[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3445-H3457]
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 (Mr. Knollenberg). 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} 1458
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. Upton (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, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 108-499, offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Ryun), had been postponed.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the
leadership and hard work of Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton
in producing this Defense Authorization.
I'd also like to thank my distinguished colleague from Washington,
Congressman Baird, for offering this amendment with me.
In March, we heard about a higher suicide rate for our troops in Iraq
than elsewhere. We've heard about problems with morale.
We're all committed to maximizing our troops' effectiveness. To keep
them in fighting shape, we've got to safeguard their psychological
resiliency.
We know from past experience, articles in the press, and meeting
personally with our returning troops the difficulties of readjusting to
civilian life after duty in a combat area.
They're troubled by anxiety and sleeplessness bred by the hyper-
vigilance required in combat. At its utmost worst, the ravages of war
on a person's psyche may change them completely from those who knew
them before, manifesting itself in depression, drug abuse, domestic
violence, or suicide--we need to protect our troops from that.
The intensity and nature of ground combat and urban warfare our
troops face may produce some of the most lingering scars of war, those
that lie beneath the skin: The emotional and the psychological.
And the stress and emotional hardship our military families cope with
may not necessarily end with the return of their loved ones.
Our Nation and our Department of Defense need to address these needs
and with this amendment, we make sure that they will.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Cunningham for his leadership
on this issue, and rise in strong support of the Cunningham-Harman
amendment.
Let me tell you a story about four exceptional people who shared
several things in common. What are the things that Jose Gutierrez,
Jesus del Suarez, Francisco Martinez-Flores, and Jose Garibay had in
common? They all loved this country, they all served in the U.S. Marine
Corps, and they all died fighting for this country in Iraq. Something
else they shared, Mr. Chairman--none of them were U.S. citizens.
The amendment we are now considering appropriately recognizes these
four young men and the thousands of other noncitizens whose service and
ultimate sacrifice often goes overlooked.
Based on legislation that Representative Cunningham and I introduced
last fall, this amendment authorizes construction of a memorial at
Arlington National Cemetery honoring the noncitizens killed in the line
of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Many of our military heroes, past and present--from the American
Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond--were, like Jose,
Jesus, Francisco and Jose--born outside of the United States. In fact,
an estimated 20 percent of Medal of Honor recipients--the Nation's
highest military honor--are immigrants.
Among the hundreds of U.S. service men and women we have lost in
Iraq, at least 24 are foreign-born.
A quote etched at Arlington's Memorial Amphitheater translates from
Latin to read, ``It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.''
Those words hold just as true for our foreign-born patriots who have
served and made the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted country.
Our amendment honors the memory of these young men and all of our
noncitizen heroes. It is the least we should do for them, their
families and in acknowledgement of their sacrifice.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Cunningham. The amendment would
honor noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S.
Armed Forces with a memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.
Throughout American history, foreign-born men and women have served
in our military, standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S. citizens in
defense of our Nation. Today, there are over 36,000 noncitizens serving
in our Armed Forces. Tragically, in the first year of the war in Iraq
alone, 24 of these brave service members made the ultimate sacrifice,
giving their lives for their adopted country.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that we can never fully express our
gratitude for the service and sacrifice these heroes have made.
However, establishing a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in
their honor is a fitting way to show the appreciation of a grateful
Nation for the thousands of people who have come to this great country
and given their lives for America.
I thank my colleague from California for offering this amendment, and
I urge all of my colleagues to give it their strong support.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, while I voted against the resolution
authorizing the war with Iraq and whole-heartedly disagree with the way
this administration has handled the conflict in Iraq, I strongly
support our troops. Congress has been unwavering in its support for our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, passing resolutions and giving speeches
praising their sacrifice and courage. However, such words are hollow if
Congress does not proceed with real action. For that reason, I have
supported legislation in the past and will support the bill in front of
us today because it provides our tireless troops with the benefits they
so rightfully deserve.
This bill will make long-overdue changes to the current military pay
and benefit rules for all members of the Armed Services. Among other
things, this legislation will make permanent the increases in ``combat
pay,'' the Family Separation Allowance and hardship duty pay that
Congress passed on a temporary basis last year. More than any tax cut
ever could, these increased benefits will provide substantive relief to
the soldiers and their families in their time of need.
This bill also recognizes the vital contribution that reservists have
made to our country's military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indeed, our country has not depended on the members of the Reserve
forces and National Guard as much as we do now since the Korean war.
This bill appropriately ensures that, after uprooting these men and
women from their lives and putting them in the line of fire, they do
not return home without adequate benefits. This bill extends healthcare
coverage to National Guard members and reservists and their families
who lack health insurance. It also provides pay parity to reservists,
ensuring that reservists are paid the same bonuses and special pay as
active duty members are.
Not only does passing this bill keep our commitment to our troops, it
also importantly keeps the promise we made to our country's veterans
years ago. For years, the widows of veterans have unfairly seen their
survivor benefit decrease after the age of 62, even though in many
cases, retirees and survivors were never informed of the reduction when
they signed up for the plan. This bill would rightly eliminate the
reduction in the Survivor Benefit Plan annuities, thereby upholding our
country's commitment and restoring the faith of our veterans who were
unaware of the reduction.
While I do not believe this bill is perfect, I cannot in good faith
turn my back on the courageous men and women who have so valiantly
served to preserve the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and protect our
safety at home. Also, I am pleased to vote for a bill that delivers on
a promise that we made to veterans and their families years ago--to
provide surviving spouses the full benefits they deserve and the
benefits that were promised to them.
[[Page H3446]]
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this defense
authorization bill. We are voting today on another bloated Pentagon
budget full of wasteful and irresponsible spending. It seeks billions
more for Iraq without mention of an exit strategy. It does not go far
enough to help our troops who continue to fight in harms way.
This bill continues to waste billions on the development of
ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big
defense contractors. It authorizes $10.2 billion on pie in the sky
missile defense, a $1 billion increase over last year. Yet, this
unproven cold war concept does not address the very real security
threat posed by weapons of significant magnitude that are readily
delivered in a suitcase or cargo container.
This bill also throws money at building up nuclear weapon
capabilities for use in conventional warfare. It authorizes $28 million
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or ``nuclear bunker buster
bomb'' and $9 million for research on so-called low-yield nuclear
weapons to be deployed in combat. The bill also provides nearly $30
million to replace plutonium pits in existing nuclear warheads without
evidence that such upgrades are necessary.
This rush to nuclear weapons development won't deter terrorists or
rogue nations like North Korea. It challenges them to answer in kind,
especially as the Bush administration pursues its belligerent policy of
preemption. It also undermines cooperative efforts to stop the
proliferation of destructive weapons that keep them out of the hands of
those who would do us harm.
There is no question that this money is better spent securing uranium
stockpiles, assisting cooperative threat reduction and advancing
nonproliferation programs. But Republicans seem content to take that
gamble with our national security and the cooperative security of the
world.
This bill also authorizes the President's request for $25 billion for
Iraq. Make no mistake, our troops in Iraq deserve all the support we
can provide to keep them safe. But, as their deployments are extended
and hostilities increase, our troops also deserve to know our exit
strategy. Even after the June 30 transfer of power, 135,000 troops will
remain on the ground, in the words of General Myers, ``for the
foreseeable future.''
There's no question that America can't cut and run, but the American
people ought to know what lies ahead and at what cost. We've spent $166
billion thus far in Iraq without any clear strategy. Earlier this year,
the administration said they didn't need any money. The President
didn't account for anything in his budget. Now, they say they only need
$25 billion.
But, if you tally up what will be required for over the coming year,
this just isn't enough. When you consider the over $4 billion we spend
each month and the cost of replenishing needed equipment, the price tag
is closer to $66 billion. I'm not sure how any American can be
confident that we're really being told what is required. Yet, it is
clear that we can no longer shoulder this effort alone and must move to
share the responsibility with our major allies.
Even as Republicans move forward to authorize this $25 billion for
Iraq, they refuse to accept quality of life and force protection
initiatives to help our troops. They refused to allow an amendment
providing targeted pay raises to retain our forces. They shot down
funding to test countermeasures to improvised explosive devices that
continue to take the lives and limbs of our troops in Iraq. And they
dismissed a proposal to provide free life insurance for soldiers
serving in harms way.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this wasteful and irresponsible
bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means,
an accounting for what is truly required in Iraq, and the best possible
support we can provide our troops.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address provisions
contained in section 2841 of H.R. 4200 that authorizes a transfer of 38
acres in the District of Columbia from the Department of Navy to the
General Services Administration for the purpose of housing the
Department of Homeland Security at the Navy Complex on Nebraska Ave.
