[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8995-H9007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4200, RONALD W. REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 843, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4200) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 843, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to come with my partner, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and offer for the consideration of the
Members the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005, in simple terms, a defense bill for the troops of the United
States who are serving in dangerous theaters around the world and
troops and Guard together numbering over 2.5 million personnel.
This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that is a joint effort, Democrats and
Republicans have come together to put together this legislation, which
I think is really a soldiers' bill, a people's bill, in large measure.
We have a 3.5 percent pay raise across the board. We have extension
of new TRICARE benefits to Guard and Reserve. We have the new
survivor's benefits, something we have never had before in our history,
that allows a phasing out now of the offset that used to take place
between a survivor of a military retiree, where they had to weigh that
against their Social Security check. We have an increase in the receipt
that disabled veterans will receive on the so-called concurrent receipt
of their disability and their retired pay.
We have over $700 million worth of armor for Humvees and over $100
million worth of armor for trucks. We have a bill that has freed up the
24,000 housing units that were hanging in limbo for construction starts
this year.
This bill, very simply, Mr. Speaker, is a great bill, and I hope that
we can move the conference report through quickly for the consideration
and approval of the Members and move it quickly to the President's
desk.
I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), for working in a bipartisan manner in putting this bill
together, as well as all the Members and all our great subcommittee
chairmen who did such a wonderful job, and our ranking members and
membership of the full committee.
{time} 1900
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in
strong support of this Defense Authorization Act. More than anything,
it is a bill for the troops at a time when we are at war, the war in
Iraq and the war against the terrorists in Afghanistan.
Let me commend my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), for his leadership in bringing the bill to completion. It was
a lot of difficult, hard work, late nights; but it got done, and we are
here. And I also want to applaud all the Members, Democrats and
Republicans on the Committee on Armed Services, for their tireless
effort on this bill.
I want to mention a couple of items of concern, however. The
disappointments of course are in the process. I spoke strongly last May
of our desire to delay the upcoming round of base closings; yet we were
unable to obtain everything, and I am also disappointed with the
conference outcome in the Colombia troop cap when our troops are so
very thinly stretched across the globe.
But this very bill has at stake during wartime $446 in defense. It is
very, very important that we pass this this evening. This is probably
the best piece of legislation that we have had for the troops, their
families, and for military retirees in a long, long time. And at the
end of the day, those who wear uniforms and their families who support
them so well will be the ones who benefit from our efforts.
It eliminates the cap on privatized housing for military families,
something so many of us have been calling for. This program allows
private contractors to build housing on or near military bases, who
then recoup their investment through rental payments. That has been a
long, involved effort. It also involves additional health benefits for
our troops who serve us proudly and with so much distinction. We extend
TRICARE benefits to the nonactive duty Reservists and Guard members who
have been called and ordered to active duty on or after September 11,
2001.
We also provide for additional benefits for the survivors of those
who have served. The bill eliminates the Social Security offset to
survivor benefit payment plans, phasing it in over 4 years as opposed
to what the Senate wanted to do. I have to give our friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), special credit for his effort to
have a discharge petition on this particular issue.
Finally, the conference report includes a series of provisions
relating to Iraq that will require the administration to explain its
policies and allow Congress to conduct better oversight of what is
going on there. A strategic plan is required on the stabilization of
Iraq. Policies and reports are required on the subjects of preventing
the abuse of detainees in American custody and a new guidance mandated
on the use of contractors for security functions. These are very, very
important.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a
very, very good bill. When we say we support the troops, when we put
the bumper sticker on the back of our truck or car, this is saying it
loudly and clearly: we support the troops to the tune of $446 billion.
All that they need, all that we can do is in here.
I applaud members of the Committee on Armed Services; and I thank the
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). I think this is
an excellent piece of legislation to move forward at this very, very
dire and difficult junction in American history.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the vice chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all,
congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for an outstanding job
in getting a bill before us. The gentleman from California (Chairman
Hunter) is tireless in his work on behalf of the troops, as is the
gentleman from Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton). I want to thank my
ranking member, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), for his
outstanding cooperation on air-land issues.
I am not going to talk about the specifics of the bill, because my
colleagues will, and I urge everyone to vote for it; but I am going to
talk about an add-on provision in this bill that absolutely is
outrageous to me.
I want my colleagues to listen, because it affects every one of their
districts. Those Members in the other body added on a provision to our
bill to reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grants program. This
has become the most popular program for Members of Congress and their
districts. Through this program, over 3 years, we have distributed $2.1
billion directly to fire departments; large, paid departments and
small, volunteer departments, and that was done with bipartisan
support. It was done without party politics.
For the reauthorization this year, when the other body put a
provision in, we met, Democrats and Republicans, the distinguished
minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the
distinguished gentleman from New
[[Page H8996]]
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) was
involved, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) was involved, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). And we reached a compromise to
reauthorize this very important program, and we put in a
nondiscrimination clause that would prevent volunteer firefighters from
being discriminated against. Who can be against that? Even the paid
firefighters in our cities, like those in the district of the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), they want to go home as a volunteer to be a
part of their community. The Members of the other body stripped that
provision out of the bill.
So I urge my colleagues to tell their constituents across America
that the other body does not care about volunteers. It was a carefully
crafted provision that ended the discrimination against volunteers,
that the paid firefighters in our cities want it removed so they could
volunteer in our hometowns. And the other body took it out.
So I hope that every one of the 32,000 fire departments understands
that this body, in a bipartisan way, delivered a solution that was
fair, that allowed cities to have paid firefighters, but stripped out
the provision to protect the volunteers. When the gentleman from
California (Chairman Hunter) went back to Ranking Member Levin, he
said, tell Curt not to get his hopes up.
Well, let me tell you, Ranking Member Levin, every firefighter in
Michigan is going to know what you did. Let me tell my other Senate
friends. I am going to do a mailing to all 32,000 fire departments in
this country, and I am going to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the rest of the
Republicans. But I am going to let the American firefighters know who
put the screws to them in this bill.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members
that it is not in order to cast reflections on the Senate or its
Members individually or collectively, and the Chair will enforce the
rule.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). There is nobody in this Congress, there
is nobody in this country who has fought any more vigorously for
firefighters, paid and volunteer, than the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon). It is an honor to work with him on these issues. I
understand his passion, and I thank him for his work on behalf of the
fire service of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement which
supports our men and women in the Armed Forces and provides for the
security of this Nation. It also specifically, of course, provides for
the training and equipping of our troops engaged in the war on
terrorism.
I am also pleased that this legislation contains a provision to
reauthorize the assistance to the firefighters grant program. I want to
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I want to thank
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on the fire service
provisions in this bill for their support of that and for their
leadership on this effort.
I also want to wish the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who
has been such a fighter on behalf of the fire services, a speedy
recovery from his heart surgery. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews), all mentioned by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) and their staffs have worked hard on this measure and
their leadership for our Nation's fire and emergency service personnel
and is appreciated by all.
I also want to thank my own staffer, Geoff Plague, who sits here with
me, for his untiring and focused work on behalf of firefighters.
I am particularly pleased that this measure returns jurisdiction over
the grant programs to the U.S. Fire Administration, which was widely
praised for the effective manner in which it administered the program
during its first 3 years. Last year, over the objections of many in
this Congress, the program was moved and is now being returned, and I
think that is to the benefit of the program. Again, I want to thank the
gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Ranking Member Skelton) for their support in this effort.
While this is one of the most critical challenges our government
faces today and one for which we have consistently sought increased
levels of funding, it is not the objective of the Fire Grant program
itself.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for
his untiring efforts on behalf of our men and women in uniform, not
only those who are on the front lines at the point of the spear, but
also those who are here at home ready, willing, and able to go to
support our efforts, to defeat terrorists, and to bring international
security. The gentleman's work on behalf of those men and women has
been extraordinary and appreciated by them. Again, Mr. Speaker, I
intend to support this conference report, and I thank the chairman and
the ranking member for their work to bring it to the floor before we
leave and recess or adjourn for the elections.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner), a very distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my chairman,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), on his leadership and
efforts in making certain that this bill, as he deemed it to be, is
indeed the ``year of the troops,'' supporting our men and women in
uniform, making certain that we support our men and women in uniform
with a pay increase, and making sure that they have the resources that
they need.
The bill includes $728 million in up-armor for our Humvees and
protection against IADs, $100 million for vehicle add-on armor kits.
But also I am excited about the provisions that expand the health care
to our Reservists and Guard. As the gentleman knows, I have introduced
H.R. 2176, which would extend TRICARE health care benefits to our
Reservists and members of our Guard. The GAO indicates that
approximately 21 percent of all of our Reservists and Guard go without
health care insurance.
This bill includes a TRICARE standard coverage for Reservists and
Guard and their families who have been activated for more than 30 days
since September 11, 2001, in support of a contingency operation; and
then for every 90 days of consecutive active duty service, the member
and their family are eligible for 1 year of TRICARE coverage with a
nonactive duty status.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership and dedication of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) to our men and women in uniform.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on
the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4200 and commend my
colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for bringing this conference to
a very successful conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, the Conferees' Report in section 3303 contains a
provision on the release of ferromanganese from the strategic
stockpile, which is critical to steel production in the United States.
