[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.
____________________