First let me say I support the commitment of the Department of
Homeland Security to remain in the District of Columbia and commend
Secretary Ridge for his personal involvement in this decision. Since
the Department was created two years ago I have worked with both the
Department and the General Services Administration to identify suitable
space in the District to house the new department, and am delighted
that for now and until the Transportation Committee reviews and
approves its housing plans, they will be housed at the Naval Complex on
Nebraska Ave.
However, I do have objections, and these are bi-partisan objections
shared with my colleagues on the Transportation Committee, about
authority contained in section 2841 that transfers the Naval property
into the GSA inventory.
Section 2841 transfers the property to the General Services
Administration using the phrase ``administrative jurisdiction,'' rather
than the more traditional and routinely used phrase ``custody and
control.''
Mr. Chairman, by way of background, officials from the White House,
Office of Management and Budget, The Department of Homeland Security,
General Services Administration and the Navy agreed to a three step
approach whereby: (1) the Nebraska Ave. Complex would be transferred to
GSA; (2) GSA would lease the space to Homeland Security; and (3) the
Navy would be made whole for the expenses associated with its move from
the site. In fact in February of this year these officials met with
Transportation Committee staff, on a bi-partisan basis, to review the
details of this approach.
This provision reflects that approach, except that the property
should be transferred to the full custody and control of the
Administrator of GSA. The reason for this change is quite simple.
According to GSA's lawyers, administrative jurisdiction is undefined
and thus open to interpretation regarding the bundle of rights and
responsibilities associated with use and ownership of property in the
GSA inventory. Such uncertainties associated with the transfer of
responsibility for property inevitably lead to delays based on
different legal interpretations and often to litigation.
For example, the ability of GSA to operate, maintain, and protect
buildings is for buildings under the custody and control of the
Administrator, but the ability to perform these activities is unclear
for facilities under administrative jurisdiction. Further, the ability
to assign and reassign space is for those buildings under the custody
and control of the Administrator, but it is unclear that the
Administrator would preserve the complex for federal purposes under
``administrate jurisdiction.'' Finally, the application of NEPA and
historic preservation provisions are unambiguous for buildings under
the custody and control of the Administrator but would not apply for
buildings under the administrative jurisdiction.
Needless to say, a simple remedy of inserting ``custody and control''
will clarify any use or ownership circumstances that could affect these
38 valuable acres in my District.
My staff has been working with staff from the House Armed Services
Committee on a freestanding bill that will make this section obsolete.
On a bi-partisan basis, we believe there is a way to deal with this
issue. Once we reach agreement on appropriate and legally sufficient
language we hope this agreement will be reflected in the DOD conference
report.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, today, our nation is at war--a war that
should never have been started, a war without an exit strategy, a war
without allies, and a war I will continue to oppose. Congress ought to
be debating these issues--now! But what is not debatable is the fact
that all of us in Congress support our dedicated men and women serving
in harm's way.
This bill is not perfect--and includes many very bad provisions. This
hulking bill, authorizing well over half of our nation's spending every
year, has often been the culprit in funding dangerous cost overruns and
government spending waste.
Just like last year's Defense Authorization bill, this bill
authorizes previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons.
The bill also authorizes $28 million to study the feasibility of
developing a high-yield, earth penetrating nuclear weapon to destroy
hardened and deeply buried targets.
Another troubling provision is the approval of the administration's
request of $10.2 billion for ballistic missile defense programs--$1.1
billion, or 13 percent more than the current level. The total includes
funding for the initial deployment of a national missile defense system
based in Alaska and California. In today's world of terrorist cells
scattered around the globe, this $10.2 billion expenditure is a
wasteful boondoggle left over from another time.
There were many good provisions that the Republican Leadership would
not even allow the People's House to debate and vote on. These
Democratic amendments related to the war in Iraq, and dealt with
important issues, such as why money is going to the Iraqi National
Congress despite repeatedly bad intelligence from them, affirmations of
the Geneva Convention and training requirements, support for Reserves
and National Guard, and the need for greater international military
support. Shutting out a full debate on these issues is a great failing
of this bill.
Possibly most troubling is the lack of oversight Congress is
exercising in this bill. Since the spring of 2003, Congress has
appropriated more than $166 billion for the war efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Since the last supplemental measure, the administration
had been claiming additional funds would not be needed until next year.
Unbelievably, the President's FY 2005 defense authorization request, in
fact, contained no money for Iraq operations.
[[Page H3447]]
However, the worsening situation in Iraq forced the White House last
week to ask for an additional $25 billion for operations there this
year--and the Armed Services Committee authorized the funding with
little discussion on the floor.
In essence, the President of the United States hasn't been honest
with either the Congress or the American people about what this war is
costing, and what funding he needs in the months, and potentially
years, to come. The Congress missed a golden opportunity to discuss and
debate the substance of the nation's deepening descent into Iraqmire.
Despite these shortcomings, the bill contains many important
provisions that are essential to our soldier's serving in combat. I
strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, special
pay and bonuses for reservists and active duty personnel, and improved
housing provisions. The bill also includes an authorization for
additional body armor and armored Humvees, which have been, tragically,
in short supply over the last year in Iraq.
I am very happy that after many of us have struggled for years to end
the Survivor Benefit Penalty, the Republican Leadership has finally
relented in this bill. Democrats have worked with veterans' and
military officers' organizations to press for the elimination of the
social security offset under the SBP by increasing the annuities paid
to survivors of military retirees who are 62 or older from 35 percent
of retired pay to 55 percent. This is a major victory for our nation's
military retirees and their spouses.
In addition, this bill contains a 2-year delay of the Base
Realignment and Closure process (BRAG), which I strongly support. This
delay in the BRAC process is important to all of us in San Diego, and
we all need to stand up to the President's desire to complete the next
round of base closings as soon as possible. I hope the final bill
stands up to the Presidential blustering threats of veto.
Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this bill because it keeps faith with
our men and women in uniform, serving in combat halfway around the
world.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill we are
considering today. A major issue of concern is the additional $25
billion authorized for military operations in Iraq gives the Pentagon a
blank check to spend the money as it sees fit. The Secretary of Defense
wants unfettered flexibility in the disposition of these funds free
from Congressional oversight. As Bob Woodward's book details, the
administration cannot be trusted to seek Congressional approval to
reprogram resources. The administration secretly moved approximately
$200 million out of Afghanistan operations into Iraq war planning in
2002 without the approval of Congress. There must be more Congressional
oversight in this $422 billion bill.
Additionally, I am, frankly, disappointed in the work of the House
Armed Services Committee to address several key issues, especially the
lack of attention given to the problem of sexual assault and abuse
within military circles. I appreciate the efforts of Representatives
Skelton and Slaughter to make improvements in this area, but I think we
could have done better.
This measure allows the Pentagon to continue to do business as usual.
I find that unacceptable; therefore, I cast my vote against this
measure. I am hopeful that a better bill will emerge from conference
when the House meets with the other body to iron out a compromise
agreement.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have strong reservations about
this bill, but I will support it.
We are three years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in
military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no doubt that we must
continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must
support our military personnel, and we must give our military the
training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the
world.
In particular, we must respond to the needs of our men and women in
uniform in Iraq as they struggle against a persistent and dangerous
insurgency with too few troops and inadequate supplies.
That's why I'm in favor of increasing protection for our troops in
Iraq through funding provided in the bill for expedited production of
armored Humvees, body armor, and armored trucks. And I'm also in favor
of provisions in the bill authorizing the largest increase in military
end-strength in decades--increasing active duty Army by 30,000
personnel and the Marine Corps by 9,000. Our army is overstretched, and
we can't and shouldn't continue to rely on National Guard, reservists,
and private contractors to fill in the gaps. I'm pleased also that the
bill includes provisions--such as the continuing extension of TRICARE
coverage--to ease the particular hardships that our campaign in Iraq
has
The bill includes provisions authorizing $25 billion in response to
the president's most recent supplemental budget request for the war in
Iraq. The costs of our Iraq mission continue to skyrocket, adding to
our ballooning federal deficit and shortchanging domestic programs. But
these costs must be paid. So I am encouraged that this bill doesn't
give the president a blank check. Instead, it breaks down the $25
billion and specifies that certain amounts be spent on operations and
maintenance, personnel, and weapons procurement.
