[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 164 (Sunday, December 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H12200-H12212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1815, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today,
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
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 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the conference report now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To my colleagues who have labored long and hard to get this Defense
bill to the floor and to get the conference to the floor, I want to
thank everyone. This is a very, very important bill. It does wonderful
things for our men and women in uniform.
We have a 3.1 percent pay raise across the board. We have TRICARE
expansion. We have an expansion of hazardous duty pay and an expansion
of combat pay. We have a very substantial section devoted, some $76
billion, to modernization and some $70 billion to research development
and testing. We have a very substantial military construction section
that will accrue to the benefit of all of our people in uniform who are
concerned about having adequate housing and a good place to work. And
most important, Mr. Speaker, this bill moves lots of ammunition, lots
of armor, lots of equipment to our people in the warfighting theaters
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it provides also for a $50 billion
supplemental authorization to enable us to bridge the time between now
and the next supplemental that we can see coming down the pike next
year.
{time} 0000
This answers our call to duty, Mr. Speaker, which is to provide the
tools to our men and women in uniform to win the war against terror.
And let me just say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that we could not have
done this, especially in such a short period of time, if we did not
have such extraordinary members on the House Armed Services Committee,
Democrat and Republican, of whom I am very proud; and a wonderful staff
which has worked in some cases 16- and 18-hour days to bring this bill
to fruition and to work this conference report with a very, very short
time schedule.
I want to point out, first, my friend, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), who is a wonderful friend and partner in this endeavor
to serve our people in uniform. He has just done a great job working
with me and working with his members. Our ranking members, our chairmen
of the subcommittees all have done a wonderful job, as have all of our
members right down through the entire ranks of the members of the Armed
Services Committee.
So this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It provides the tools for our
men and women to do the job. I also want to point out the fact that we
have increased 10,000 Army and 1,000 Marine active-duty personnel in
this bill. That is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, because we have
cut the Army over the last 15 years from 18 divisions to only 10.
It is important to move additional personnel. Right now we have more
people on the ground under the President's license to call up more
people; but we think it is important to move the official end
strengths, and we have done that in this bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have a great bill, and I want to thank all the
Members who have participated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I first wanted to ask the chairman a
question, because I am not sure I heard him a moment ago. Does the
chairman confirm that this conference report is the report of the
conferees as signed and intended to come to the floor as it was on 3
p.m. Friday?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend that the report
that was just filed is the exact precise same report, without a comma
changed, that was in fact signed by all members, Democrat and
Republican.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong
support of this conference report. Once again, I am proud to be part of
the process that delivers our troops the support they need.
Let me take this moment to commend our chairman, Mr. Hunter, for his
work on this bill. This is important
[[Page H12201]]
work, and I applaud all the members of the Armed Services Committee on
both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record at this point two letters, one
signed by John Warner and Carl Levin and one signed by Erin Conaton on
my behalf.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 18, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Armed Services Committee, Chairman, National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
Conference, Washington, DC.
Dear Duncan: On Friday, December 16, we joined you and Ike
Skelton in conducting the final meeting of the conferees
along with other Members of the Senate and House.
At the conclusion of the meeting the ``base bill'' was
agreed upon and signatures of Republican and Democratic
Committee Members were requested and affixed to the
Conference Report with the expectation that the House,
following the customary procedure, would be the first chamber
to file. It was our further understanding that this would be
done Friday evening.
We are returning to you the signatures of the Senate
conferees on the condition that there are no changes made in
the ``base bill'' and Conference Report and that the House
obtain a Rule which precludes any further amendment.
You have shown strong leadership during this very brief and
unusual conference period and we have confidence that you can
achieve passage in the House of the ``base bill''. We believe
it is in the interest of the Nation aud the men and women of
the Armed Forces that our Conference Report as agreed to on
December 16 becomes law.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin,
Ranking Member.
John Warner,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 18, 2005.