Section 3303 contains a requirement that to release more than 50,000
tons of ferromanganese, the Secretary of Defense, among other
requirements, must certify that the disposal will not cause undue
disruption to the usual markets of producers and processors of
ferromanganese in the United States. This could be considered a
certification about future events regarding markets, and one could
question whether the
[[Page H8997]]
certification of future events is possible.
{time} 1915
I ask the chairman if the conferees' intent in the meaning of this
provision is that certification in this instance is the Secretary's
best judgment about future market conditions and events.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Yes, we understand how important ferromanganese is for
steel production in the U.S. We certainly do not intend to ask the
Secretary to perform the impossible by forecasting the future with
absolute certainty. We are just asking for his best judgment.
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4200 and commend my good
friends, Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton, for concluding this
conference report.
Everyday our armed forces make great sacrifices to ensure that we are
safe, secure, and free. In return, this bill provides a 3.5 percent
across-the-board pay raise. It stops short of targeted pay raises for
NCOs and warrant officers, which I supported, but it helps bridge the
gap with the civilian workforce; makes permanent increases in imminent
danger pay from $150 to $225 and family separation pay from $100 to
$250 per month (these are initiatives I championed a year ago--I'm glad
to see them finally be adopted); provides $10 billion in military
construction funds--keeping the Military Housing Privatization Program
on track, and eliminating the program's funding ceiling.
The reserve component is being used in an unprecedented way and at an
unprecedented rate. The Guard and Reserve make up approximately 40
percent of the force in Iraq, and others are stationed in Afghanistan
and other critical locations at home and abroad. More than 173,000 have
been mobilized for active duty service. Their service must be matched
with meaningful benefits.
This bill provides enhanced TRICARE for reservists. It is not the
full measure recommended by the Senate, but it is an improvement over
current law. We can and should build on this beginning.
This bill also offers improved tuition assistance benefits.
In addition, this bill ends an injustice to the survivors of military
retirees. H.R. 4200 phases out from October 2005 to March 2008 the
current offset under the Survivor Benefit Plan, and increases the
annuities paid to survivors of military retirees who are 62 years or
older.
Recognizing the good efforts of my colleagues, Mr. Skelton and Ms.
Tauscher, this bill increases active Army and Marine Corps troop levels
by 30,000 and 9,000 respectively. The Pentagon fought us every step of
the way on this end-strength increase, but this is the minimum we can
do to reduce the stress on our forces and ensure that we can meet
military commitments in the future.
This bill also provides $25 billion for the war in Iraq--enough to
get through March of next year. We expect another supplemental request
early next year of $50 billion--taking the total cost of the Iraq war
well over $200 billion.
The bill is not without shortcomings. The President, Senator Kerry
and the 9/11 commission all agree that the gravest threat facing the
Nation is nuclear terror. H.R. 4200 continues the Administration's
pattern of under funding CTR programs. This bill authorizes $10 billion
for missile defense, but only $409 million to help combat the gravest
threat facing our country. How can we justify spending $10 billion on
an unproven system developed to combat a relatively non-existent threat
and only spend 4 percent of that amount on consensus greatest threat to
the security of the American people.
The Conference Report does impose some welcome disciplines on that
ballistic missile defense (BMD) program. The Pentagon's Office of
Testing and Evaluation regains an oversight role. It is tasked with
devising a realistic test regimen for BMD. In addition, each block of
BMD will be subject to Selected Acquisition Report requirements. This
means that each block will have baselines for cost, schedule, and
performance, against which actual results can be measured. These are
steps forward, and steps long overdue in a program of this magnitude.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who chairs a very important committee on
readiness.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4200,
the National Defense Authorization Act. I too would like to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this committee.
These are two people who really have their heart with the troops, who
are out there doing the job for us as Americans, and they lead the
committee greatly. I am so appreciative of the efforts of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton).
This Spring the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) declared that
2004 would be the year of the troops, and he instructed us as committee
chairman to focus what we did on the troops. What do they need? What
will make them the best equipped and best trained fighting force in the
history of the world. And that is what we tried to do in this bill.
The conference report before us today is crafted in that spirit, and
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the troops by saying yes
on the conference report today.
There are several items in the conference reports to which I would
like to call attention, and I will do the one I am disappointed in
first, and that is the BRAC provisions in here. We overwhelmingly in
the committee voted, and have for the last couple of years, voted to
delay the BRAC process for 2 years, and the reason for that is not
parochial. It is because we do not think with the transition that we
are going through in the armed services right now, in the war, that we
have enough information to really make the decision that we will not be
sorry for later. So we overwhelmingly in the House and in the committee
voted to delay it. But that did not stay in the bill.
The one BRAC provision which I am very pleased with the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh) put forward it is a very thoughtful
provision and it will make the process work much better.
Second, this bill repeals the cap on the military housing
privatization program effective immediately, ensuring that this
extraordinarily successful program will continue to improve homes in
which our service members and their families live. The House cast an
overwhelming vote in support of the program this summer, and I could
not be more pleased that we have found a way to allow it to continue.
It would have been a tragedy if we had not done this.
Third, the bill authorizes more than $10 billion, an increase of
approximately $450 million for military construction and family housing
programs of the Department of Defense. By carefully applying these
resources, the conference report provides for new facilities that will
improve military readiness and enhance the quality of living for
America's service members.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards), of the Military Construction Appropriations
Subcommittee and their staffs for their hard work this year in what was
often a very frustrating process. But they worked with the authorizing
committee like the Appropriations Committee, and authorizing committees
should work around this House, and have completed the military
construction bill working together.
This bill also recognizes and rewards the equally patriotic and
committed civilian workforce. Passage of the bill signifies America's
continued and unwavering support for all of our military troops,
active, Reserve, Guard, airmen, sailors, Marines. I ask you to support
the troops. Vote ``yes'' on the Ronald Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. It is an act that you can be
proud of.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Total
Force.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Total Force. I think this is an excellent bill, and I
encourage everyone to support it.
Mr. Speaker, one of the issues in the bill I also want to talk about
is health care. One of the issues we face as a Nation is health care
and the growing number of uninsured. We have 45 million uninsured, and
it is growing. This is uninsured people for an entire calendar year. In
the 2-year period, the
[[Page H8998]]
Commonwealth Fund says that over 80 million people have part of this
time without health insurance. Since early 2001, we have had almost 4
million people lose their employer-provided health insurance.
I am from Arkansas. We have had several thousand people activated for
deployment in our military forces. This occurred about a year ago.
About 20 percent of them were not medically fit for military service.
Think about it. The richest country of the world and 20 percent of our
folks were not medically fit when they were activated.
Well, this also relates to health insurance because a lot of them do
not have health insurance. People without health insurance do not keep
up nearly as well with their health problems. Two years ago, the
Congress and this country put a provision in TRICARE to help with this
problem. And we said, and this is the current law, 90 days before an
activation, a person who is activated goes on TRICARE with their
family. It will extend 180 days after their activation deployment ends.
That law is unchanged.
Importantly, what is in this bill is this: After the person returns,
after 180 days at the end of their deployment, they are on TRICARE.
They can make the decision to elect to sign up for TRICARE for
themselves and their family as long as they are staying in the Guard or
Reserve forces. For every 3 months of their deployment, they can sign
up for a period of 1 year on TRICARE insurance if they want to pay 28
percent like all Federal employees do.
What does all that mean? It means, if you were deployed for a year,
you come back, get your 180 days of free TRICARE. You can sign up and
pay the 28 percent premium and get 4 years of health insurance for
yourself and your family. I think this is a great incentive.
I rise in support of the defense authorization conference report. As
the Ranking Member of the Total Force Subcommittee, I am proud of the
accomplishments that we have achieved on behalf of device members,
retirees and their families.
The bill includes a number of provisions that improve and increase
benefits for military personnel, including the Reserves and National
Guard. all of our men and women in uniform are making extraordinary
sacrifices in support of the war against terrorism, and we need to
recognize their contributions by providing benefits that will enable
them to support a quality of life for themselves and their families.
I want to recognize the chairman of the Total Force Subcommittee,
John McHugh, and the Chairman of the committee, Duncan Hunter, and the
Ranking Member of the full committee, Ike Skelton, for their efforts to
complete conference before we adjourn this year.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues why it is important
that we pass this conference report for the Armed Forces.
We increased end strength for the Army by 20,000 and the Marine Corps
by 3,000 in fiscal year 2005; we provide a pay raise of 3.5 percent to
all uniformed service members; we protect the commissary and exchange
benefit; we include a number of provisions that seek to ensure that the
Department and the Services are providing adequate monitoring,
tracking, prevention, treatment and improved medical readiness for the
forces; and we required the Secretary of Defense to develop policies
and procedures on the prevention and response to sexual assault in the
military.
Given the steadily growing demands on the Guard and Reserve, the bill
includes a number of benefit enhancements that seek to recognize their
contribution and provides incentives for them to stay in uniform.
We expanded duty health care coverage to non-active duty reservists
and Guardsmen who were called or ordered to duty for more than 30 days
since September 11, 2001, and who commit to continued service in the
Selective Reserves after their releases from active duty; we made
permanent several of the demonstration authorities that were
implemented by the Department of Defense to address the health care
needs of the reserves and Guard, such as transitional pre and post-
health care coverage for activated reservists; we increased a number of
bonuses and special pays available for the reserve and Guard; and we
clarified that operational activities in the interests of national
security can be conducted under Title 32, which allows Governors to
address potential terrorist threats against our country.
