is facing a very difficult situation. With a clear and rapidly 
modernizing threat across the straits, I am concerned that Taiwan is 
increasingly unable to provide a credible deterrent. Unfortunately, 
this is due, in part, to current U.S. policy.

[[Page H3430]]

  Although Taiwan has access to U.S. military hardware, it faces two 
substantial hurdles in being defensively self-sufficient. Taiwan has 
difficulties integrating these new systems into its current forces, and 
Taiwan has difficulties prioritizing its own defense needs. Senior 
officer/official educational exchanges would help fix both problems.
  This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to initiate 
these senior officer/official educational exchanges with Taiwan. To be 
held both in the United States and Taiwan, these programs would focus 
on antisubmarine warfare, ballistic missile defense and C4ISR 
improvements, the three fields the U.S. Department of Defense says 
Taiwan needs the most assistance. At the same time, this amendment 
would provide the Secretary discretion on whom to send to Taiwan and 
under what circumstances.
  Currently, the Department of Defense is prohibited from sending to 
Taiwan general officers and DOD officials at the deputy assistant level 
or above. I understand that this is a unique restriction placed only on 
Taiwan. This restriction is even more surprising, given that Taiwan is 
one of our democratic allies.
  Our commitment to ensuring a peaceful resolution between China and 
Taiwan must not be just talk. By allowing senior military officers/
officials exchanges, we will be encouraging greater Taiwanese self-
sufficiency and provide for greater political stability across the 
Straits.
  I ask support for Taiwan through the support of the Ryun-Bordallo 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Yes, I am in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, in 1939, this body took action refusing to 
upgrade and arm the harbor in Guam. The Japanese Empire took that 
action as being in a position of not wanting to defend in the Pacific. 
We all know what happened later in 1941.
  This amendment is a dangerous amendment. The State Department of the 
United States of America is against it. It says that the proposed 
amendment interferes with the President's constitutional authority to 
conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.
  It would not enhance Taiwan's security. We already have an effective 
mechanism for ensuring Taiwan's security. It is called the Taiwan 
Relations Act passed in 1979.
  Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of this House, at a hearing and a 
briefing just a few days ago before the Committee on Armed Services, 
said that the two most dangerous areas in the world are Pakistan and 
the Taiwan Straits. He said that is a very dangerous area, and I 
understand what he said, because if we are not careful, we can send a 
terrible message to Taiwan.
  Read this amendment. Let me tell my colleagues what it says. It shall 
include exchanges focused on the following, especially as they relate 
to defending Taiwan against potential submarine attack and potential 
missile attack, threat analysis, military doctrine, force planning, 
logistical support, intelligence collection and analysis, operational 
tactics, techniques and procedures.
  My goodness, we are inviting a conflict, I think, very, very well. We 
are making a severe step in that direction. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say DOD 
strongly supports this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. 
Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun) in offering an amendment to improve military 
education exchanges between Taiwan and the United States. Given our 
commitment to ensure the peaceful settlement of differences between 
Taiwan and mainland China, it only makes sense that we remind the 
Chinese at every possible opportunity that war is not an option. By 
hosting Taiwanese military officers and by sending our own military 
leadership to Taiwan, we reinforce the bonds of friendship and defense.
  The opportunity for dialogue between military planners provided in 
this amendment will help the Taiwanese Government to have a good net 
assessment of the strategic situation in the Taiwan Straits.
  It is my fervent hope that these military exchanges will also provide 
a boost to civil-military relations between our two nations. Our model 
of civilian control of the military within a democratic society is one 
that Taiwan has truly adopted as its own. Other nations in the region 
could benefit from the stability of such a system.
  Given Guam's proximity to Taiwan, it is a logical place to host these 
military exchanges. Andersen Air Force Base and the Command Naval 
Headquarters Marianas have excellent conference and training 
facilities. The Department of Defense has identified knowledge of 
submarine operations as a key improvement area for the Taiwanese 
military. Given that forces from Guam, including our home-ported 
submarines, would be involved in any joint operations with Taiwan, it 
only makes sense that we work closely together.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is an 
expression of our friendship with the people of Taiwan.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for my two 
colleagues, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and the gentlewoman 
from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), but we have a great stake in impartial 
diplomacy when it comes to Taiwan and China at every level.
  I think that I am one of the Members who has been to Taiwan more than 
anybody else, at least 40 times because of the business we do with 
them, and I love the people of Taiwan. I have traveled extensively in 
the Far East on military trade missions and love the people of both 
China and Taiwan.
  Taiwan is still working through a very divisive presidential election 
which has only further strained the relationship with China, and of 
course, we were able to see democracy in action by the people of Taiwan 
voting.
  As one of the few Americans who has traveled to North Korea and 
talked to officials there, I remind Members, we have multiple dangerous 
strategic concerns in that area, and China has been kind enough to help 
us set those meetings with Japan, South Korea and the United States.
  So I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much 
time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I appreciate all the comments from both sides of this debate, and Mr. 
Chairman, Taiwan is our friend, and these are people of freedom who 
fought for freedom and who recessed to that island across the straits 
to maintain a free society. We have many relationships now with 
Mainland China that are very clear economic relationships in principle. 
We reserve the right to have friends, and encompassed in that 
friendship is the right to have our military establishment relate and 
interrelate with their military establishment. That is not a bad thing, 
and that is very simply what the Ryun amendment does.
  I have read the statement by DOD that they support it. They say the 
requirement for a senior official/officer education and training 
program is supportable. The amendment properly focuses on areas in the 
defense of Taiwan which pose greatest threats, submarines and missiles.
  We know that greater China is acquiring a vast military arsenal, much