On Mr. Shelton's behalf, I am returning the signatures of
the House Democratic conferees on the condition that there be
no changes made in the ``base bill'' and Conference Report
and that we obtain a Rule which precludes any further
amendment. The signatures of the outside Democratic conferees
remain attached to the conference report with the same
understanding. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Erin Conata,
Minority Staff Director.
As most of you know, this conference report was ready to be filed
Friday at 5 o'clock. The attempt to insert new and unrelated material
into this defense authorization bill was wrong. It would have
jeopardized the many good things in this package for the troops. I am
very pleased that the Republican leadership reconsidered and I thank
the Chairman for his efforts to restore the conference report to its
original form.
This is a good bill. There are many things in this bill about which
we all can be proud. I have long argued that we need more troops, and
this bill raises end strength for the Army by 30,000 and for the Marine
Corps by 4,000. It delivers our service members a well-earned 3.1% pay
raise. We can never put a value on the service of those who pay the
ultimate price in defense of our freedom, but this conference report
increases the death gratuity for all active and activated service
members to $100,000, retroactive to October 7, 2001. And for the first
time ever, all reservists who agree to continue service in the Selected
Reserves will have an opportunity, depending on their status, to buy
into a government subsidized TRICARE Standard health care program for
themselves and their families.
While much of our attention is focused on the current wars we're
fighting, we must not lose sight of other security challenges that loom
across the globe. With those in mind, I am also pleased to say that
this bill requires the Navy to maintain 12 aircraft carriers. It also
authorizes them to buy five more ships, but it does so in a way that
will limit the rampant cost growth in the acquisition process.
Those are just a few examples of the good work in this bill. I
commend all of the Chairmen and Ranking members of the Armed Services'
subcommittees for the excellent work they have done on this conference
report and throughout the year.
Finally, I'd like to address an issue to which much attention has
been paid, and rightly so--the question of the treatment of detainees.
These critical matters suffered the most from the lack of meaningful
process and debate.
I am extremely pleased that Senator McCain's amendment involving the
prohibition on torture and uniform standards for interrogating
detainees has passed. This is a wonderful step to help us regain our
rightful place on the summit of the moral high ground.
However, I am concerned that Senator McCain's language could be
undercut by the Graham-Levin Amendment. This amendment was negotiated
largely in a closed process by the White House and a select few
Majority members. It addresses many aspects of the Combatant Status
Review Tribunals and military commissions in Guantanamo Bay but there
are serious questions about the procedures and they are currently being
challenged in federal court. There are also questions about the
Amendment's impact on our judicial system and law that's been in
existence since the founding of our nation. I expect the courts will
have a real challenge interpreting the Amendment's meaning. At the very
least--the Graham-Levin Amendment should not apply retroactively or to
any pending cases.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it does
great things for our troops. I again congratulate Chairman Hunter and
urge its adoption.
For the past two days, the future of the Defense Authorization bill
has been held hostage for an unrelated and controversial piece of
legislation that had no connection to defense. My colleagues and I
expressed our deep concern with this, and I am truly pleased to see
this bill in its original form come before the House tonight.
In a time of war, it is essential that we provide our men and women
in uniform with the resources and equipment they need to succeed, and I
am pleased that the leadership of this House finally relented and
allowed us to do that. Legislation for our men and women in uniform
should never be put in jeopardy for political reasons.
This legislation provides for the initiation and continuation of many
important policies that will benefit our servicemen and women, as well
as their families upon its final passage. This is a wonderful way to
honor them during the holiday season for all they have done throughout
the year.
I am extremely pleased with this bill, and commend all of my
colleagues who have worked so hard for its passage.
This statement addresses the provisions regarding the treatment of
detainees that were under consideration for inclusion in the FY 06
Defense Authorization Conference Report (referred to as the McCain
amendment and Graham-Levin amendment provisions, and sections 1401-
1406).
First, I am deeply troubled by the lack of open and meaningful
process and debate in the House and Senate on these complex and
critical matters that affect our troops and intelligence officers--and
our national security. There are real differences of opinion on these
matters--and they should have been given the fullest debate and vetting
because of their implications. Yet, they have been negotiated largely
behind closed doors by the White House and a select few majority
Members of Congress.