The bill also addresses the highest priority for our military
retirees and their survivors. We phase out the Widow's Tax over the
next four years. No longer will survivors of military retirees have
their benefits reduced when they reach age 65; and, we also provide
immediate concurrent receipt to retirees who are also rated at 100
percent service connected disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill for our military personnel and
it is imperative for those currently serving on the front lines in
combat that we pass this bill before Congress adjourns.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities and oversees our special
operators.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for the great
leadership that has brought us to the floor now for the second time:
first, to, of course, approve the bill; and now, to approve the
conference report.
I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4200, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. I am pleased
to report to my colleagues that the conferees have produced an
outstanding bill. I thank our distinguished chairman, my good friend,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for dedicating this year,
as has been said before, as the year of the troops. Under his
leadership and Senator Warner's leadership, the conferees crafted
legislation replete with initiatives to make significant improvements
that will help our troops.
The bill will provide the resources and direction to better protect
our men and women who are selflessly serving in dangerous conditions
overseas, and we have not forgotten our valiant warriors in the Special
Operations Command. For example, we authorized funds for several items
on the SOCOM commander's unfunded requirements priority list and have
authorized additional funding that would provide some necessary
operational additional flexibility.
Second, the bill provides increased funding for technologies to help
in combating terrorism, extremely important items.
Third, we continue to expand our successful initiative of last year
to develop chemical and biological defenses, countermeasures and have
provided additional funding for procurement of chemical and biological
defense equipment.
The bill recommended by the conferees recognizes that we are, in
fact, at war. American lives are at risk each day, and in fact, too
many have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. This is an excellent
bill, and I urge everybody to support it.
Let me bring up one other subject, Mr. Chairman, under the leadership
of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bartlett), we have included language which speaks to a need going
forward. Obviously, we have got great men and women in the armed
services, but we have to be sure we can get them to the fight in a
timely fashion.
The follow-on to the C-141 aircraft, our old workhorse, the C-17, has
proven to be a marvelous weapons system. Initially, we committed to buy
110. We saw the need for additional ones, and in the meantime, we have
increased the buy by 70 aircraft, making it total, by 2008, of 180
which will come off the line.
Since the beginning of this program we have known that we would need
at least 220. And there is language in this bill, in report language,
to encourage the Air Force for an additional buy of at least 57
aircraft, bringing the total to 222.
Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the chairman, this provision, I believe,
is very important, and we have had this conversation before. We need to
get to the fight in a timely fashion, and I believe, as does the
chairman, that this additional buy is necessary to accomplish that
goal.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would answer the gentleman that this
aircraft has proved to be a superb performer and lift. We are behind on
air lift. We need more air lift, and it is the perfect candidate for
this job of expanding our air lift to the point where we can project
power around the world in the way that we have planned and are today
somewhat deficient.
[[Page H8999]]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have had numerous
conversations with high level Air Force officials on this matter, and
we want them to know that the language that is in the subcommittee
chairman's language, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as
well as in the Senate language in the bill passed in the other house is
serious. This is a serious matter. And we hope that they will fully
take it into consideration as they make decisions about how to move
forward on this matter.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the distinguished member of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Department of
Defense Authorization Conference Report. And I am pleased that the
report includes a number of provisions that I have worked hard on in
this committee. For example, it requires the Department of Defense to
make recommendations about how to alleviate the financial burden that
we have placed on many of our Guard and Reserve families. It calls for
establishing joint training programs of military and civilian personnel
for post-conflict reconstruction operations.
It expands the mission of the Task Force on Sexual Harassment and
Violence at the service academies to look at sexual assault across all
of our military services, and it requires the Department of Defense to
analyze the legal codes that are currently being used to prosecute
sexual assaults. We have to make sure that the morale of our soldiers,
in particular our women soldiers, is not undermined by mistreatment
within our own military.
There are elements missing from the bill that would have made this
legislation even stronger. I am disappointed that we were not able to
close the pay gap between the Guard and Reserves even more because our
Guard and Reserves now comprise over 43 percent of our forces in Iraq.
I also wish that we could have done more to expand child care and
family services for our service members. And I am also disappointed
that we are going to go ahead with the development of a new nuclear
weapon, the robust nuclear Earth perpetrator. This is particularly
troubling at a time when we are asking other nations around the world
to stop their emphasis on pursuing nuclear weapons. I think that we are
sending a very mixed message here.
Overall, I think this is a great bill, and I thank the chairman, and
I thank the ranking member for putting it together and for supporting
some of the initiatives that I have been championing in the committee.
In particular, I thank my ranking member.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman who has the responsibility of
overseeing this 2.5 million person force wearing the uniform of the
United States, a gentleman who oversees all of our personnel
operations.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his gracious
comments.
Like every other Member that has risen here today, I certainly want
to extend both my appreciation and my admiration to the distinguished
chairman of this full committee and his partner in this, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member, for the
terrific work they did. The challenge in bringing this bill together is
not disagreeing as to what needs to be done; it is deciding, of all
those important steps we can and probably should take, which ones
should we take now as we begin to work on a new agenda, almost
immediately.
{time} 1930
I think the committees in both bodies have done a terrific job in
doing that.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), our
ranking member, who is my partner in our endeavor to try to provide
those programs that are usually most associated with the welfare, the
morale of our troops, of our brave men and women in uniform. It is so
important at all times, but certainly in this period of great conflict
and turmoil across the planet.
We have many good things in this bill, much of which has been
discussed, and all of us are flattered on the subcommittee that members
of the committee are deservedly, understandably, taking a great deal of
pride in those.
There are a couple of things that may not have been mentioned as
succinctly as they might have. One is the increase in end strength, Mr.
Speaker, something that many of us have been working on for a good
number of years, in our opinion, a key to alleviating the stress and
the operations and the personnel tempo that our Guard and Reserve and
our active components have been under;
A 23,000 total in the next fiscal year increase to the Army and to
the Marine Corps, a 3.5 percent increase in basic pay for members of
the Armed Forces, a continuation of the year-by-year commitment that
this committee has made to making life in the military a little bit
more livable;
Permanent increases in imminent danger pay and family separation
allowance;
Those very modest but very important kinds of pays that recognize
that when a member is away at war, he or she is paying a price, but of
course, so are the families back home who miss their loved ones as they
are out doing the hard work of freedom.
We have talked about the increased health care benefits that are so
important that play into readiness but also are critical to the
fairness as we are in an era of increased utilization of the Reserve
component and, as the gentlewoman from California said so correctly,
are playing such a vital role, such a high percentage of our war on
terror, and on and on and on.
Lastly, I would like to mention a $7 billion program, a program that
we will, in 4 years, reverse years and years of inequities and
injustice. The Social Security survivor benefit plan offset will be
corrected, something that the veterans service organizations have made
their number one priority in this bill, and this Congress and this
committee did it.
So I urge all my colleagues to join in support of what is a terrific
bill in critically important times.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in yielding 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4200.
I also rise to thank the gentleman from Missouri for his efforts on
behalf of the men and women who serve our country now and in
remembrance of those who have served our country in the past. The
gentleman from Missouri made it possible to put within the National
Defense Authorization Act a provision to recognize those who served our
country in World War I.
The Liberty Memorial is that landmark which is designated as
America's foremost World War I memorial in this legislation. It is a
powerful tribute to those who served and gave their lives for freedom.
By recognizing America's foremost World War I memorial, the Liberty
Memorial in Kansas City, world leaders from the war have come
repeatedly to Kansas City, to dedicate it 78 years ago and to renew it
currently, and generations for the future will come to the memorial and
understand better the war that was fought and why it was important.
I thank the gentleman.
I rise in support of H.R. 4200. The Liberty Memorial in Kansas City,
MO, is the Nation's only museum devoted exclusively to preserving the
memory and teaching the lessons of World War I. A provision in the
National Defense Authorization Act would bestow upon one of the city's
most historic landmarks, recognition as America's foremost World War I
memorial.
When the site for the Liberty Memorial was dedicated on November 1,
1921, the main Allied military leaders spoke to a crowd of close to
200,000 people. It was the only time in history that these leaders were
together at one place. In attendance were LTG Baron Jacques of Belgium;
GEN Armando Diaz of Italy; Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France; GEN John
J. Pershing of the United States; and ADM Lord Earl Beatty of Great
Britain.
The city of Kansas City, the State of Missouri, and thousands of
private donors and
[[Page H9000]]
philanthropic foundations have contributed, and continue to contribute,
millions of dollars to build and restore this national treasure.
The Liberty Memorial has been a landmark in Kansas City for 78 years.
It is a powerful tribute to those who served, and those who gave their
lives for freedom. I was proud to work with Representative Ike Skelton,
the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Service Committee, to
include this provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, to
reaffirm our Nation's commitment to educating current and future
generations about the lessons of World War I.
I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Everett), who oversees our strategic forces in the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to also start by recognizing the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), our chairman, an old-time
friend of mine and I think probably the most patient chairman I have
ever served with in my 12 years in Congress. His skill in leading this
committee has been outstanding.
And we have the contributions also of the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton).
I rise in support of the conference report to accompany the fiscal
year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation supports
the administration's objective while making significant improvements to
the budget request. The gentleman from California's (Chairman Hunter)
theme of supporting the warfighter is retained throughout the entire
measure. Moreover, our national security investment must continue the
development of transformational capabilities of future systems, and
this conference report meets that goal.