I support the BRAC provisions in the bill. BRAC is an important
process that has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. But
no process should go forward blindly, without taking into account
changing facts on the ground. In my view, given the uncertainty of the
current wartime environment, it makes sense to give Congress time to
consider what resources our military might need in the future. We are
still making decisions regarding the number of troops needed in Europe
and Asia and where they should be located. Many of them may return to
the U.S. This bill itself increases troop strength by 39,000--and it
isn't clear how this increased end-strength will figure in to the next
BRAC round. The Department of Defense is still completing its global
posture review, yet as reported by CongressDaily recently, DoD
officials have no plans to share the review with Congress. Yet that
review no doubt informs the BRAC process in ways that Congress needs to
understand.
So I think it's important for Congress to have a year to review
reports from DoD on its global basing strategy and its infrastructure
needs.
I'm also in favor of provisions in the bill establishing new rules
for the interrogation of prisoners and commending the actions of Joseph
Darby, the brave soldier who first notified authorities of the prisoner
abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.
The bill also provides for our men and women in uniform an across-
the-board pay increase of 3.5 percent, boosts military special pay and
extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working
facilities on military installations. These are all necessary and
important provisions that I support.
I do have a number of serious reservations about the bill.
I don't believe it addresses 21st century threats as well as it
could. With the exception of the Crusader artillery system and the
Comanche helicopter, the Administration and Congress have continued
every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So
although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 18 percent
higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent
vision of how to realign our defense priorities.
I am strongly opposed to the authorization of $10 billion to deploy a
missile defense system that doesn't work and that wouldn't protect
against the terrorist threats that we face today.
And I'm strongly opposed to the funding provided in the bill to study
the feasibility of developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and to
authorize previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons.
Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five kilotons or
less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb dropped on
Hiroshima. Our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to work towards nuclear
disarmament, rather than further increase the size and diversity of our
arsenal. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons at
the same time that we are trying to convince other nations to forego
obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the fight to
stop nuclear proliferation.
I also was disappointed in the way the bill was handled here on the
floor of the House.
Not only was inadequate time allowed for debating this important and
far-reaching measure, the House was prevented from even considering
amendments on some aspects of the bill--such as the missile defense
system--or was able only to consider amendments that were too narrow in
scope.
An example of the latter is the amendment by my friend from
Tennessee, Mr. Wamp.
The Wamp amendment is well-intentioned, and by itself it would do no
harm. So, it is not surprising that it was adopted by a voice vote.
However, I am concerned that adoption of the amendment may send the
wrong signal to the Administration and to the Cold War warriors it is
supposed to help.
The amendment would change one small part of the compensation program
established by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act (EEOICPA).
Originally enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense
Authorization Act, that compensation program is split into two parts.
One is administered by the Department of Labor for workers exposed to
radiation, beryllium and silica. It has worked fairly well--something
that can't be said about the second part.
[[Page H3448]]
The second part, commonly referred to as Subtitle D, is administered
by the Department of Energy and covers workers exposed to radiation,
and other toxic hazards.
Under Subtitle D, DOE is required to use physicians panels to
evaluate whether an illness is work related, and relies upon state
workers' compensation programs to assure payments for wage loss and
medical benefits.
The Wamp amendment would fine-tune the way the physicians' panels
work and smooth the linkage to state workers' compensation programs.
But these are marginal changes at best--and they would do nothing to
fix the most serious problem with Subpart D.
That problem is that, by DOE's own admission, for too many people
Subpart D simply will not work.
In fact, as many as 50 percent of claimants may find that even if a
physicians panel finds their illness is covered, there is no ``willing
payer'' that will follow through by providing compensation. Colorado is
one of the states where this can happen, along with Ohio, Iowa, Alaska,
Kentucky, Missouri, and other states.
The GAO recognizes this ``willing payer'' issue is one that cannot be
ignored. The federal government should not make compensation under the
program depend on geography. EEOICPA needs to be amended to make sure
that doesn't happen.
Furthermore, so far DOE has processed fewer than 2 percent of its
caseload under Subpart D. In fact, I am told that as of March of this
year, there were approximately 22,000 claims pending--and only ONE had
been paid, even though DOE had spent approximately $50 million to
administer this part of the law. On the other hand, the Department of
Labor has processed 97 percent of its 52,000 claims it has received and
issued over $825 million in payments and medical benefits.
The Wamp amendment well might improve DOE's claims processing--which
certainly need improving. But it will not guarantee payments for
meritorious claims in Colorado and other states across the nation. Too
many of our cold war veterans are headed down a dead end street.
Speeding the trip isn't the answer--we need to change the route.
The Wamp amendment won't do that. That was why I hoped the House
would have been able to consider the amendment filed by my friend from
Ohio, Mr. Strickland.
The Strickland amendment would have required the President to submit
to Congress a proposal for legislation to establish a Federal payer for
Subpart D claims, if legislation to solve the problem is not enacted
during this Session of Congress.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow the House to
even consider that amendment, just as they refused to permit
consideration of the amendment I filed with my colleague from Colorado,
Mr. Beauprez.
The purpose of our amendment was to help some people who worked at
DOE's Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant.
Some of them are suffering from cancer or other conditions because
they were exposed to radiation or other hazards while they were working
there. So they are covered by the EEOICPA program.
For those who worked at most sites, coverage requires a finding that
their condition is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job
exposure. That's a reasonable requirement--provided there is adequate
documentation of exposures. But, unfortunately, over the years there
were serious problems with the way DOE kept records at Rocky Flats. So,
as things stand now, there is a real risk that many Rocky Flats workers
who should be covered will not get coverage in time to benefit from it,
because their claims are tied up in red tape.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns and disappointments, I
do think enactment of this bill will help support our men and women in
uniform and help them win the peace in Iraq and to defeat terrorism in
Afghanistan. And, while in my view Congress was wrong to allow the
president to rush us into war in Iraq, I think it now is imperative to
provide our men and women in uniform with what they need.
So I will support this bill today.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for H.R. 4200, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, because it contains a
number of provisions that I support that will address the needs of the
brave men and women serving on the front lines in Iraq, as well as the
needs of our dedicated members of the civil service here at home.
This bill includes much needed increases in separation allowance and
combat pay for troops that are deployed in combat. It also includes
provisions that will greatly improve the A-76 process, which governs
competitions between the private sector and federal employees. These
provisions will ensure, among other things, that federal employees are
permitted to compete for their jobs before they are outsourced to the
private sector and will give them the same legal rights as contractors
enjoy. These are important protections that I strongly support.
However, I have a number of concerns with other provisions in the
bill, and believe it should have gone further than it does in some
areas.
Iraq is fast becoming a hall of mirrors. When the Administration says
conditions are getting better, they are probably getting worse. When
the Administration says they have a plan, they usually don't. And when
the Administration says they are trying to build an international
coalition, they may actually be further alienating our allies.
We can add another contradiction to this list: When the
Administration says they will closely scrutinize the work of private
contractors in Iraq, what they mean is that they have given the
contractors a virtual blank check.
The Coalition Provisional Authority has identified over 2,000
specific reconstruction projects in Iraq. The contracts to perform this
work should be bid competitively, so that market forces would dictate
the costs to taxpayers. But under the Administration's approach, not a
single one of the 2,000 reconstruction projects will be awarded on the
basis of competition. Instead, they will all be performed on a cost-
plus basis by large private contractors who have been awarded
monopolies over large sectors of the reconstruction effort.
The public wonders why unsupervised private contractors would be
allowed to interrogate and abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib . . . how
Halliburton could be allowed to charge inflated prices for gasoline and
to submit bills for millions of meals it never served . . . and why
there is so little to show for the billions that the Administration has
spent on the reconstruction effort.
There is one answer to all of these questions: whether by design or
incompetence, the Administration is failing in its responsibility to
oversee the reconstruction effort and to protect the taxpayer from
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Under these circumstances, aggressive and impartial oversight is
obviously crucial. Yet as I and others described in a report released
yesterday, the Administration has outsourced this essential oversight
responsibility to private contractors who have significant conflicts of
interest.