With respect to the Graham-Levin amendment provisions (section 1405)
and other detainee provisions (particularly section 1404), there are
many unanswered questions and serious concerns about the impact of the
provisions on our judicial system and law that has been in existence
since the founding of our Nation--and the final negotiated Conference
Report language lacks clarity--leaving much open to interpretation.
I expect the courts will have a real challenge interpreting the
meaning of these provisions. I also fear that the provisions do not
provide our troops and intelligence officers with the clear guidance
and protection they need in combating the war on terror.
In addition, I am concerned about the potential for the provisions to
significantly undercut the effectiveness of the McCain amendment
(sections 1402 and 1403)--an amendment that would help us regain our
standing and leadership on moral issues; obtain reliable intelligence,
which is not obtained when torture is employed; and protect our troops
and intelligence officers, by setting the standard of treatment by
which we expect them to be similarly treated.
Although the main professed intent for the Graham-Levin amendment
provisions and other detainee provisions (particularly section 1404)
was to limit lawsuits and protect our troops and intelligence
officers--I am very concerned about the potential for the provisions to
do just the opposite.
Specific concerns with respect to the Graham-Levin amendment
provisions include the following:
First, the provisions address many aspects of the Combatant Status
Review Tribunals (CSRTs) and military commissions at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba--yet Congress has not authorized these procedures and their
legality is currently being challenged in federal court. There are
concerns that detainees are not given a hearing before a CSRT within a
reasonable period of time; they do not have access to their attorneys
or evidence; some have not been released from detention after being
cleared of wrongdoing by a CSRT; and there has never been a military
commission trial, despite the President's suggestion that, given the
events of September 11th, it was necessary to establish these new
commissions so people could be tried immediately.
Second, the original Graham-Levin amendment would have prohibited
CSRTs from using
[[Page H12202]]
evidence obtained with undue coercion. However, the final negotiated
provisions for the Conference Report leave open the possibility that
CSRTs and military commissions could consider coerced evidence. As
Senator Levin has pointed out, this cuts against the centuries-old
principle of Anglo-American law, enshrined in the 5th Amendment to the
Constitution, that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Third, it is not clear what recourse a detainee would have if there
is a legitimate claim of torture, in part given the limitations on
court jurisdiction. While the original Graham-Levin amendment would
have eliminated federal court jurisdiction only for habeas corpus
actions, the final negotiated Conference Report provisions eliminate
``any other action against the United States or its agents relating to
any aspect of the detention'' at Guantanamo Bay. Further, it is true
that the Graham-Levin amendment provisions allow for review of CSRT and
military commission decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. However, there must first be a CSRT
or military commission decision--and as noted above, there are serious
concerns about the process surrounding these decisions. In addition,
even after a CSRT or military commission decision, the Graham-Levin
amendment provisions limit access to the Court of Appeals and the
Court's scope of review--and do not ensure a sufficient factual record.
It is also important to note that we have tried and tested military
regulations in place that are excellent, including Army Regulation 190-
8. These regulations have effectively governed detention procedures in
our past wars--and made it unnecessary to file habeas and other claims
or set up tribunals and military commissions, such as those currently
operating at Guantanamo Bay. Many have argued, the problem is really
that existing military regulations have not been followed. We could
have simply passed an Amendment that addresses this problem going
forward and left the courts' jurisdiction alone with respect to
existing claims. But this was not done and here's where we are.
At least, as Senator Levin has emphasized, the Graham-Levin amendment
provisions do not apply to or alter pending habeas cases. The Senate
voted to remove language from the original Graham amendment that would
have applied the habeas-stripping provision to pending cases, affirming
that it did not intend such application. Further, under the Supreme
Court's ruling in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), the fact that
Congress chose not to explicitly apply the habeas-stripping provision
to pending cases means that the courts retain jurisdiction to consider
these appeals. Finally, the effective date language in the original
Graham-Levin amendment, and Senate passed Defense Authorization Bill
(S. 1042 section 1092), was retained in the final negotiated language
for the Conference Report, thereby adopting the Senate position that
the habeas-stripping provision does not strip the courts of
jurisdiction in pending cases.
