[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 21, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1308-E1309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 20, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2863) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes:
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation.
  The Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 funds our 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other things. 
It is very similar to the Defense Authorization bill that I supported 
in the Armed Services Committee and on the House floor.
  In general, the bill fully funds military pay, benefits, the pay 
raise for the base force, and all military readiness programs, 
including all requested increases for Special Operations Forces.
  The bill also includes $45.3 billion of unrequested emergency 
supplemental funding (the ``bridge fund'') to cover contingency 
operations and personnel costs during the first six months of the 
fiscal year that begins on October 1st. This comes on the heels of the 
$75.9 billion FY05 supplemental funding bill that the Congress passed 
only a month ago.
  I think this is realistic and necessary, because we must support our 
men and women in uniform, but I also believe the administration must 
begin to take responsibility for the full cost of the war in Iraq and 
consider these costs through the regular appropriations process. There 
is no ``emergency'' here--we know that since this bridge fund would 
take us only halfway through FY06, we should be expecting another 
request of about $40 billion before the year is over. The American 
people deserve greater candor from the administration about both the 
predictable costs as well as the anticipated benefits of our 
undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Once this bill is signed into law, defense spending in FY06 will 
total about 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget. 
Overall defense spending, in real terms, will be more than 20 percent 
higher than the average Cold War budget. The administration needs to 
clearly recognize these realities and be open with the American people 
about its spending priorities.
  I want to briefly discuss a few other specific parts of the bill.
  I am pleased that the bill does not include funding for earth-
penetrating nuclear weapons, which a recent National Academy of 
Sciences report found would destroy military targets underground but 
also cause massive casualties above ground. The bill strikes a 
compromise, providing $4 million for the Air Force for work on a 
conventional (non-nuclear) version of the bunker buster.
  Importantly, it also includes cost-containment measures on a number 
of weapons systems that have yet to be fully funded. This is critical 
at a time when costs of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
are also increasing exponentially.
  In the area of operation and maintenance, the bill provides important 
funding for added fuel costs and body armor, and $147 million for Army 
National Guard recruiting. The measure contains $2.9 billion for 
various procurement accounts, including $170 million for up-armored 
Humvees, $20 million for bolt-on armor kits for trucks, and $35 million 
for roadside bomb jammers.
  The bill also provides $8 billion in extra funding for military 
personnel accounts, including funds for incremental wartime costs of 
pays and allowances for active-duty and reserve personnel, for 
recruiting and retention, and for an expanded death gratuity.
  I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee accepted and the House 
approved an amendment on the floor to lift the $500 million cap in the 
bill on training the Iraqi National Army. Since the timing of the draw-
down of U.S. forces is linked to the ability of Iraqi troops to defend 
themselves and their country, we shouldn't impose an arbitrary limit on 
this funding.
  I am also pleased that the bill provides the president's request of 
$416 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, known as CTR 
or Nunn-Lugar, to assist in the denuclearization and demilitarization 
of the states of the former Soviet Union. The total is $6 million more 
than the current level.
  Finally, I would like to comment on amendments offered by 
Representatives Duncan Hunter and David Obey.
  As it came to the floor, the bill included language approved by the 
full Appropriations committee expressing the sense of Congress that the 
expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the U.S. military, 
``but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the U.S. Air 
Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the academy. . . . as has 
been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards 
required of those who serve at

[[Page E1309]]

the academy.'' The bill directed the Air Force to develop a plan to 
ensure that the academy maintains a climate free from coercive 
religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing.
  As a Coloradan and a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have 
been following this matter closely and have noted that Lt. Gen. John 
Rosa, the Academy's superintendent, has said that the problem is 
``something that keeps me awake at night,'' and estimated it will take 
6 years to fix.
  The good news is that several reviews of the situation at the Academy 
are underway, and a task force report is due this week. I am also 
appreciative that the Academy has already begun taking steps to address 
the issue by holding classes on religious tolerance. But it is 
important to remember that an unwillingness to tolerate other cultures 
and faiths is not only inconsistent with our constitutional principles, 
but detrimental to the mission of the Air Force and of the military in 
general. Our men and women in uniform need to work together to be 
successful, and can only inspire others to serve and serve well if they 
are able to demonstrate tolerance toward all.
  Representative Hunter's amendment removed the language calling for 
corrective action. His amendment appeared to downplay the seriousness 
of a problem that Air Force Academy officials themselves have 
acknowledged. In response, Representative Obey offered an amendment 
that slightly revised the language adopted by the Appropriations 
Committee but retained its essential elements.
  I voted for that Obey amendment, and regret that it was not approved 
and that the Hunter amendment prevailed. I hope that the Air Force does 
not make the mistake of concluding that adoption of the Hunter 
amendment means that they should lessen their efforts to respond to the 
problem they have identified.

                          ____________________