In the area of military space, the Department of Defense has embraced
the benefits space provides to our warfighter. Unfortunately, DOD has
experienced significant trouble on several high-priority programs. I
look forward to working with DOD to correct areas of concern and ensure
their success for the future.
However, I am equally concerned over our congressional actions that
have cut Space-Based Radar and Transformational Communication
Satellites to anemic levels. This cannot continue if we are to be
serious about moving to the future and continuing the transformation of
our combat operations.
Within Atomic Energy Defense Activities, the bill funds the National
Nuclear Security Administration at the budget request. The conference
report includes reductions for directed stockpile work, while adding
$50 million for infrastructure upgrades, much needed I might add.
The conferees have fully funded cleanup activities at $6 billion for
defense site cleanup. We have taken a significant step towards
resolving the waste incidental to reprocessing matter, which will allow
for further cleanup to go forward at several sites across the country.
The conference report also makes substantial changes to the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program administered by the
Department of Energy. Specifically, this program, designed to help sick
former atomic weapons workers, has been shifted from the Department of
Energy to the Department of Labor. In addition, the conference report
establishes Federal compensation payments to resolve long-standing
problems with the lack of a willing payer under existing State Workers'
Compensation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his
contribution, and the remainder of my Members on both sides of the
aisle, staffs. I think we faced some of the most difficult policy
decisions in the House Committee on Armed Services, and I want to
express my appreciation for their hard work in protecting this Nation's
security.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in yielding 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a senior member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding the time, and I would like to talk about tankers, a subject
that has been very important to me, and I want to compliment the
conferees for the agreement that was reached on this important issue.
I would like to engage the chairman, if I could, just in a
discussion. It is my understanding that we have in this bill an
authorization for the procurement, no leasing, but the procurement of
100 tankers; is that not correct?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. There is $100
million that authorizes SECDEF to procure 100 tankers on a multiyear
basis.
Mr. DICKS. Right, and it is my understanding that on the question of
support work that that will be recompeted; is that not correct?
Mr. HUNTER. Any support work, since we are not doing a lease, support
work obviously is entirely appropriate that that be competed, and I
know that there are organic depots, as well as private sector, that
look forward to engaging in that.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of studies that the
Secretary of Defense has ordered. Those studies have to be completed,
and then the Secretary will make a decision based on the information,
especially the analysis of alternative study; is that not correct?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, and the
language that was in from the other body that had very large barriers
to early production, that is, requiring that we go with the totally new
production activity, that we not engage in a low-rate initial
production, that LRIP be done away with, and a provision requiring
bringing in outside competitors, which to me means bringing in a
foreign bird which is manufactured by Airbus, all of that language was
stricken. So what we are left with in this conference report is an
authorization for the Secretary to utilize $100 million, which
presently exists, for the multiyear procurement of 100 tanker aircraft.
Let me tell the gentleman, we need those tanker aircraft. The old
Eisenhower aircraft are not going to last us much longer, and the
projection of American air power requires that we have a fleet of new
birds ready to carry American force projection around the world.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with everything that the
chairman said. The most important point is that we do not have to go
back and have another procurement, because if we did that, it would
take years and years before we would start getting the tankers; and I
believe it is the position of this Congress that this is going to be
built by an American company. So I want to commend the gentleman.
I also want to say that every plane that bombed in Iraq and
Afghanistan had to be refueled multiple times, and what I worry about
is a shutdown, if we had a failure.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one point, and I
talked about the C-141s wearing out a little while ago. We replaced
them. We are in the middle of the buy to replace the C-141 with a C-17.
When the average person looks up in the air and sees a military
aircraft, they do not very often think about these planes wearing out.
Well, these planes are over 40 years old, and as a matter of fact, the
Air Mobility Command was just forced to put down or take out of service
almost 30 of these KC-135 aircrafts, the aircraft that we are trying to
replace, because they are worn out, they are corroded, they are old,
and we are unable to use them safely.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important systems we
have for projecting U.S. power around the world, and tankers and EA6Bs,
we just cannot go to war without those two things, and that is why this
is so important.
I rise today in support of this conference report. I would like to
commend Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton on reaching a final
agreement with the Senate on
[[Page H9001]]
this complex and vital legislation. I would also like to express my
personal thanks to both of you, and to the rest of the conferees, for
working out a fair compromise on the issue of aerial refueling tanker
aircraft.
The conferees on the Defense Authorization bill have given the green
light to a 100 aircraft tanker program using multi-year procurement
authority. The agreement would not allow the leasing of these aircraft,
but it would get the tanker procurement program started in FY05 and
ensures the costs savings to the taxpayer of entering into a newly
negotiated multi-year contract for 100 aircraft. The agreement also
requires that maintenance of these aircraft be competed, with
government workers being given a chance to perform the work. I strongly
support this compromise.
The provisions in this bill, when combined with the $100 million
Tanker Replacement Fund established in the FY05 Defense Appropriations
bill, ensure that the Secretary of Defense will have the money and the
authority to begin a tanker program next year. Although this is later
than the Air Force, and this Member, preferred, it is still important
progress, because the Air Force desperately needs to begin replacing
these aircraft.
All of the KC-135 refueling aircraft that the Air Force flies today
were produced between 1957 and 1963. The youngest of these planes are
now over 40 years old. They are riddled with corrosion and 29 of them
were recently grounded due to problems with their engine struts. At the
same time, our aerial refueling capability is an increasingly important
part of our military capability. These aircraft are what make this
country a superpower, capable of projecting power around the world.
Every aircraft that flew into both Iraq and Afghanistan for air strikes
had to be refueled multiple times. The danger if we don't begin to
replace these planes is that we could have a block failure, which could
ground over 900 of our refueling aircraft. That would cripple the
military of this country, and ground our Armed Forces at a time when
they are deployed around the world, That outcome is simply
unacceptable.
I also want to take note of the excellent work the Armed Services
Committee has done in this bill by raising the cap on the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative. This program is essential to the
quality of life of the Armed Forces. By raising the cap on this
program, we will ensure that it can continue through fiscal year 2005
and beyond. As we meet here today, this program is building hundreds of
new homes for soldiers at Ft. Lewis in Washington. I've visited these
new homes. They are very attractive well-built homes, and the soldiers
and their spouses are very excited about this program.
I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for
authorizing a military construction project in my district to relocate
the Fox Island Naval Laboratory. The conference report authorizes an
$18 million project to relocate this facility, a move which will
substantially improve the security and capability of this facility. The
first phase of the project, nearly $7 million, was approved by the
House earlier this year.
I urge every Member to vote for this conference report.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate we follow this
discussion with the gentleman who chairs the Subcommittee on Projection
Forces, which oversees the projection of aerial forces as well as naval
forces around the world. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, many thanks to our great
chairman and ranking member for a job well done.
Our subcommittee portion of H.R. 4200 will provide the men and women
in the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force with better tools now and in
the future to meet the challenges to win the war on terrorism and
ensure continued U.S. Naval superiority.
One reason for that is the dedication of the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). I am grateful for our strong and cooperative
relationship. I am also very pleased by the hard work of all of our
colleagues on the Subcommittee on Projection Forces. I want to add a
very special thanks to our very good and hardworking staff.
One of the most important provisions in this bill is a shipbuilding
initiative to strengthen the ability of America's shipyards to compete
in the global marketplace.
The LHA(R) amphibious assault ship program initiative will ensure
that the Navy and Marines will benefit from improved capabilities while
stabilizing America's industrial base capacity. It would not have been
possible without the leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor) and Secretary Young.
Other shipbuilding initiatives include commencement of the LCS,
Littoral Combat Ship, and the DD(X) advanced destroyer programs and a
modernization program for the DDG-51 Aegis destroyer.
The bill supports modernization of the B-2 bomber and the development
of the JSF, Joint Strike Fighter.
This bill is critical to meet the challenges and demands placed upon
our armed services to prevail in the global war on terrorism. It
strikes a fine balance between modernization of existing weapons
programs and platforms and the development of new systems. This is an
extraordinary challenge.
The surest path to peace is to prepare for war. With H.R. 4200, we
take important steps to equip our forces for the future. I urge all of
my colleagues to support H.R. 4200.
{time} 1945
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in yielding 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time, and I congratulate him and my good friend, the chairman, and
the great staff on both sides of the aisle for a great job on this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces, I rise in support of this bill. The chairman of our
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), and I agreed on
most of the issues that came before our subcommittee, but on those few
issues that we did not agree on, the debate was always cordial and
respectful. And I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman
Everett, for his leadership and for his friendship. I thank him so much
for working to get this done.
In conference, our subcommittee had jurisdiction over legislation
that will greatly improve the lives of tens of thousands of Cold War
heroes and their families. In 2000, Congress enacted the Energy
Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which set up
two different programs, one administered by the Department of Labor and
one by the Department of Energy. To eliminate many flaws in the DOE
program, this conference report transfers the DOE program to the
Department of Labor, establishes a clear compensation system, and
ensures that workers will receive their medical benefits and
compensation for lost wages by making it a mandatory spending program.
These workers may not have worn military uniforms, but they built the
weapons that deterred the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, and
they were literally poisoned while doing this. I thank my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers for working to fix these
important programs.