In closing, I emphasize that Congress must exercise diligent
oversight on detainee matters going forward. Such matters must be
subject to a more open and deliberative process--and handled more
thoughtfully and responsibly in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the distinguished chairman of the Air, Land
Subcommittee.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay
tribute to our distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking
member for such a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances to
get this conference report to the floor. This was a very difficult
piece of legislation, but the chairman persevered and we are very happy
to have the legislation here tonight.
I know our soldiers all around the world are happy that this bill is
going to be brought forward because there are so many positive things
in it. I have the particular pleasure of serving as the chairman of the
Air, Land Subcommittee; and I want to pay tribute to my good friend and
ranking member, Mr. Abercrombie from Hawaii, who is not here right now,
for the excellent work that he did.
In supporting the global war on terrorism in our area, we have
included a number of additional programs, including $450 million for
up-armored Humvees, $260 million for other armored tactical vehicles,
$450 million for small arms, $250 million for ammunition, $30 million
for Stryker combat vehicle combat losses, $180 million for radios, $117
million for blue force tracking, $285 million for night vision devices,
$35 million to counter improvised explosive devices, $108 million for
countering rockets, artillery, and mortars, $50 million for Hellfire
missiles, and $180 million for unmanned aerial vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, these are all critically important platforms for the
troops in the ongoing battle against terrorism, as well as the theater
of operation.
We have also reinstated the C-130J multiyear procurement. We have put
some language on the future combat systems budget. We reduced it by $50
million to make sure we are giving the taxpayers the best possible
oversight of the SCS program.
We have also attempted to put some more accountability in the DOD
acquisition programs and significant language in other provisions that
we think are going to provide the taxpayers and the warfighter with
more accountability and more efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular thanks to the leadership, both
Mr. Skelton and Mr. Hunter, for including two very important
commissions that we worked hard to achieve, the Nuclear Strategy Forum
and the EMP Commission. I want to pay particular thanks to Mr. Roscoe
Bartlett, Chairman Bartlett, for his outstanding work on this issue.
The EMP Commission now will have an ongoing process of evaluating our
military platforms against the threat of an EMP.
Overall, Mr. Speaker, this process has been long. I think this is the
latest we have ever gone with the Defense authorization bill, and the
credit for all of this outstanding work goes to my distinguished
chairman. He is a great American. The one thing about Mr. Hunter and
the one thing about Mr. Skelton, everything that we do, they keep in
mind the warfighter, the soldier. Each of them has made trip after trip
into the theater, into Iraq, into Afghanistan, meeting the troops and
making sure that we are in fact holding the Defense Department
accountable to giving our troops the best possible equipment and
technology.
I am happy to support this conference report. I would ask all of our
colleagues to give an overwhelming vote of support for this. Again I
want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their
leadership.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the
Readiness Subcommittee portions of the defense authorization bill. This
bill represents a lot of hard work and bipartisan work on the part of
the members of this committee. This bill provides nearly $126 billion
to the Department of Defense for the operation and maintenance, the
needs of our military, and over $12 billion for military construction.
In addition, the authorization contains some important policy direction
for the Department of Defense. One of the important provisions of the
bill would protect the interest of civilian workers in the Department
of Defense during public-private competition, another that extends the
reimbursement of equipment purchased by soldiers with their own money,
and still another will eliminate some of the restrictions that keep our
wounded servicemembers from receiving gifts and support from Americans
who want to help these soldiers.
I am pleased with these outcomes but I am very disappointed with how
the conference on this bill was conducted. The majority leadership's
delay on appointing conferees for this bill until after the conference
report was completed is really shameful. This was not a conference.