While Parsons is supposed to oversee Fluor's electricity work in
Iraq, Parsons and Fluor have a huge $2.6 billion joint venture in
Kazakhstan. CH2M Hill has been permitted to oversee the Iraq work of
Washington Group International, Fluor, and AMEC even though it has
existing contractual relationships with all three companies in the
United States. Parsons is even in a position to benefit its own
reconstruction efforts through the use of its oversight powers.
This is an unacceptable situation that I would have liked to address
with an amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, it was not made in
order.
Another way to ensure vigorous congressional oversight of the Iraqi
reconstruction efforts would be to require the Defense Department to
provide contract information to both the chair and ranking members of
committees with jurisdiction.
For months I have attempted to obtain information from the
Administration about the contracting in Iraq. For the most part, the
Administration has a poor record of complying with these requests.
I have written four letters to the White House requesting information
about the inflated prices Halliburton was charging to import gasoline
into Iraq under a sole source, IDIQ contract from the Army Corps of
Engineers. The only responses they received were two nearly identical,
two-paragraph letters from Condoleezza Rice saying that Pentagon
auditors are investigating the overcharges.
The White House hasn't offered any justification for Halliburton's
$2.64 per gallon price of gasoline from Kuwait. The White House hasn't
turned over task orders or invoices for the gasoline importation work
either.
It's not just the White House. I've also written to Secretary
Rumsfeld to request information about Halliburton's subcontractors and
the process by which they were selected. I sought basic documents, like
the subcontracts themselves and the bid proposals from potential
subcontractors. Over five months have passed, but the Defense
Department has not produced any of the requested documents.
Under the bill, the Department is required to respond to a request
from the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee. That is a
start. I would have liked to offer an amendment to also require the
Department to respond to the Government Reform Committee, which has
government-wide jurisdiction over contracting issues. But again,
unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order.
One of the reasons events are not going well in Iraq is that there
has not been enough accountability and oversight by this House. No one
was held accountable for the Administration's false claim that Iraq
attempted to obtain
[[Page H3449]]
uranium from Niger or misleading claims about Iraq's alleged weapons of
mass destruction. While we all agree that the abuse and torture of
Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison is completely unacceptable and
universally condemn this illegal and inhumane misconduct, the House has
yet to fully investigate this terrible episode.
Today, I offered a procedural motion to express the sense of the
House of Representatives that a select committee should immediately be
established to investigate the treatment of detainees held by the
Administration in connection with the global war on terrorism. A select
committee is necessary because this House has ignored its
constitutional responsibility for holding the Administration
accountable. Time and time again, the Republican leadership has
demonstrated that it has no interest in performing any serious
oversight of the Administration. I am disappointed that the motion
failed by a vote of 202-224.
There are other troubling elements of this bill that I do not
support. I staunchly oppose the more than $10 billion authorized for
ballistic missile programs plagued by massive cost overruns and
consistent failures in testing. I also oppose other wasteful programs
like the $4.2 billion included for the F/A-22 Raptor, a fighter
aircraft best known for its technical difficulties, questionable
utility, and unprecedented price-tag of between $200 to $300 million
per plane. I find it most disturbing that the bill also allows
continued research for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons for
deployment in combat and directs $36 million to research the
feasibility of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that existing
research shows is more likely to spread contamination than destroy its
target.
The Bush Administration's quest for usable nuclear weapons
contravenes the basic principle of nuclear deterrence and threatens to
undermine decades of U.S. leadership non-proliferation efforts.
Together with the doctrine of pre-emption and the President's policy
endorsing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, the
effort sends the wrong message at a time when we are trying to get the
international community to help us challenge proliferation in North
Korea and Iran.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I hope this bill signals the beginning
of a different approach from Congress in dealing with Defense
Authorization. I'm pleased that there is at least some money for Iraq,
with some instructions on how it's to be spent rather than relying
exclusively on the discretion of the administration. It is encouraging
that more attention is given to the specific needs of our men and women
on the ground in Iraq. It's unfortunate that despite hundreds of
billions of dollars authorized in previous bills, not enough has made
it to our troops for essential things that they need.
The bill continues to spend too much money on the wrong things. The
most graphic example is the 13 percent increase for missile defense;
$10.2 billion that's critically needed in other areas of homeland
security and defense activities.
One other area I take strong exception to is delaying the next round
of base closings. Base closings have historically been highly
controversial and political, and Congress was unable to deal with it
until we had a BRAG process that helped to de-politicize the process.
This bill represents an unfortunate step backwards placing politics
over economic or military concerns. We continue to have inventory left
over from a bygone era of defense needs that is far more than is
necessary. It doesn't speak to today's demands, to say nothing of where
we're going to be in the future. We have to be able to close and
realign military facilities.
Part of the reason that people are upset when a military base is
closed is that we do a terrible job of transitioning what can be
extraordinarily valuable resources back to the community. If we were to
clean them up and recycle them in a way that helped the environment,
local governments, and local enterprises, there would be much less
reticence. Unfortunately, we hamper communities by not providing the
resources or guidance to bring these lands back to productive use.
Simply delaying the next round of BRAG closures gives us the worst of
both worlds. We have an inappropriate inventory of facilities, and we
do nothing to speed the transition that could help everyone--the
taxpayers, the military, and the local communities in which they're
located.
I am disappointed that my amendment to help the Department of Defense
return former military bases back to local communities was not made in
order. My amendment would have codified a recommendation by the Defense
Science Board, issued in November, 2003, to implement a national Wide
Area Assessment for unexploded ordnance (UXO). This assessment would
enable the Department to determine the extent of UXO contamination and
help restore at least 8 million acres of potentially contaminated sites
scattered throughout the country.
This is the largest and arguably the most important authorization
Congress takes up each year. It helps shape the largest single federal
expenditure. I long for the day when there is a full and open debate
and when there's a way to right-size and re-direct these funds. Never
has the need been greater. It's unfortunate that this bill continues to
miss the mark.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the provision in the FY
2005 Defense Authorization Bill that would finally end the Survivor
Benefit Penalty (SBP), a reduction in survivor benefits when a
beneficiary reaches age 62. I have heard from many veterans and
military families among my constituents who have waited for too long to
end this discriminatory policy. Members who signed up for SBP in the
1970s were led to believe they were purchasing annuities that would
provide their surviving spouses 55 percent of retired pay for life.
After paying decades of premiums, they understandably feel betrayed
upon learning that their benefit drops by more than one-third when they
reach age 62. To make matters worse, the U.S. Defense Department
Actuary has confirmed that the federal subsidy has dropped to 19
percent--far below the 40 percent level Congress intended when the
program was first enacted. There could be no more effective way for the
Federal government to restore the intended cost-sharing relationship
than by raising the age-62 SBP annuity.
I have been a long-standing cosponsor of two free-standing bipartisan
bills, H.R. 548 and H.R. 3763, to make this change in the law and
eliminate this penalty as quickly as affordable. Unfortunately, these
bills remained stuck in committee until a discharge petition was filed
a few weeks ago to bring this matter to a vote. I was happy to co-sign
that discharge petition, just as I was glad to be one of nearly 170
Democrats in this House to co-sign the letter sent to Congressman
Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, urging
that this provision be included in this bill. Now we must fight to
retain this provision in conference to ensure a 5-year phase-in to
finally eliminate this penalty once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose those provisions in the FY 2005 Defense
Authorization Bill which authorize an additional $28 million on the
nuclear bunker buster, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, plus $9
million for ``advanced concept initiatives.'' The direction in which
the Bush Administration is leading our nation on nuclear weapons policy
by steadily increasing funding for this type of de-stabilizing research
is reckless and ill-advised. That is why I support the amendment
offered by my colleagues, U.S. Representatives Tauscher, Markey, and
Spratt, which would have shifted the funding in this bill away from
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to increase both U.S. intelligence
capabilities to get at hard and deeply buried targets and improved
conventional bunker-busting capabilities.
The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, originally planned to spend $45
million on such research between FY2003 and FY2005. According to the
Congressional Research Service, DOE now projects spending $71 million
through FY2006.
We should be stepping away from researching new tactical nuclear
weapons for new uses, not warming to that proposition. We are sending
the wrong message to our allies and potential adversaries around the
world. When they see the Bush Administration steadily increasing U.S.
spending for this kind of research, they are understandably concerned
that the U.S. is opening Pandora's box and encouraging the development
and procurement of a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, this type of research does not make practical,
scientific sense.