I also want to speak to another very important issue to all of us
that was handled by the Subcommittee on Military Readiness on which I
also serve. Almost half of our military family housing units are rated
today in very poor condition. Our conference report tackles this
shameful problem by saving the military housing privatization
initiative. This program was nearly killed by budget resolutions in
both Chambers, which neglected to make budgetary headroom that needed
to be lifted so that the statutory cap on spending would provide that
growing room.
A number of us have been fighting to rescue this program all year
long. I am proud to say we finally prevailed, and tonight the program
is saved and military families will have their housing renovated and,
in some cases, rebuilt. If we had not eliminated the limit, however,
the privatization housing program would have reached the cap within a
couple of months and our efforts to eliminate substandard military
family housing, which we all very much care about within the United
States, within the next 5 years would have been derailed.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many, many items. I support most of
it. And while I disagree with a few, the fact that we are finally and
fairly compensating our sick Cold War workers and the fact we are
rescuing the privatized housing program, and thus helping
[[Page H9002]]
50,000 military families over the next 2 years alone, makes this bill
worth supporting.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee,
I rise in support of this bill. Chairman Everett and I agreed on most
of the issues that came before our subcommittee, but on those few
issues where we did disagree, the debate was cordial and respectful. I
thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Everett, for his leadership.
In conference, our subcommittee had jurisdiction over legislation
that will greatly improve the lives of tends of thousands of Cold War
heroes and their families. In 2000, Congress enacted the Energy
Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which set up
two different programs--one administered by the Department of Labor and
one by the Department of Energy (DOE). The Labor program focused on DOE
employees with three specific diseases: chronic beryllium disease,
silicosis, or cancer caused by radiation. The DOE program was for
workers who suffered from illnesses other than those three diseases.
The DOE was charged with helping these workers recover lost wages
through their state workers' compensation system.
By all accounts, the Labor Department has efficiently covered medical
costs and provided compensation to those affected workers or their
survivors under their charge. Unfortunately, the DOE program was
conceptually flawed and wrought with incompetence and mismanagement. To
date, 25,000 workers have filed claims with the DOE, but relatively few
have had their claims processed--and even fewer have received any
compensation.
To eliminate the many flaws in the DOE program, this conference
report transfers the DOE program to the Department of Labor,
establishes a clear compensation system, and ensures that workers will
receive their medical benefits and compensation for lost wages by
making it a mandatory spending program. These workers may not have worn
military uniforms, but they built the weapons that deterred the Soviet
Union throughout the Cold War, and they were literally poisoned while
doing so. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both
chambers for working to fix these programs.
I want to speak to another important program handled by the Readiness
Subcommittee, on which I also serve. Almost half of our military family
housing units are rated in poor condition. Our conference report
tackles this shameful problem by saving the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative (MHPI). This program was nearly killed by
budget resolutions in both chambers which neglected to make budgetary
headroom needed to lift the statutory cap on spending. A number of us
including Solomon Ortiz, Joel Hefley, Chet Edwards, and Ike Skelton,
among others, have been fighting to rescue this program all year long.
I am proud to say that we finally prevailed. If we had not eliminated
the limit, the privatized housing program would have reached the cap
within a month or two and our efforts to eliminate substandard military
family housing in the United States within the next five years would
have been derailed.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many items. I support most, and I
disagree with a few. But the fact that we are finally and fairly
compensating our sick Cold War workers and the fact that we are
rescuing the privatized housing program--helping 50,000 military
families over the next two years alone--make this bill deserving of
bipartisan support.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his outstanding work and
for going time and again to the war-fighting theaters in Afghanistan
and Iraq, and all our Members who did that throughout the year to get
information to help put this bill together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Smith), who was a very distinguished outside conferee from the
Committee on Science.
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
me this time, and I thank the ranking member, the staff, and the rest
of the members for doing a good job on this bill. I am an outside
member because my Subcommittee on Research on the Committee on Science
overseas the U.S. Fire Administration, and this legislation
reauthorizes the Fire Grant program.
By the end of this year, we will have 25,000 fire grants awarded in
the United States, and I understand that every congressional district
will have had a grant to a fire department in their district or
operating for their district.
Volunteers in the United States cover most of the fire protection for
areas of the United States. One concern in this fire grant bill
reauthorization was that the Senate rejected an offer by the House to
encourage volunteers. Let me tell you what happened. In the language in
our House bill we had a bipartisan provision that said you cannot
discriminate against full-time firefighters volunteering when they go
back to their home districts. We were told that the IAFF opposed and
that it would be thrown out and the Senate conferees would rather have
no fire grant program than have that language in the bill. So sadly for
volunteers that language is not in the bill.
But everybody should understand that volunteer firefighters are
incredibly selfless, putting their lives at risk for usually no reward
greater than the knowledge that they are making their community a safer
place. Many career firefighters actually get their start as volunteers,
only joining the paid department after they have attained a basic level
of training and experience. The fire grant program is an excellent
program. Volunteers in the United States add enormously to our first-
line home protection and volunteerism should be encouraged.
Passage of this legislation will extend the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program through 2009. The fire grant program was
started 5 years ago in this bill. It has dramatically improved public
safety in this country. Through fiscal year 2003, nearly 17,000 fire
departments have received assistance to purchase vital equipment,
vehicles, and training, and it is estimated that an additional 8,000
will receive grants this year.
The fire grant program is extremely effective for our homeland
defense. Grants are distributed based on the recommendations of panels
of nonbiased firefighters, who rank grant applications based on merit.
The funding goes straight to the departments that need it most without
being held up by political considerations, complex formulas or
bureaucratic red tape.
Unfortunately, the reauthorization will do nothing to protect career
firefighters from being discriminated against for volunteering during
off-duty hours. Many career firefighters who volunteer in their home
communities when they aren't at work are actually harassed for doing
so. In some career fire departments, volunteering can even be grounds
for termination. The House bill to reauthorize the fire grant program,
H.R. 4107, included important language prohibiting a fire department
that receives grant funds from discriminating against, or prohibiting
its members from engaging in volunteer activities during off-duty
hours.
A provision was unanimously supported by the bipartisan leaders of
the House Congressional Fire Services Caucus. Unfortunately, we ran
into a brick wall when we got to conference. The Senate conferees were
prepared to forgo reauthorizing the fire grant program altogether if
the volunteer nondiscrimination language was included. Their position
didn't even budge when we offered to compromise by simply calling for a
study on the issue.
Volunteer fire departments are vital in protecting small communities,
especially in rural areas like my hometown of Addison, Michigan.
Volunteer firefighters are incredibly selfless, putting their lives at
risk for no reward greater than the knowledge that they are making
their community a safer place to live. Many career firefighters
actually get their start as volunteers, only joining a paid department
after they have attained a basic level of training and experience.
It is unfair that any volunteer would be told that he or she must
choose between a job and volunteering to protecting their friends and
neighbors. They should be able to provide their invaluable skills,
knowledge and expertise to their hometown departments without
harassment and retribution from employers. Eliminating volunteer
firefighters would compromise safety in thousands of communities across
the country like my own that simply do not have the resources to
maintain anything but a volunteer or combination fire department.
And yet a provision that would have protected these noble public
servants was unacceptable to our counterparts on the other side of the
Capitol. What compelling argument was it that convinced them to risk
reauthorizing the fire grant program? How did they become so
intractable as to be willing to turn their backs on a program that they
have a strong history of supporting, even over a study?
The International Association of Fire Fighters, IAFF, established the
position that the Senate conferees ended up adopting. The IAFF opposed
passage of H.R. 4107 because of the volunteer nondiscrimination
provision. This isn't surprising seeing as their own constitution
prohibits members from volunteering.
[[Page H9003]]
I think they figure that if you get rid of all the volunteers,
municipalities will be forced to hire new full time union members.
Maybe this makes sense to union lobbyists in Washington, but it doesn't
seem fair to the thousands of career firefighters that choose to
volunteer out of a sense of civic duty, and it reflects poorly on the
Senate conferees who sided with the IAFF over rank and file
firefighters and the interests of public safety.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Once again the Chair would
admonish Members that it is not in order to cast reflections on the
Senate or its Members individually or collectively.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 20 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), a great member of
the committee who is considered to be the godfather of the survivor
benefit program that we have manifested in this bill.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I have never been godfather of anything, so I
thank him very much; and, Mr. Speaker, I do rise to express my
overwhelming support of this conference report.
With the passage of this conference report tonight, the ``widows'
tax'' will die. It will die a year and a half more quickly than any
other SBP bill that has ever been proposed because this amendment was
vigorously supported by our chairman, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and defended amidst the Senate
provisions with the House conferees.
This is an authorization measure of which this body can be proud. In
less than 4 years from now, we will have fully restored SBP to what was
promised from the beginning to America's surviving spouses. Since
coming to this body, I have been working this issue, and so have many
others. It has been nothing if not a team effort, and the time is right
for this reform.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who deserve to be
recognized and thanked for their efforts. Nearly 80 percent of this
body has cosponsored one of my two SBP bills in this Congress. The
House Armed Services staff has worked at times literally around the
clock to see this effort through. My colleagues on the Committee on
Armed Services and on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and a host of
others have all participated in Special Order hours, press conferences,
letters of support, and in town hall meetings in districts across our
country.
And, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our Republican leadership for
hearing our call on the urgency and the need for this reform. And I
thank our President for meeting twice with VSOs on this issue, once in
the oval office and once aboard Air Force 1.