Only a few Members had a hand in the deliberations and other Members
who have an interest in this bill were shut out of this process. I
sincerely hope that this will not be the norm for conferencing future
defense bills. Our national defense deserves a more careful, inclusive
and deliberative approach.
The war in Iraq and the global war on terror are creating many
challenges for the readiness of our Armed Forces. The services have
many pressing needs in every area covered by the Readiness
Subcommittee. It is impossible to fully
[[Page H12203]]
address those needs, Mr. Speaker, but this report reflects a balance of
many competing demands to ensure that our troops are equipped and ready
to defend our Nation. I appreciate that the Members on both sides of
the aisle were able to put this bill together and bring it to the floor
this early in the morning.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to
the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who has done
such a great job as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the job
that he has done and the ranking member for the job he has done.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by recognizing the gentleman from
California, our Chairman, an old-time friend of mine and I think
probably the most patient chairman I have ever served with in my years
in Congress. His skill in leading this committee has been outstanding.
And we also have the contributions of the gentleman from Missouri.
Someone I admire very much and who has good memories of the town I was
born in and now live--Dothan, AL.
I rise in support of the conference report to accompany the fiscal
year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1815). This
legislation supports the administration's objective while making
significant improvements to the budget request. 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, the DOD
has experienced significant acquisition problems on several high-
priority programs. I look forward to working with the DOD to correct
areas of concern and ensure their success for the future.
Within the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy, the bill funds the National Nuclear Security Administration at
$9.2 billion. The conference report includes legislation establishing
the objectives of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, a program
that enjoys bipartisan support to ensure our nuclear stockpile remains
reliable, safe and secure.
The Conferees have funded defense environmental cleanup activities at
$6.2 billion.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my
Ranking Member, the gentleman from Texas for his contribution, and the
remainder of my subcommittee Members on both sides of the aisle, and
their staff. I think we faced some of the most difficult policy
decisions in the House Armed Services Committee and I want to express
my appreciation for their hard work in protecting this Nation's
security.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) for a colloquy.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the conference report does not
include the language from the House bill precluding procurements from
companies that benefit from illegal foreign subsidies. Is that correct?
Mr. HUNTER. That is correct. As the gentleman knows, I have long
supported efforts to protect American businesses and workers from
illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, the conferees were unable to
come to an agreement that would allow us to include this important
language in the final conference report.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years various European
governments have provided subsidies to the European civil aircraft
industry. These subsidies helped the fledgling European aircraft
industry get started in a highly competitive world market. Now $30
billion in subsidies later, Europe is the world's largest producer of
commercial aircraft. Mr. Chairman, would you agree that the aircraft
production industry is one of the areas that is of particular concern
with respect to foreign subsidies?
Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. Foreign governments should not be allowed to
underwrite the risk of corporations involved in developing new
airframes, especially when it is at the expense of the American worker.
I want to assure my friend that the Armed Services Committee will
continue its oversight on this issue, that we are going to revisit it
next year.
Let me just leave the formal colloquy to say to my friend that my
philosophy is that the American worker pays the taxes that fund these
enormously expensive programs that manifest in this bill for $441
billion, that projects American power around the world in defense of
the free world and provides an umbrella of freedom for hundreds of
countries. It is only equitable and fair that the American taxpayer who
pays for the defense of the free world should be able to involve
themselves in making the very expensive equipment that we utilize. I
can assure my friend that I will continue to work with him to make sure
that when those great Americans in uniform come home from places like
Iraq and Afghanistan they have some jobs in the American aircraft
industry making the aircraft that support the projection of American
Armed Forces.
I thank the gentleman for letting me edit my colloquy a little bit.
