[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.

                          ____________________