To my constituents, whose letters, calls, faxes, e-mails, and
personal comments over the last 3 years have kept us motivated to
realize this goal, I am proud to represent northwest Florida here in
the Nation's capital, and I am thankful in the aftermath of Hurricane
Ivan's devastation throughout the State of Florida, I am able to bring
this victory home to the Emerald Coast.
But it is not just the 3,200 survivors in my district who are one
step away from seeing an increase in their monthly checks next year,
Mr. Speaker. A quarter of a million military widows nationwide are part
of this victory. This has been a grass-roots campaign in the truest
sense, and I thank every American who has been a part of that.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican-controlled Congress has exceeded even my
expectations. This is the kind of wrong we came to Washington to right,
and I am proud to stand here with my chairman in full support of this
measure and urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who has done great work on the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the fiscal year
2005 Defense authorization conference report, and I would like to thank
and commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), our chairman,
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), and
the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their tireless efforts
in support of our soldiers, our sailors, airmen and Marines who are
bravely defending us at home and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, this is the year of the soldier, and this ``soldiers'
bill,'' as the chairman describes it, does a remarkable job of covering
a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed
services. From improving the Survivor Benefit Program to a 3.5 percent
across-the-board pay raise, this conference report addresses the most
pressing needs of our troops in a very trying time for America.
For our Reservists who have been activated, this bill will provide
TRICARE standard coverage for them and their families while they are
working to get their feet back on the ground when they return home. For
every 90 days consecutive active duty service, the Reservists and their
families are eligible for 1 year of TRICARE coverage while on nonactive
duty status.
For our deployed soldiers, this conference report contains $728
million for new up-armored Humvees, $100 million for vehicle armor
kits, and countless other provisions to protect our troops on the
ground.
I am also grateful for the work the House Committee on Armed Services
has done to fund the F/A-22 program this year. The funding for 24
planes will go a long way towards providing stability for the program
and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable
future.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the
ranking member of the committee for their hard work on this bill.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes
and 40 seconds remaining; the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has
7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank our chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), for their
strong leadership and hard work to ensure our national defense
continues to be second to none in the world.
I would like to particularly thank and acknowledge their invaluable
assistance, as well as that of the conferees and their staffs,
including Bill Ostendorf and Hugh Brady, for their efforts and long
hours to finalize the important details in section 3116 of the
conference report to H.R. 4200.
This section allows the Department of Energy to fully process harmful
nuclear waste currently being stored in aging tanks at DOE sites in
Idaho and South Carolina in a timely and cost-effective manner that
protects the environment.
I have no doubt that section 3116 provides the necessary and proper
protections for my constituents in South Carolina because it requires
the DOE to follow objective performance criteria and to continue to
work with State authorities to ensure cleanup standards are strictly
followed.
Again, I wish to thank the distinguished chairman for working with
members of the South Carolina delegation, including Senator Lindsey
Graham, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), and particularly my colleagues on
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Wilson) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), to provide
a safe and cost-effective means to protect our environment and
communities from dangerous nuclear wastes. I urge my colleagues to
support the conference report to H.R. 4200.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr.
[[Page H9004]]
Cunningham), my seat mate from San Diego, the great Top Gun.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, who are the men that support our
military? It is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), it is the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), it is the men and women on this
committee.
And who are they? Mr. Hunter's dad, R. O. Hunter, was a Marine.
Duncan fought in combat. His son just got back last weekend to greet a
wife and his children.
{time} 2000
I saw mothers march in a protest at the Republican convention that
had lost their sons. I was not angry. I felt remorse and hurt for those
people that we lost.
I rode on an airplane with a young man named Eddie Wright. He is a
Marine that lost both his arms. Eddie Wright, when I fastened his seat
belt, he would not let me help him eat. He said, Duke, one thing a
Marine learns how to do is eat, and he was trying to do that with his
prosthetic arm. He felt guilty about not being able to go back to his
troops.
Supporting defense is more than just this bill. It is people like Ike
Skelton, Silvestre Reyes, Duncan Hunter, the men and women in both
bodies that care. This is a good bill. It is more than a bill. It means
life, and it means death. Thank you to both of you.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The remarks of my friend from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a
distinguished war hero in his own right, cause me to wish to say a word
or two about those who wear the uniform and about those who wore the
uniform.
Mr. Speaker, every Sunday morning, I have the pleasure of being with
a group of men from my hometown of Lexington, Missouri, most of whom
are veterans of wars of yesteryear, heroes in their own right, Marines
of Vietnam, Army, Navy, my friend Vic Cosner who saw the very worst of
battles in Europe during the Second World War.
We owe it in this Congress under the Constitution that charges our
committee and charges this body with raising and maintaining the
military to produce and care for and train young men and young women
who can take the place of those who so nobly served our country in the
past. That is what we are doing today.
A special thanks to our chairman, Duncan Hunter, who worked
tirelessly with us well into the evening to produce this bill and got
it to the floor. A special thanks to every member of the Committee on
Armed Services, Democrat and Republican, and the unsung heroes of all
of this is the tireless effort of the staff of the Committee on Armed
Services. We could not do it without them. We thank them so very much.
Mr. Speaker, I had a rare privilege 3 weeks ago of being able to
address the new sailors who had just graduated, were graduating, from
the Great Lakes Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, Illinois. Mark
Kirk, our fellow Member of Congress, invited me for such an event. I
spoke to them, and I thanked them, and I also read a letter to the
graduates that my father had written his mother in 1918 from that very
same Great Lakes before he proceeded on to serve aboard the USS
Missouri of the day. I want everybody to know that those young sailors,
men and women, stood so tall, and you could see the pride in their
faces, but even more proud were the parents and the families, thousands
of them, to see the some 900 brand new American sailors become part of
the fleet.
So what we do in our own way here is to legally provide and maintain,
but more than that, I think this effort and what we have done for those
in uniform and the families, major steps to help them along the way.
Cicero, the great Greek orator, said that gratitude was the greatest of
all virtues. I hope that the efforts that we do today will show a bit
of gratitude from this body to all of those young men and women who
wear the uniform of the United States of America.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today disappointed but not surprised by
the Bush Administration's escalating lack of interest in housing, and
the rising affordable housing crisis impacting millions of families
nationwide.
As we all know, housing is not only a basic human right but it serves
as an economic engine for the market, and the foundation for
intergenerational wealth building in many of our families.
Mr. Speaker, this Administration has put inconsequential energy into
homeownership for the few; while people on the cusp of becoming
homeowners, lifetime renters, and many in public housing are
deliberately left behind.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget has severe
proposed cuts for 2005; and it's sad when housing advocates hope
Congress passes a Continuing Resolution to keep funding level, instead
of hoping for a better, bigger budget.
The Administration cut pubic housing funding dramatically. By HUD's
own admission, the President's proposed budget cuts at least $1.63
billion from baseline programs.
For example, the Community Development Block Grant program's funding
has fallen by some 9 percent in real terms since the Bush
Administration took office.
The Bush FY'05 budget for HUD zeroed out several programs, including:
the Brownfields program, the Rural Housing and Economic Development
program, and the Empowerment Zones programs.
The Bush budget also rescinds $675 million in funding for Section 236
projects; a program that supports elder housing services; and cuts in
public housing lead paint eradication grants by $35 million.
And what is most concerning is the Bush Administration's efforts to
cut and block grant the Section 8 program.
The Bush Budget for 2005 would cut $1.633 billion from the level
needed just to renew all expiring Section 8 vouchers. This is the
equivalent of funding for 231,260 voucher holders, families, veterans,
and our elderly.
Block granting and cutting funding for Section 8 has a series of
ripple effects.
The Bush proposal forces housing authorities to reduce the level of
subsidy provided to voucher holders, by eliminating the requirement
that the subsidy be based on a family paying no more than 30 percent of
their net income for a fair market rental unit in their community.
The Bush proposal eliminates the ``targeting'' of scarce voucher
resources to those in need--by dropping the requirement that 75 percent
of new vouchers go to ``extremely low income families'', including
those below 30 percent of local area median income.
The immediate consequence of the ``Section 8 Dismantlement'' proposal
is the disruption of families' lives.
The Bush budget cuts and block granting will lead housing agencies to
reduce desperately needed assistance, increase family rent burdens,
stop helping families on waiting lists, and revoking previously-awarded
vouchers to families who are still searching for a home.
A serious, longer-term consequence of the Section 8 block granting is
the erosion of hard-won landlord and lender confidence in the program.
This results in more and more landlords renting at fair market values
that are guaranteed instead of extending a helping hand to those who
are most in need.
Our failure to respond to local housing circumstances and costs has
already led to some local agencies' inability to continue voucher
assistance for currently-assisted families. Loss of assistance for
these families can easily translate into homelessness, a condition that
the Bush Administration and countless cities across the country have
vowed to eradicate.
The continued dismantling of basic and necessary programs which
provide affordable housing for average people must be stopped.
We must stop allowing the Administration to get away with making
housing only a privilege for the few, because we all recognize it
should be a basic and fundamental right for all.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass a real housing budget that reflects our
commitment to providing affordable, quality housing for all and reverse
the trend of the BAD Bush Budgets of the past.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, while I support the many strides
forward the Department of Defense Authorization will represent, I must
rise to note my great concern about a provision regarding the Outlying
Landing Field OLF proposed for Washington and Beaufort counties in
North Carolina.