Mr. DICKS. And I thank Chairman Hunter for sharing his views on this
important matter and urge support for this conference report.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this national defense
authorization bill. But while I support this conference report, I am
one of many Members very disappointed with the process by which the
defense bill has been brought to the floor. Last Thursday the House
leadership approved the conferees to the defense authorization bill
nearly 3 weeks after the Senate finished consideration of their version
of the bill. This 3-week delay denied Members the opportunity to
instruct conferees on issues of great importance to them in the defense
bill. Members of the committee, particularly our senior members, should
have been afforded greater opportunity to participate in informal panel
meetings in order to discuss and debate many of the significant
provisions that were in either the House or Senate bill. Instead, the
decisions that were made on many of the highly contentious issues in
the bill were made by less than a handful of Members. The national
security of this country benefits from the input of many, not the
narrow perspective of a few. A great democracy at war must do better.
We, my colleagues, can do better. Democrat and Republican, we can do
better. Veteran and nonveteran, we can do better. Senior Member and new
Member, we can do better.
{time} 0015
This bill is a good one. It is a bill that should bring our country
and this Congress together united in our support for our fine men and
women in uniform, their families and our military retirees but the
process the past few weeks has divided us, divided us so deeply that
until a few hours ago we weren't even sure we would have a defense bill
this year. Our troops deserve better.
I hope that beginning in February, the Republican leadership will
make a concerted effort to abide by the processes that ensure active
and open participation for all Members in future deliberations. Our
troops at all times but particularly during a time of war deserve our
best democratic deliberations and our united effort. Having made these
comments, however, I am aware of the great commitment of Chairman
Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton to our troops and to the
national security of our country. I thank Chairman Hunter for his
efforts in getting this bill on the floor tonight.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if you are one of the 2.5 million people who
wear the uniform of the United States, you can know that you have got
some great people working for you on this Armed Services Committee. I
want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who just spoke,
and also thank and commend a very distinguished gentleman from New York
(Mr. McHugh), who works tirelessly to serve our people in uniform as
well as they serve this country, the chairman of the Personnel
Subcommittee.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind comments
and for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I have a full statement that without objection I would
like to enter into the Record in its entirety and just make a few brief
comments if I might.
The hour is late. Fortunately it is not too late. I listened very
carefully
[[Page H12204]]
to the comments of the gentleman from Arkansas. I think we could all
pick any part of any process by which any bill comes to the floor of
this House and have objections. I understand his perspective but I was
heartened to hear him say he strongly supports this bill, as he should.
Because the bottom line, the most important question is, what is the
quality of this legislation. The gentleman from Arkansas seems to think
it is very good. I agree with him. I can in fact state without
hesitation that in my 13 years of having the honor of serving on this
committee, this is the best personnel provision package I have seen. If
we look at the components of it, a 3.1 percent pay raise, the seventh
year in row we have raised pay, reducing the gap between the private
sector and our hardworking men and women in uniform, an increase in the
hardship duty pay, a doubling in the assignment incentive pay. We
require that the government pay for the servicemembers' group life
insurance when people are deployed into theaters like Operation Iraqi
Freedom and the OEF theater. We double the enlistment bonuses. We add
by $30,000 to the reenlistment bonuses. On and on and on. We provide
for an accelerated enhancement for concurrent receipt payments for 100
percent of disabled veterans. We provide a program for the first time
that ensures that every member of the Guard and Reserve has access to
some form of TRICARE, of the military health care program. Benefit
after benefit. It is important that we have a broad range of military
programs, the best equipment, the most modern technology, but at the
end of the day as in the beginning of the day, the key to the success
of the American military are the men and women that put that uniform on
and today as we speak are serving so bravely. This is a terrific bill
for them.
I want to thank the chairman for his great leadership and I certainly
urge all the Members of the House to strongly support it. It is the
right thing to do for some absolutely amazing people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.
R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
The military personnel provisions of H.R. 1815 address many problems
and issues that the men and women in uniform have brought to us.
Additionally, the conference report will help to relieve the tremendous
pressure being placed on the military services--active, guard, and
reserve. To those ends, H.R. 1815 contains these key initiatives:
A military pay raise of 3.1 percent. The raise is 0.5 percent above
private sector raises and reduces the pay gap to 4.6 percent from 13.5
percent in fiscal year 1999 culminating seven years of enhanced pay
raises.