Supporters of the nuclear bunker buster claim that such weapons would
accomplish the destruction of deeply buried targets without causing
massive collateral damage. But they ignore some fundamental
considerations that are underscored in several recent scientific
studies including some by scientists at Princeton University and by the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
First, since weapons cannot penetrate very deeply into the ground,
then destroying deep hardened targets would require powerful, high-
yield nuclear warheads.
Second, it is relatively easy to build a bunker so deep, 1,000 yards
underground, that no earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, no matter how
large its yield, could destroy such a bunker.
Third, even a small, low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapon will
create enormous radioactive fallout because the explosion could not be
contained underground. The radioactive debris thrown into the air would
drift for miles on the wind.
Fourth, there is no guarantee that a nuclear blast would successfully
destroy chemical or biological weapons. In fact, a nuclear attack on a
bunker that contains chemical or biological weapons could easily lead
to the release and spread of those agents.
Fifth, there are conventional alternatives to the use of nuclear
bunker busters. Current
[[Page H3450]]
precision-guided conventional weapons could instead be used to cut off
a bunker's communications, power, and air supply, thus effectively
keeping the enemy weapons underground and unusable until U.S. forces
could secure them.
Finally, it is very troubling to me that, while Bush administration
officials are quick to point out that no funds are authorized in this
bill for production of these weapons, it is worth noting that their
preferred federal budget plan over the next 5 years outlines spending
$485 million to move into the deployment and engineering phases for the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of retaining the
BRAC language in the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005. The bill as
it currently stands would postpone BRAC for 2 full years, and require
the Pentagon to submit reports by certain dates or BRAC will not take
place.
The United States military is being stretched thin due to the war
against terrorism and the effort to rebuild Iraq. In addition, the
Department of Defense, DOD, is currently considering significant
realignments of forces in Europe and Asia while it transforms its
forces. While I agree that we should evaluate overseas bases first
before considering closing domestic bases, for DOD to make irreversible
decisions to close or realign military installations before these
changes have been fully considered by both DOD and Congress would be an
enormous mistake.
Further, the BRAC process is estimated to cost roughly $15 billion
with savings not required until 2011. These funds could be used now for
more equipment and supplies for our military troops. Make no mistake,
our troops will be in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time. It is our
responsibility to provide them with the necessary resources they need
for survival. In addition, savings from previous BRAC rounds are almost
entirely due to significant reductions in force structure and end-
strength. DOD and Congress are not decreasing either of these; instead,
we are increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years and considering
increases in force structure.
I also continue to be extremely concerned that if the BRAC round in
2005 commences, we will revert back to pre-World War II days when our
valuable military assets were located in very few places. The attack on
Pearl Harbor in 1941 completely crippled our Pacific Fleet. Further,
the September 11th attacks are a fresh reminder that our homeland and
our military headquarters, the Pentagon, are susceptible to attacks.
History tells us we should not push for more base closures and
consolidation of our forces.
Finally, as the BRAC process currently stands, Congress is virtually
eliminated from the decision-making process. There has been no effort
on the part of DOD to work with Congress on basing locations,
rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic infrastructure
requirements which all directly affect BRAC.
Mr. Chairman, since September 11th, the needs of our Nation continue
to change. We are constantly reevaluating what resources we will need
in the future. When a base is closed, that asset is lost forever to the
community it serves and the military. We have fundamental decisions to
make about overseas basing, transformation, and major military
deployments before we make BRAC decisions. It is my preference that we
eliminate this process completely; however, if Congress decides to move
forward on another BRAC round, we have only one opportunity to do this
right and Congress must be given the opportunity to provide sufficient
oversight of the BRAC process. We cannot afford to act hastily. I urge
my colleagues to support the BRAC language currently in H.R. 4200.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I support the provision in this bill which
would at least postpone the 2005 BRAC Round until 2007.
Since September 11, 2001, the national security and defense needs of
our nation have been changing and are still changing. We are still
uncertain as to what resources we will need in the future.
First, U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan and Iraq for an
uncertain period of time. Just look at Bosnia and Korea. In fact, after
considerable effort to keep Congress from increasing end-strength, DOD
is not reducing the number of military personnel in Iraq as planned,
and Congress is increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years.
Second, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is still in the
process of being established and the facilities and resources needed
for its diverse challenges, including any current military
infrastructure that might be needed, are unknown.
Third, difficult decisions are yet to be made about the number of
troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be located.
Fourth, there are efforts underway to raise or remove the caps on the
number of troops in Colombia, and we have 2,500 Marines in Haiti.
Similarly, we also see moves to shift at least 3,600 troops from South
Korea to Iraq.
Fifth, congressional oversight of the re-deployment and re-
positioning of American troops is needed now more than ever. Yet, there
has been no structured, deliberate, and timely effort on the part of
DOD to work with Congress to prepare our nation to confront additional
and unprecedented challenges in the post-9/11 world. In fact, as
reported in the National Journal last month, ``The department [DOD] has
no plans to share the study [global posture review] with Congress,
although Pentagon officials say the study will inform the BRAC
process.''
Sixth, the BRAC process is estimated to cost approximately $15
billion. Savings above the cost of implementing BRAC are not required
until 2011. These funds could be used now for our troops now.
Seventh, we are confronting very different circumstances in 2005
compared to the BRAC Rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993 or 1995.
Savings from previous BRAC rounds were derived almost entirely from
substantial reductions in force structure and end strength. But now, we
are increasing end strength and considering increases in force
structure.
Mr. Chairman, the following reports are required from DOD between
January 1, 2006, and March 15, 2006, or the BRAC process dies:
a. The Pentagon's Integrated Global Basing Strategy, including basing
locations, rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic
infrastructure requirements associated with that strategy;
b. A study of the infrastructure requirements associated with force
transformation efforts; a report on infrastructure requirements related
to changes to the active and reserve personnel mixtures of the
services;
c. A study of the infrastructure requirements resulting from the
Secretary of Defense's ``10-30-30'' objective; a reassessment of excess
infrastructure capacity that is based upon infrastructure, facility,
and space requirements of current, future, and surged military forces;
and
d. A definition of, and infrastructure requirements associated with,
``surge requirements'' as determined by the Secretary as required by
section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 (Public Law 108-136).
It is prudent for implementation of BRAC to be put off 2 years (1
year if you start at the final due date of the reports) to allow
Congress the opportunity and more time to review these reports in light
of our nation's evolving defense needs. Realistically, even if Congress
was to obtain the reports I've cited during the current BRAC timeline,
there would not be enough opportunity for Congress to fully review and
debate the merits before we would be required to vote on closure and
realignment choices.
We should postpone the 2005 BRAC Round for at least 2 years.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Thomas, regarding
section 585 of H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005, and a response from the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter).
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2004.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: I am writing concerning H.R. 4200,
the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005,'' which was reported to the House by the House Armed
Services Committee on May 14, 2004.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over tax matters. Section 585 of H.R. 4200
allows individuals to donate their frequent traveler miles
through the Department of Defense to deployed members of the
armed forces and their families. This provision requires an
amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, and thus falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However,
we will not take action on this proposal. This is being done
with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice
the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or
its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4200, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2004.
Hon. William Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 19,
2004 regarding H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
[[Page H3451]]
I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid
jurisdictional claim to section 585 in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not
to request such a referral in the interest of expediting
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a
sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not
waiving its jurisdiction. Further, per your request, your
letter and this response will be included in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter,
Chairman.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from the
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Hyde,
regarding H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005.
Committee on International Relations, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2004.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the close cooperation
between the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
International Relations concerning H.R. 4200, the FY 2005
National Defense Authorization Act. I commend your
leadership, and that of Mr. Skelton, in bringing forward this
important bill which will give the courageous men and women
of our armed forces what they need to continue to prosecute
the war on terrorism successfully.
Further, several of the provisions of Title XIV (in
particular, in Subtitle A concerning export controls) amend
the Arms Export Control Act, a matter under the jurisdiction
of the Committee on International Relations. These provisions
will also make an important contribution to our Nation's
interests by ensuring that United States weapons systems and
technology do not fall into dangerous hands. Two provisions
in particular (sections 1401 and 1402) relate to the controls
required by United States law over our most significant
military technology and clarify that this technology is to be
handled with the utmost care. Because of the importance and
sensitivity of these areas, it is useful to set forth for the
record an explication of several points highlighted in your
Committee's report that have figured in the deliberations
between our two Committees during consideration of H.R. 4200.