I share the concerns of the community that the proposed OLF would
displace 74 property owners, take 30,000 acres off the local property
tax rolls, and could have a negative impact on the quality of life in
the area. I also share the concern that the project could reduce the
potential for tourism and economic development.
The funding was removed by the House, but the Conference Committee
elected to retain the funding language. Washington and Beaufort
Counties, along with environmental groups, are in litigation to avoid
the OLF development. They were successful and the federal courts have
ordered the Navy to cease all OLF development activity, pending the
outcome of legal challenges to the Washington County site. More
recently, the federal district
[[Page H9005]]
court rejected a plea by the Navy to reverse or narrow the scope of the
injunction.
The Washington County OLF site is strongly opposed by many elected
officials, citizens groups and by major North Carolina agricultural,
property rights and conservation organizations. I stand with them in
opposing this site.
While I oppose the inclusion of this funding, I cannot vote against
fulfilling the needs of our brave fighting men and women. Under the
bill we finally eliminate the social security offsets to the Survivor
Benefit Plan payments for the spouses of military retirees; increase
the number of troops for the Army and Marines; improve housing for our
military men and women; and, create a reimbursement program for
soldiers who were forced to buy their own body armor. These are just a
few examples of the many accomplishments attributed to the bill.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
reforms to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program, EEOICPA, included in H.R. 4200, the FY05 Defense Authorization
Act.
When EEOICPA was enacted in 2000, hopes were high. My constituents
who became ill as a result of their work with radioactive materials
felt that help was finally on the way. Four years later, the snail's
pace of claims processing at the Department of Energy has only further
hurt these workers.
Today, however, Congress will enact crucial EEOICPA reforms. All
valid claims will be paid by the Department of Labor, thereby
eliminating the need for claimants to go to state workers compensation
systems. This also eliminates the need for a willing payer, which until
now has been a significant roadblock for rewarding meritorious claims.
Most importantly, funding the medical and workers' compensation
benefits in this program will be mandatory. This ensures that the fate
of our nuclear workers will not be subject to the whims of the annual
budget.
These veterans of the Cold War have waited long enough to be
compensated for the illnesses they incurred while serving their nation.
I applaud these reforms, and I will continue to monitor the program
closely to ensure that it works as intended.
Another significant change to the EEOICPA in this bill is that former
uranium workers who were compensated under the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act will now be eligible for payments under EEOICPA, and
will now receive assured payments rather than relying on discretionary
appropriations. This is a promising step in the right direction for
uranium workers, and I look forward to continuing work on the RECA
program to address the needs of other qualifying groups, such as the
downwinders.
I would like to thank the numerous people who worked incessantly on
these reforms. It is my hope that these reforms help get this program
back on track.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. As the Ranking Member
of the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats Subcommittee, I believe
that the product before us today is, on the whole, a solid bill.
The House Armed Services Committee pledged to make this year the
``Year of the Soldier.'' Our soldiers are performing heroically despite
the worsening conditions in Iraq. This Administration failed to get
them the equipment they needed, the international support to relieve
the burden on them, and the clear plan to win the peace.
After a year in which our military has been strained and
overstretched like never before, I'm pleased that this legislation
takes important strides toward honoring our heroes and strengthening
our forces.
I'm pleased that this legislation authorizes critical force
protection resources, including an additional $572 million in funding
for Up-Armored Humvees and $250 million for add-on armor kits. It also
includes a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to cut
through red tape and rapidly field in-demand equipment when our troops
need it.
Additionally, I'm pleased that my colleagues recognized the need to
address the gaping holes in oversight of civilian contractors. The
prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were an ugly example of what can
happen without proper oversight.
This conference report includes the Contractor Accountability Act,
which I introduced in May to ensure that non-Defense Department
contractors are covered by the Military Extraterritoral Jurisdiction
Act.
Finally, the bill makes many important quality of life improvements
for our troops and veterans.
It phases out the Survivor Benefit Penalty over a four-year period
and includes a 3.5 percent across the board pay raise for military
personnel.
It also authorizes a much-needed increase in active-duty endstrength
of 30,000 soldiers and 9,000 Marines. This administration has over-
stretched our military to the breaking point. We need to increase the
size of our volunteer military.
With respect to the Terrorism Subcommittee's mark, several provisions
in this portion of the bill deserve praise.
First, I'm pleased we included a number of recommendations to
streamline and accelerate the development and acquisition of
technologies to combat terrorism.
Additional resources are provided in a number of areas: including
chemical and biological research and detection.
The conference report also includes a provision I offered with Mr.
Turner of Texas to improve the manner in which we develop and acquire
medical countermeasures against biological warfare agents.
I do not support every provision in the authorization bill.
I remain concerned about cuts to DARPA and several information
technology programs.
I'm also very disappointed that the Hate Crimes Language was dropped.
The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability
of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute
these vicious crimes. It is supported by more than 175 law enforcement,
civil rights, civic and religious organizations as well as many
bipartisan members of this Congress.
The bill also is silent on providing TRICARE benefits to non-active
duty Reservists. I strongly supported the Senate provision that would
have ensured that all Reserve Component members receive access to
health care: Unfortunately, this language was also dropped.
We will be back fighting for these priorities. But for now, I urge my
colleagues to join in me passing this bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference
report. I believe that this important legislation provides the
necessary resources and policy guidance to protect America's national
security. I congratulate the gentleman from California, the Chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, for his usual outstanding
work in putting this important legislation together.
I want to address one provision in particular, section 1225,
regarding commercial exports of defense articles and services to the
United Kingdom and Australia.
For the first time, we will give our two closest allies in the war on
terror preferential treatment in the U.S. licensing process. By
requiring regulations to accelerate export licenses for these
countries--rather than eliminating licenses as some had proposed--this
provision establishes exactly the right balance: we will wisely
maintain control and supervision over weapons shipped through
commercial channels while the war on terrorism continues. But we
require the State Department to do it rapidly, and ensure that
longstanding allies who fight alongside our armed forces are always at
the head of the line.
I would note that section 1225 allows other Federal departments or
agencies to seek referral of licenses when the defense article or
service being exported involves classified information or when
exceptional circumstances apply. As a conferee on this section, I
expect that referrals to other departments or agencies would be granted
under the ``exceptional circumstances'' clause, among other reasons,
when the proposed export involves items related to the war on terror or
affects U.S. nonproliferation policy. Additionally, it should be
absolutely clear that the ``exceptional circumstances'' clause does not
prejudice referrals to those departments or agencies seeking referrals
on law enforcement grounds.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We are all proud of the
tremendous sacrifice our military members make for the defense of our
country. Our 1.4 million active duty service members, and an additional
875,000 citizen soldiers--National Guardsmen and reservists--are
serving the nation under the most arduous of conditions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. We owe these Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines a
tremendous debt of gratitude for the service they provide in our
defense. Their sacrifice is an honor to our nation; it is our
responsibility to provide for their readiness.
I would also like to take time to recognize the thousands of
government service civilians and private individuals who support the
readiness of our service members and our military. Their sacrifice is
sometimes overlooked but their jobs are vital to the continued success
of our armored forces in this time of war. We could not fight and win
without them and I thank them for their dedicated service to our
national defense.
This act provides for the immediate needs of our Armed Forces and we
have proactively considered their future needs as well. In this global
war, we must not lose sight of the challenges we face in maintaining
our readiness in the future. Our military has been engaged in combat
for nearly three years. The equipment
[[Page H9006]]
and weapons systems our service members fight with has taken a
tremendous beating in the harsh conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As
this conflict drags on we must remain steadfast in our resolution to
fully man and equip our maintenance and support activities to deal with
battle damaged and worn out vehicles and weapons systems while at the
same time we begin to transform our forces to new weapons and mobility
systems.
I am very pleased that we were able to eliminate the cap on the
privatized housing program. I was a co-author of the original
provisions to establish the privatized housing program in the 1996
Defense Authorization bill. This is a ``win-win'' program that builds
quality family housing for our troops and their families much more
quickly than we could through the regular family housing construction
process. The Budget Committees put this program in grave jeopardy by
refusing to include any way to eliminate the cap in the budget
resolution, but I am proud that our committee, on a bipartisan basis,
was able to save the program. If we had not found a way to eliminate
the cap, new housing for almost 50,000 families over the next two years
would have been delayed indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House did not stick to its
position, validated by a bipartisan majority on the House floor, to
delay BRAC for two years. The Army is in the midst of restructuring
itself. We are bringing two divisions home from Europe. We are revising
our warplans to support new strategies and are still reviewing the
division of labor between our active duty forces and our reserve
components. Last but not least, we are still at war in Iraq.
With this many unknowns, I think it is irresponsible to push forward
with BRAC. The House position to delay it for two years was the more
prudent and responsible approach, and I am sorely disappointed that
this provision was dropped in conference.
Mr. Speaker, we have done our best to provide for the Readiness of
our Armed Forces who so selflessly serve in the defense of our Nation.
I commend our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and civilians and
thank them for their service.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this act and I yield the
balance of my time.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed in the result of the
conference report, whereby they caved into the Senate language on BRAC,
when the House made a significant statement to delay BRAC for 2 years.
We passed that matter by nearly 100 votes in the full House. Yet the
conference ignored that. I am deeply disappointed. Since we conceived
BRAC in 1989, the United States has sent troops abroad 24 times . . .
to nearly every continent on the planet.