[[Page H3431]]

of it being acquired with their vast surplus of trade cash. It is 
absolutely appropriate that we maintain this friendship with Taiwan and 
in that friendship engage our military leadership, and I would support 
the amendment.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and 
I rise in opposition to this amendment because it can potentially 
impact a very important part of the world for this country. It impacts 
not only trade, not only national security, but also cultural exchange 
programs.
  As a Member, like my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) 
that has done extensive travel to both China and to Taiwan, the issues 
that we are talking about here are important issues for them to 
resolve. It can potentially upset the One China policy that we all 
recognize and respect.
  It is opposed by the State Department, jeopardizes our One China 
policy. It creates perhaps another political crisis area at a time we 
can least afford it.
  So I rise in opposition of this amendment, and I urge its defeat.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me say first that this amendment is not about friendship. We are 
clearly friends with the People's Republic of China and the people of 
Taiwan, and let there be no mistake about that. Let me also say that 
this amendment is not about military exchanges, because they are 
already authorized under the Taiwan Relations Act.
  What this amendment does that is new is requires a higher level of 
exchanges between high-level military personnel and high-level civilian 
personnel, which has never, to date, been authorized by any 
administration.
  So I think this is clearly an amendment that is interfering with a 
very delicate balance that exists with regard to our One China policy. 
It is opposed by the State Department, it is opposed by the National 
Security Council members, and employees who work with China. One of 
them said, ``This is unhelpful to the national interest. It could 
backfire. It works against our purpose.''
  I urge Members to leave this matter in the hands of our President, to 
allow him to do this. Never have we required these higher-level visits, 
which to date have never been approved. I urge opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Ryun/
Bordello Taiwan Military Exchange amendment.
  Military exchanges can advance our national security when they 
enhance the military professionalism of an ally and foster important 
relationships between senior military officials. I know the value of 
these exchanges because I served as a civilian language instructor in 
Haiti where I taught French and Creole at our Navy military mission to 
U.S. Marines, and also taught English to Haitian military officers and 
enlisted personnel at the Haitian military academy. As I witnessed in 
Haiti, our national security is enhanced when our senior officers share 
their expertise with their colleagues from other nations.
  The great difficulty that I have with this amendment is the faulty 
premise that the United States should develop a military alliance with 
Taiwan. In my view, the pursuit of closer military ties with Taiwan 
sends in inflammatory and dangerous message to China that does not 
promote our national security or stability in this region. The 
diplomatic ambiguity of the one-China policy has served our nation 
well. The promotion of military exchanges with Taiwan, however, will 
destabilize the region and could very well bring us one step closer to 
hostilities.
  I encourage my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Our relationships 
with China and Taiwan are complex and nuanced, and the region is still 
tense after the recent Taiwan referendum. At this critical time, we 
should not take any action that could be interpreted as promoting 
Taiwan independence. I am greatly concerned, however, that the 
enactment of the Ryun/Bordello amendment would send a clear, but 
misguided, signal that will undermine peace.
   Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Ryun amendment.
   This amendment seeks to allow for educational exchanges between high 
level military officials from the Republic of China on Taiwan, and 
those in our own country. The amendment will help to improve Taiwan's 
self-defense capabilities, and enhance stability in the region.
   The inclusion of this amendment is critical to assist the Republic 
of China on how best to organize and prioritize their defense needs, 
and how to integrate new defensive systems. The amendment also seeks 
how best to accelerate and facilitate existing educational exchange 
programs by involving more senior participants and reaching broader 
audiences.
   For many years Taiwan has been one of our closest friends in an 
increasingly dangerous part of the world. Over the last several years, 
Taiwan has evolved into a pluralistic, free, and democratic society--
despite the constant threat of military force from Communist China, and 
international diplomatic isolation. As members of the growing family of 
free nations, the people of Taiwan deserve our cooperation and support.
   Mr. Chairman, the Republic of China on Taiwan is a free and 
democratic country, and has been a long-standing ally of the United 
States for the better part of a century. The passage of this amendment 
can only serve to enhance that alliance.
   I hope that today this House will resist the efforts of the 
Communist government in Beijing to engineer the defeat of this 
important amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that in the future we can 
enact additional measures to improve and enhance our relationship with 
the government of Taiwan.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). All time has expired. The 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Ryun) will be postponed.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barrett of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Upton, 
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________