Accordingly, when H.R. 4200 is taken up on the Floor for
adoption, I ask that you consent to include the full text of
this letter in the record, memorializing our discussions on
these matters.
SEC. 1401. DEFINITIONS UNDER ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT
As the report by the Committee on Armed Services makes
clear, the addition of several new definitions to section 47
of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) will help ensure that
the future administration of United States law in this
sensitive area is carried out in accordance with longstanding
principles that have safeguarded our Nation's security and
foreign policy interests for many years. Of particular
importance, the terms ``agent'' and ``exporting agent''
have long been in common usage in the AECA but have lacked
precise definitions. This absence appears to have given
rise to a recent controversy in which some maintain the
term ``agent'' can be construed as any foreign person who
has a general association with a foreign government
receiving United States defense articles or defense
services, such that any (and potentially all) foreign
corporations located in the same country could be eligible
to receive custody or ownership of, or access to, the
United States articles or services without any need to
seek the U.S. Government's consent to such a transfer from
the foreign government to its private sector. However,
such a construction would run counter to well-established
principles in our laws. In this respect, section 3(a) of
the AECA and section 505(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act
are very important. Section 3(a) provides that ``no
defense article or defense service shall be sold or leased
by the United States Government . . . and no agreement
shall be entered into for a cooperative project . . .
unless--``(2) the country . . . shall have agreed not to
transfer title to, or possession of, any defense article
or related training or other defense service . . . to
anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of that country
. . . unless the consent of the President has first been
obtained.''
Section 505(a) provides a nearly identical requirement with
respect to military assistance provided under Chapter 2 of
the Foreign Assistance Act. These provisions (which also
provide a legal framework for commercial arms sales and
training under section 38 of AECA) ensure that all of the
stringencies and safeguards that apply under United States
law to a weapons related export also apply equally to any
subsequent re-export or retransfer to third parties
(including third parties located in the country to which the
original export was authorized).
Section 1401 will make abundantly clear that the term
``agent'' must be understood in its classic and commonly
understood form, as a person that is specifically authorized
by the foreign government to represent its interests (other
than an officer or employee, who are presumptively authorized
representatives), and one that is subject to the foreign
government's supervision and control and for whom the foreign
government is responsible (such as an officer or employee).
This type of ``agency'' relationship occurs commonly in the
foreign military sales program where foreign governments
routinely designate freight forwarders and other agents
through contractual relationships to receive and transport
United States defense articles. Section 1401 accommodates
this practice. Similarly, but less frequently, a foreign
government may establish an agency relationship with one of
its corporations for the purpose of carrying out part of a
cooperative agreement it has entered into with the Department
of Defense under section 27 of the AECA. Such relationships
would still be acknowledged under section 1401, provided that
a bona fide agency relationship has been established. On the
other hand, this definition is intended to resolve,
definitively in favor of longstanding principles in United
States law, the recent controversy related to the proposition
that any foreign corporation located in a foreign country
with which the United States has entered into a
cooperative agreement under section 27 of the AECA (or
another similar provision in United States law) may be
presumed to be an agent provided only that it is a
participant at some level in the cooperation (irrespective
of whether the foreign corporation is, in fact, a true
agent of the foreign government). In such matters, the
clear intent of the AECA and the Foreign Assistance Act is
that persons who are not specifically authorized agents of
the foreign government must be subject to the specific
approval of the U.S. Government before United States
defense articles or defense services are made available to
them, whether by satisfaction of the requirements of
section 3, pursuant to issuance of an export license under
section 38, or by other statutorily provided means (e.g.,
U.S. Government approval when such persons are designated
as agents in an international agreement to which the
United States is a party).
SEC. 1402. EXEMPTION FROM LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPORT OF
SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT
This provision would amend section 38(b) of the Arms Export
Control Act in order to codify the longstanding regulatory
practice not to establish exemptions in regulation from the
munitions export license requirements of section 38 that
apply to commercial defense exports by private U.S. and
foreign persons for any defense article that has been
designated as ``significant military equipment.'' The
President's authority under section 38 has been delegated by
Executive Order to the Secretary of State. The regulations
that implement the President's authority in this area are the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR
Sec. Sec. 120-130). ``Significant military equipment'' (or
``SME,'' as it is commonly referred to) is any defense
article required to be so designated on the United States
Munitions List, ``for which special export controls are
warranted because of the capacity of such articles for
substantial military utility or capability'' in accordance
with section 47(9)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2794(9)(A)). By longstanding practice, an export
license has generally been required for the permanent export
of any SME defense article or technical data (such as
production or manufacturing know-how for SME articles),
except in certain areas (described below) pertaining to
official use by the Department of Defense and other U.S.
Government agencies that section 38(b)(2) of the Arms Export
Control itself (as distinct from an exemption established by
the President in regulation) specifically declares to be
outside the ambit of the export licensing requirements
imposed on private U.S. persons.
However, as part of an ongoing process to ``reform'' or
relax military export controls, the Committee on
International Relations has recently been informed of the
State Department's intention to establish a new exemption in
regulation available to private U.S. persons for the export
of a wide range of cargo, transport and trainer fixed-wing
aircraft, as well as certain utility rotary aircraft, to a
large number of foreign governments. The aircraft that would
be exempt are: C-21, C-22, C-130 Hercules (earlier than J
configuration), CT-39, T-1, T-3, T-6, T-34, T-37, T-39, T-41,
T-42, T-43, T-44, UH-1 Huey, CH-46, OH-58, and U-27. Most of
these aircraft would be eligible for export without a license
to any one of the 26 NATO member governments, as well as
to Australia, Japan, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden,
Switzerland, and those other countries designated as major
non-NATO allies under section 517 of the Foreign
Assistance Act (Israel, Egypt, Republic of Korea, Jordan,
Argentina, New Zealand and, prospectively, Pakistan). Some
of these aircraft would only be eligible for NATO
countries, Australia and Japan. All of these aircraft are
designated as SME. Certain of these aircraft (e.g., C-130,
T-6, T-37, OH-58 and UH-1) are also ``major defense
equipment,'' an additional category of defense articles
required to be identified on the Department of Defense's
List of Major Defense Equipment. Under section 47 of the
Arms Export Control Act, items that are ``major defense
equipment'' are those that are both SME and have been
designed and developed through major DoD procurement
programs (i.e., involving $50 million or more in non-
recurring Research and Development or $200 million or more
in total production costs).
Section 1402 would bar the establishment of such exemptions
for the export of defense articles designated as
``significant military
[[Page H3452]]
equipment.'' It is difficult to understand why some
apparently believe it is appropriate or timely to relax our
military export controls in the midst of the global war on
terrorism, least of all over defense articles that fall into
the SME category. Under the Arms Export Control Act, these
articles are intended to be the subject of ``special export
controls'' which historically have included the requirement
for the foreign end user to sign a U.S. Government
nontransferable and end-use certificate before a license is
issued. A further consideration is that the State Department
has not yet been able to put into place an adequate system
for monitoring and tracking exports of SME that are approved
under licenses (let alone exemptions). In this respect, more
than four years after the enactment of Public Law 106-113
requiring a quarterly report to Congress of all SME exports
licensed under section 38, the State Department has yet to
submit its first report. Further, State announced earlier
this year that it was deferring implementation of a
regulation to require reporting by exporters of technical
data and defense services exported under section 38,
suggesting that its initial report is not in the immediate
offing.
The Committee on International Relations is very
sympathetic to the goal of expediting the export of such
defense articles to our coalition partners in the war on
terrorism (although a list of our coalition partners might
not necessarily coincide with the above list of countries
drawn up by State). This said, it would be far preferable to
establish priorities in the export license process such that
our closest coalition partners are placed at the head of the
line. In this way, exports involving coalition partners can
be processed more securely (without the increased risks of
diversion that arise from license exemptions) and more
quickly, with licenses issued in a matter of a few days
rather than many weeks. Initiatives to relax military export
controls when our country is at war, as reflected in such
proposals and others which the Committee on International
Relations understands may be forthcoming in the context of a
new policy to promote defense trade (National Security Policy
Directive 19), are inherently inconsistent with the national
security interests of our Nation.