Our interests in democracy, in protecting other democracies and
allies, in our own self-defense, as in Afghanistan . . . or building
democracies as in Iraq . . . are global. That means our military forces
stand on the wall far and wide in a dangerous world . . . and our
interests are everywhere danger can gather.
We are at war . . . and there is a lot of uncertainty over the
resources we need. Congress cannot fly blind, we need to fully evaluate
our global posture situation . . . and we must hear the analysis on
that before we allow BRAC to proceed. The war in Iraq--and the war in
Afghanistan--are not the only unknowns we face. As Chairman Hunter
advocated and I supported--this bill increases our troop levels by
39,000.
We are also considering major movement of troops from South Korea and
Europe back to the U.S. . . . So, where will we put them? You do not
close major components of your military infrastructure while you are
still unsure if you need it . . . and world events yet to happen over
the next few years will dictate that need. The most-often heard
arguments in favor of BRAC are that there is excess space we do not
need, and it will save us money. I respectfully disagree with both
prospects.
As for excess space . . . that could be a possibility in peacetime .
. . maybe . . . but not now . . . not when the nation is at war. It's
not entirely accurate to say we have excess space--does anybody know
the current workload for our maintenance and repair? There is no excess
space at the depot in my district. That will likely not change if the
operations tempo continues at the present pace.
While I know we hear about cost savings associated with BRAC, I
profoundly disagree with DoD estimates . . . mostly because they are
not all-inclusive. For instance, in a recent GAO Report, the opening
letter notes that DoD calculates net savings based on eliminating/
reducing personnel and base ops . . . and the cancellation of mil con
projects. That's it. Really? So the math doesn't include the
astronomical cost to clean up the surrounding environment? The cost of
clean up continually streaks upward.
I suppose if you leave out all the costs, it would appear to save
money. But Congress should insist the Pentagon include all those costs
if we are serious about understanding any savings in this. A GAO report
presented to my Readiness Subcommittee says: ``BRAC rounds have
generated substantial net savings . . . for the Department. We have . .
. viewed these savings estimates as imprecise for a variety of reasons,
such as weaknesses in DOD's financial management systems that limit its
ability to fully account for the costs of its operations; the fact that
DOD's accounting systems . . . are oriented to tracking expenses and
disbursements, not savings; the exclusion of BRAC-related costs
incurred by other agencies; and inadequate periodic updating of the
savings estimates that are developed.''
As a member of this Congress, I'm more interested in the savings TO
THE TAXPAYER than to the Department. So while the math provided by the
Pentagon certainly shows on paper what they think will be savings, that
math is only as solid as ALL the information on which they base
decisions.
Another consideration in this discussion is the fact that the
Department of Homeland Security has not nearly grown up into what it
needs to be. It is a brand new, major reorganization of all the
national assets that protect our families and the country. DHS may need
to use some elements of the current military infrastructure as they
determine future needs. It will be much harder to reacquire a property
for the government if we dispose of it through BRAC.
At the end of the day, we'll be OK in this war--but we need ask the
question: are we going to need additional training facilities? Training
has been a concern in Iraq . . . we may need facilities a BRAC could
close to use for training. When Congress designed a BRAC for 2005, we
were at peace. Now we are at war, and near a BRAC that could very well
dispose of military assets we will need again--either for a growing
military or for DHS.
We didn't have to be tied to this schedule . . . we should not be
sheep. This is the most bipartisan of matters. After many years in
politics, I've discovered when friends on both sides disagree with you
. . . you've hit the middle.
On another matter, I am pleased that the conference did restore
funding for Military housing. The idea for public-private military
housing was born in Kingsville Texas--after BRAC 95. The community
wanted quality low-cost housing for area Naval bases. The idea was
this: private developers would build quality homes for sailors and
their families--and sailors would pay rent through their housing
vouchers.
The program was so wildly successful; in 1996 Sec. Perry implemented
it service-wide. The need is still enormous--service members and their
families are still often in condemned or insufficient housing. It is a
shame we had to beg and beg to get the conference to include this
provision to keep our brave soldiers--and the families they leave to
fight in wars beyond our shores--in housing that is not condemned.
I reluctantly signed the conference report, because it's too
important not to. But I remain deeply offended that the House position
on the matter of delaying BRAC was ignored by the conference.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking minority
member of the Committee on House Administration, I rise today in
support of the two provisions in the DoD Authorization Conference
Report for FY05 that are under the jurisdiction of my committee. The
first provision addresses an innovative electronic voting project and
the other highlights the need to support absentee voting.
Earlier this year, the Department of Defense cancelled the Secure
Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment SERVE project. SERVE is a
$22 million pilot program that was designed to test the reliability of
Internet voting for 100,000 military personnel and civilians living
overseas. Some academics have questioned the security of the system. I
agree that any problems should be addressed before we move forward with
Internet voting, but this is a very worthy project. If the military can
send coded information to installations and battlefields around the
world, we should be able to send votes across a secure, private system.
Fortunately, the Election Assistance Commission EAC is now charged
with moving the SERVE project forward. Formed by the Help America Vote
Act to serve as the clearinghouse for matters relating to elections and
the voting process, the EAC is certainly the body best suited for this
task. Specifically, it is responsible for establishing guidelines and
helping the Secretary of Defense in carrying out the project.
Historically, it is our military that has led the way for our
country. Not only in times of trouble, but it has also led the way in
technological advances. The military has the opportunity to lead the
way again in technology, but this time, in the voting booth. It
deserves the opportunity to participate in this landmark electronic
voting program.
I encourage the Secretary of Defense to provide the EAC with the
additional funding
[[Page H9007]]
needed to carry out this directive. I also encourage the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to continue working with
the EAC on electronic absentee voting by absent uniformed service and
overseas voters casting ballots abroad and others areas where they may
have expertise.
The second provision will expand the use of the federal write-in
absentee ballot to absent uniformed service voters that have not
received voting materials from their state within the deadline
prescribed by their state. This will give the absent uniformed service
voter the opportunity to participate in the democratic process that
they are defending.
Mr. Speaker, I support the inclusion of these provisions in the
Conference Report.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4200,
the FY 2005 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. I
commend our Chairman and Ranking Member and all of the conferees for
their leadership and hard work.
This is an important bill for troubling times. As I have said often,
thank God we live in a nation, which gives us the right to agree with a
decision to go to war, the right to disagree with that decision, even
the right to remain silent. But no one has any right at all to forget
the courageous men and women who answered the call when summoned, who
sacrificed by serving.
What is our obligation to them, Mr. Speaker? It is to make them a
priority in our hearts as well as our budgets.
We also have an obligation to give them all the tools and resources
they need. Not just hardware, but software. Not just situational
awareness that tells them where an enemy is and what the enemy's
firepower is, but the cultural awareness that tells our troops who the
enemy is and what its will power is.
That is why I am especially proud that the conference report included
two amendments that I offered.
While the brilliant speed with which our forces toppled the Taliban
and the regime of Saddam Hussein demonstrates the unrivaled
technological and professional superiority of our military, the current
situation on the ground would seem to suggest that we haven't given
enough attention to the ``full spectrum'' of operations that they will
face.
My amendment will look at how U.S. military's education and training
program is preparing soldiers to meet the challenges of an era when our
enemy is just as likely to be a tribal warload as a trained infantryman
and how we deal with the battlefield after the battle.
A second amendment, Mr. Speaker, formally recognizes the courageous
actions of Army Specialist Joseph Darby, who was brave enough to notify
his superiors about the abuses at Abu Grayb when no one else was. He is
a true American hero.
These are truly dangerous times. We are involved in a struggle that
we cannot lose. On behalf of our men and women in uniform and all they
are doing to keep America safe, I strongly support passage of this
conference report.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4200, the
``National Defense Authorization Act of 2005.'' I am pleased that
Congress was able to complete work on this important bill prior to
recess. As an outside Conferee to H.R. 4200, I am particularly
supportive of the education provisions in the bill before us today.
There are a number of provisions in H.R. 4200 that will help local
schools better serve students in military families. For example, we
ensure that school districts can continue to count federally-connected
students who reside on the military base as on-base students for the
purposes of calculating Impact Aid payments in cases when federally-
connected students temporarily move off-base to live with a relative or
family friend and when both of their military parents are deployed for
active duty. The provision will also ensure that school districts
continue to count federally-connected students who reside on-base as
on-base students for the purpose of calculating Impact Aid payments for
six months after the death of a military parent.
In addition, we have increased the amount of aid local schools will
receive that are impacted by the presence of military installations, as
well to increase funding to help school districts provide special
education services to certain dependent children with severe
disabilities.
Finally, with respect to the education provisions, we were able to
establish the National Security Education Program to provide resources
for scholarships, fellowships, and institutional grants in higher
education. The program's mission is to lead in the development of the
national capacity to educate U.S. citizens, understand foreign
cultures, strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness, and enhance
international cooperation and security. In our ever growing world
economy, I believe these provisions are imperative to ensure that U.S.
citizens have a solid understanding of other nations.
Mr. Speaker, Congress recognizes the sacrifices and contributions our
courageous soldiers have made in the war against terrorism. Hopefully,
the ``National Defense Authorization Act of 2005'' will go far in
supporting our military efforts and protecting the freedoms that we all
enjoy.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________