By the same measure, section 1402 would not significantly
alter the existing regulatory regime in this area. Until now,
the principal exceptions to the practice of not exempting SME
defense articles from munitions license requirements have not
resulted from exemptions established by the President in
regulation, but from the express exclusion by Congress when
enacting the Arms Export Control Act of certain U.S.
Government (chiefly Department of Defense) activities from
the ambit of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act.
Section 38(b)(2) of that Act provides that ``. . . no license
shall be required for exports or imports made by or for an
agency of the United States Government (A) for official use
by a department or agency of the United States Government, or
(B) for carrying out any foreign assistance or sales program
authorized by law and subject to the control of the President
by other means (22 USC 2778(b)(2)).'' This provision (section
1402), therefore, does not affect the export of defense
articles that are expressly precluded by section 38(b)(2)
from export licensing under the Arms Export Control Act,
including defense articles that are SME, and without regard
to whether they are unclassified or classified (provided, in
the latter case, that they are subject to the control and
other requirements of applicable United States law and
regulation concerning handling and shipments of classified
material). Nor does this provision affect any regulatory
procedures in place or promulgated in the future to
facilitate the import or export of defense articles through
U.S. ports of entry and exit that meet the exclusionary
standards of section 38(b)(2). Such regulatory procedures do
not constitute the establishment of an exemption in
regulation by the President, but merely facilitate activities
by the Department of Defense and other U.S. Government
agencies that have been expressly excluded in law from
license requirements by the Congress.
Similarly, section 1402 is not intended to affect the
longstanding practice with respect to exports to Canada,
where the Congress has also provided an exemption in law in
section 38(f)(3) of the AECA with respect to export license
requirements. Further, section 1402 is concerned
fundamentally with permanent exports and is not intended to
impinge on regulatory practice to permit license exemptions,
under well-defined conditions relating to ``temporary''
exports under well-defined circumstances by United States
defense firms, of significant military equipment for purposes
of exhibition and demonstration to friends and allies of the
United States.
Thank you for your kind and immediate attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us. I
wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their
leadership in crafting a bill that will provide our military--and the
men and women who serve in it--the resources they need to keep America
strong in the 21st century. It is always a daunting task to craft
legislation that balances the needs of our services, and such an effort
is even more challenging during a time of military conflict. Chairman
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton have succeeded admirably in this
endeavor, and the product before us today is a fine example of careful
craftsmanship and bipartisan cooperation. I am particularly
appreciative of the Chairman's theme of ``The Year of the Soldier,''
and the commitment this legislation demonstrates to force protection
and quality of life enhancements. We are proud of our men and women in
uniform, and we must ensure that they are given the resources necessary
to succeed in their mission.
I am pleased that the legislation includes provisions that I offered
with Congressman Jim Cooper during committee consideration to ensure
that civilian employees at the Department of Defense do not lose their
jobs to private contractors without first having the opportunity to
compete for the work. The legislation closes loopholes that have
allowed the Department of Defense to reclassify or reorganize work to
avoid Congressionally mandated competition requirements. It also
supports efforts to provide civilian employees with comparable legal
standing to private-sector workers when appealing contract decisions.
These provisions will offer equality to our civilian employees and
significant savings to our taxpayers.
I also appreciate the committee's effort to correct the problem of
reduced survivor benefits for military spouses. For too long, military
spouses have witnessed their survivor benefits drop by more than one-
third once reaching the age of 62. Comparable civilian plans provide
survivors a lifetime annuity of 50-55 percent of retired pay and
protect against a drop in annuity at age 62. As a cosponsor of the
Military Survivor Benefits Improvement Act, I have supported efforts to
repeal this unfair burden and am pleased that this legislation would
restore benefits gradually to 55 percent by March 2008.
As we move forward on this legislation, I hope to work with the
Chairman and the Ranking Member to address my concerns about our
nation's shipbuilding rates. This legislation would postpone by one
year construction of our next-generation destroyer, DD(X), and the
Littoral Combat Ship, at a time when our naval fleet is shrinking and
our shipbuilding industry is struggling. The proposed $221 million
reduction for DD(X) is particularly disconcerting when the project has
been running on budget and on schedule. Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of
Naval Operations, has indicated his opposition to these shipbuilding
cuts, and I look forward to working with the committee to restore
funding for DD(X) and LCS.
Overall, this legislation is a well-balanced approach to the needs of
our nation's military, and I commend the Chairman, Ranking Member, and
my colleagues on the committee for a fine work product. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, while I do have concerns with this bill, I
rise to voice my support for H.R. 4200, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We need to do everything we can
to make our armed forces as effective as possible. That's why I support
the 2-year delay for the next BRAC round.
California has seen 29 bases close. In the Inland Empire, George and
Norton Air Force Bases have been closed. And March Air Force Base was
reduced to a reserve base. This cost an estimated 37,000 jobs and $3.9
billion in economic activity. That is 39 times the size of the San
Bernardino city budget. That's real money that could have helped our
citizens.
The 22,000 citizens of Barstow are worried that the Nebo Marine Corp
Logistics Base and Yermo Annex will close. It is the city's second
largest employer. What will happen when it closes?
When Norton Air Force Base closed in a previous BRAC round, it
devastated my district. We lost 10,000 military and civilian personnel.
And thousands more lost their job off the base. We have never been able
to replace those jobs. It's not only communities that will be affected.
Base closings will affect our troops and their families. It will set
the military on a course of instability. All in order to save a few
bucks.
Our troops in Iraq should not have to worry whether their families
will be moved to another city or another state. They have better things
to worry about. Because of these reasons I support the suspension of
BRAC.
H.R. 4200 is far from a perfect bill. But it helps to fix the
problems the Administration has not dealt with. It makes the military
more effective and it protects our communities and troops.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support Chairman Duncan
Hunter and the House Armed Services Committee efforts to provide our
troops with the equipment necessary to successfully accomplish their
missions in the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
more specifically.
Specifically, the FY05 Defense Authorization bill funds procurement
initiatives near-and-dear to my heart, to include full funding for the
Up Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
[[Page H3453]]
Vehicle, providing the ability to purchase over 6,000 up armored
Humvees, and funding for ballistic armor for other Humvees and trucks,
as well as Interceptor Body Armor funding.
Mr. Chairman, this is of particular concern to me since recently I
approached the Chairman after several U.S. Army National Guard soldiers
from my District in Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion of the 108th Light
Infantry were killed and wounded on Easter Sunday during an attack in
Samarra, Iraq.
Private First Class Nathan Brown was killed in action after being
struck by a rooftop fired RPG while riding in a 5-ton truck.
Armored and up armored vehicles and body armor equipment are not just
necessary but required, and it is Congress' job to provide these
resources to troops in combat.
The Pentagon must know it is Congress' intent to provide all the
tools needed to successfully complete their missions in Iraq and around
the world. The message Congress is sending to the bureaucracy that
supports our military and the field commanders in theater is the same.
Our collective expectation is for the Department of Defense to put this
equipment to the best use immediately, in order to allow the men and
women on the ground sacrificing their lives to fully succeed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 9
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and
amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The
remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 214, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 203]
AYES--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--214
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Ballance
Becerra
Burr
Crowley
Deutsch
Doolittle
Fattah
Fossella
Gephardt
Johnson, Sam
LaTourette
Leach
Norwood
Quinn
Tauzin
Walsh
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1524
Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, McINNIS, BACHUS and POMBO changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. PETRI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Ryun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 290,
noes 132, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 204]
AYES--290
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
[[Page H3454]]
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--132
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kind
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Weldon (PA)
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Ballance
Becerra
Burr
Deutsch
Fattah
Johnson, Sam
Leach
Norwood
Quinn
Tauzin
Walsh
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are left in
this vote.
{time} 1534
Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, CARDOZA and CROWLEY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Are there any more amendments?
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Sweeney) 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,
pursuant to House Resolution 648, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. WAXMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Waxman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4200 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of title X (page 409, after line 13), insert the
following new section:
SEC. __. SENSE OF HOUSE CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF A SELECT
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE THE
TREATMENT OF DETAINEES HELD IN CONNECTION WITH
THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.
It is the sense of the House of Representatives--
(1) that there should immediately be established, during
the 108th Congress, a select committee of the House to
investigate the treatment of detainees (both within and
outside the United States) who are held in connection with
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or any
other operation within the Global War on Terrorism;
(2) that such a select committee should be composed of 10
members, five to be selected by the Speaker and five to be
selected by the Democratic leader; and
(3) that such a select committee's investigation should
cover, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The treatment of detainees.
(B) The conduct of United States military and civilian
personnel operating facilities at which such detainees are
held.
(C) The role of any contractor personnel in detention or
interrogation activities.
(D) Allegations of abuse at any of those facilities and the
response to those allegations by officials at all levels of
the United States Government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
is recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to recommit.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, George Will wrote a column recently about
the administration's lack of accountability. He pointed out that no one
was held accountable for the administration's false claim that Iraq
attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or misleading claims about
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
He correctly concluded failures are multiplying because of choices
for which no one seems accountable.
We are about to repeat this mistake once again. We all agree that the
abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees at the
[[Page H3455]]
Abu Ghraib prison is completely unacceptable. Congress has rightly
condemned this illegal and inhumane conduct; but this House must take
the next step, and fully investigate these terrible episodes. We must
determine how many individuals were involved and how far up the chain
of command this extends.
We also must find out whether this type of abuse has occurred
elsewhere, inside or outside of Iraq. We need to review the role of
independent contractors; what role they played, to whom were they
accountable. If we do not insist on holding the executive branch
accountable, we are creating exactly the same situation George Will
described, ``an administration where failures go unpunished and
officials need not worry about the consequences of their conduct.''
This motion to recommit would express the sense of the House of
Representatives that a select committee of the House should immediately
be established to investigate the treatment of detainees held by the
administration in connection with the global war on terrorism. A select
committee is necessary because this House has ignored its
constitutional responsibility for holding the administration
accountable.
Time and time again the House majority has demonstrated that it has
no interest in performing any serious oversight of this administration.
The Republican majority has refused to investigate the alleged White
House's outing of CIA agency's Valerie Plame, which might have
jeopardized our national security.
The majority has declined to investigate allegations that
administration officials threatened to fire the Health and Human
Services chief actuary if he disclosed unfavorable cost projections for
the Medicare prescription drug benefit to Congress. Now the House
majority wants to do as little oversight as possible when it comes to
abuse of detainees.
One Republican leader objected to ``jerking those battle field
commanders out of Iraq for hearings'' even when these same commanders
are on the other side of the Capitol testifying before the Senate.
Another suggested the ``congressional investigations would inflame
hatred of the U.S. by providing fodder and soundbites for our
enemies.'' Our enemies are already gleeful over the tarnishing of our
credibility all around the world as champions of democracy and human
rights.
On the floor yesterday we were told that public hearings and some
closed meetings amount to a ``massive investigation.'' Well, they seem
to think this is all that they need to do; but they have not even
brought General Taguba before them. They have not even looked at the
issue of the civilian contractors. The majority seems to think that it
is unpatriotic to ask tough questions and demand answers.
What do they propose? They propose that the administration
investigate itself. Well, this is an administration that does not even
acknowledge mistakes, let alone accept responsibility to correct them.
It has never found the person responsible in the White House for outing
Valerie Plame.
We have never heard any action taken about General William G. Boykin,
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence who made the
egregious anti-Muslim statement that this is a Christian holy war
against Muslims.
It has never responded to Richard Clark's revelations about what he
said about our preparedness for September 12 except to make an all-out
assault on his character.
The administration has never told us who told them to write the Iraq-
Niger uranium deal in the State of the Union address which was based on
bogus information that the CIA told them was bogus. They have never
fired anybody for any of these mistakes.
Well, I do not believe it is our constitutional responsibility to let
the administration investigate itself. We have a fundamental
responsibility to investigate this issue and to assert oversight over
the military campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror.
Mr. Speaker, oversight is not unpatriotic. Oversight is our
constitutional duty. Now, I know there are different committees of the
House that have different jurisdictions on this matter. Let us bring
them all together in one select committee. But let us be sure we do the
job of oversight. I ask for support for this motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. HUNTER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has
made the point that Congress is not investigating. That is simply not
true.
Both the Senate and the House, particularly, have held particularly
contentious hearings, and the country has seen those hearings because
they have been public. But in addition to that, on a frequent basis we
have held closed hearings because much of this information is
classified. And we ask tough questions in those hearings, Republicans
and Democrats together.
But in addition to that, General Antonio Taguba just days after it
was discovered, after these events had taken place, was tasked to do an
investigation. That was in January. And through January and February
and March and April that investigation went forward resulting in
something that has become known as the Taguba Report, a report every
bit this high with a 58-page summary.
That report and six other military investigations which are still
under way have led to a conclusion that this situation is being well
taken care of. The conclusion is that there are a few people who
committed some horrific acts and that the problem was the result of the
collapse of leadership in one battalion, possibly two, and that some
misdirected people got out of control.
While this is going on, there is much good going on in the Middle
East, in Iraq. Our troops are fighting to secure the peace in support
of the CPA. They are fighting to secure important sites, important to
economic growth and the welfare of the Iraqi people. They are fighting
to build an Iraqi security service, border police, site police,
security police and a police force.
{time} 1545
They are fighting to secure hospitals and schools. They are fighting
to promote local caucuses, to elect local individuals, and they are
fighting to control foreign fighters, insurgents if you will.
So there is a big job to do in the Middle East, and I was taken
yesterday as I read in the press of another investigation that is
ongoing by the 9/11 Commission when they interviewed Rudy Giuliani. Let
me conclude with this. This is not an exact quote, but this is the
meaning of what Rudy Giuliani said yesterday. He said words to this
effect: There is only one enemy in the war on terrorism and it is not
us. It is those who attacked us and murdered our loved ones.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton)
said it well. The interesting thing about this entire mess in Abu
Ghraib is the fact that General Sanchez, just 3 days in January after
that first soldier came forward, started the investigation on his own.
There was no media. There was no CNN out there with an investigative
reporter. The general did that on his own, and he then announced to the
world in a press conference, kept it secret except for the 50 million
people watching television, that we Americans were investigating
ourselves over what happened in that prison. He started that
investigation and it worked its way on down, and it has now culminated
in the first conviction that took place just yesterday in Iraq.
So the military has done well, and we held full blown, full Committee
on Armed Services hearings here. They had them obviously in the other
body. We have spent more time on this than we have any weapons system,
any military operation, and we have done a good job.
[[Page H3456]]
We have embedded some of the recommendations that were made in the
Taguba report in the bill my colleagues are about ready to pass. We
have embedded some of those recommendations. We have made some changes
and some reforms in that bill.
Now, it is time to refocus, and let me tell my colleagues why it is
time to refocus. In the last 24 hours we have had 66 attacks on
American and coalition forces in Iraq. We suffered 14 people wounded.
We suffered two KIA. We have to return our focus to this war.
About 3 years ago, we started this very complex and difficult
military operation. It has been tough. We have had reluctant allies. We
have had tactical problems. We have had enormous challenges, and
through all of this, our troops have carried us, our great American
troops. They have killed the enemy at 10,000 feet in the high mountains
of Afghanistan. They have engaged him in these fierce fire fights in
the choke points in Iraq. They have done a wonderful job, and the
300,000-plus Americans who have served honorably and purely in the
Afghanistan and Iraq theaters have received almost no publicity.
When Master Sergeant Bill Pryor attacked an enemy position by
himself, killing the four people that he took on and killed the last
one in hand-to-hand combat, he received no publicity except maybe among
a few of his platoon members that he saved. When Gunny Sergeant Jeff
Bohr laid down his life by putting his body between his wounded marines
and the enemy, he did not appear on any front pages.
We have attended the Abu Ghraib mess with more press coverage than
probably any military operation, including the invasion of Normandy. It
is time to refocus. Let us refocus on those great and wonderful 2.5
million people that wear the uniform of the United States. We do that
by giving them the tools to get the job done, and this bill, put
together by Democrats and Republicans, does that. It gets the job done.
Please vote ``yes.'' Vote down the motion to recommit and let us move
this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202,
noes 224, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 205]
AYES--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--224
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Ballance
Burr
Deutsch
Johnson, Sam
Leach
Norwood
Tauzin
Walsh
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1611
Mr. COX changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 391,
noes 34, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 206]
AYES--391
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
[[Page H3457]]
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--34
Baldwin
Blumenauer
Capuano
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDermott
Miller, George
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Schakowsky
Serrano
Stark
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--9
Ballance
Burr
Conyers
Deutsch
Johnson, Sam
Leach
Norwood
Tauzin
Walsh
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1619
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________