We recommend continued growth in Army and Marine Corps end strength.
Under the conference agreement, the Army would increase by 10,000 and
the Marine Corps by 1,000, bringing the Army end strength to 512,400
and the Marine Corps to 179,000.
This bill also provides recruiting, retention and pay initiatives
that would, for active component recruiting and retention:
Increase the maximum active duty enlistment bonus maximum from
$20,000 to $40,000.
Increase the maximum active duty reenlistment bonus from $60,000 to
$90,000.
Provide the Army with unprecedented flexibility to initiate new
recruiting incentive programs following 45 days, notice to Congress.
Authorize the Army--active duty reserve, and National Guard--to pay
$1,000 to servicemembers who refer recruit candidates for enlistment
and those candidates complete technical training.
Increase the maximum enlistment age from 35 years of age to 42.
Authorize the payment of matching contributions to the Thrift Savings
Plan for new recruits.
For the Reserve Components, the conference agreement would:
Authorize the same basic allowance for housing as active duty members
when mobilized for periods greater than 30 days.
Authorize a critical skills retention bonus under the active duty
program up to a maximum of $100,000 over the course of a career.
The conference report also provides for an expanded death gratuity of
$100,000 for all military deaths--not just combat-related deaths--and
two retroactive payments:
$100,000 for all military deaths that occurred on or after October 7,
2001; and
$150,000 to survivors of all military deaths, not just combat-related
deaths, to compensate for the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 that became effective for
all military members on May 11, 2005.
For wounded servicemembers, the conference agreement would provide a
special pay of $430 per month while the servicemember is in
rehabilitation. In addition, family members would be provided greater
travel and transportation allowances to visit wounded and injured
servicemembers.
The conference agreement expands eligibility for TRICARE to all
members of the reserve components, and their families, who continue
service in the Selected Reserve. Under the agreement, there would be
three eligibility categories:
Involuntarily mobilized reservists--as in current law: 1 year TRICARE
eligibility for every 90 days of mobilized service.
Persons without employer provided health care, unemployed, self-
employed, and
Any person not meeting the above criteria.
This conference agreement also provides enhancements to military
justice that would:
Establish the offense of stalking, and
Clearly define the offense of rape, sexual assault and other sexual
misconduct in title 10, United States Code, and pattern the elements of
the offenses after the Federal statute.
All in all, the conference report on H.R. 1815 is a significant
package of legislation directed at providing maximum assistance to the
men and women who are fighting the Global War on Terrorism. I urge all
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference report.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. I rise today for the purpose of engaging the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) in a colloquy.
Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to join with my colleague from Georgia
in a colloquy.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, the portions of this bill governing the
treatment of detainees can serve as a welcome clarification for the
rest of the world that America condemns torture in the strongest terms.
These changes should help the world to see that America respects
freedom when it fights for freedom. I would appreciate the chairman's
thoughts on this.
Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARSHALL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I agree that the language contained in the conference
report can both be flexible enough to allow our personnel to protect
America's security interests and fair enough to protect our personnel
without placing themselves in legal jeopardy when they employ the means
any reasonable person would in a given interrogation.
If I might depart from the colloquy just for a bit to explain to my
colleagues in the House, the Senate injected the straight Senate
detainee language about humane treatment and the House injected and
insisted on a section called personnel protections which gave defenses
to uniform and nonuniformed personnel in detainee actions. It also
provided for counsel to be employed or provided by the government. That
was the essence of the provisions that were injected into the
conference on the House side.
I thank the gentleman for letting me expand.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that the bill's
language referencing the Senate's 1994 reservation to the United
Nations' Convention Against Torture is intended to prohibit conduct
that shocks the conscience, the standard adopted by the United States
Supreme Court in Rochin v. California?
Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARSHALL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. That is my understanding.
Mr. MARSHALL. And, Mr. Chairman, is it also your understanding that
the bill does not extend constitutional rights to noncitizens of the
United States?
Mr. HUNTER. That is my understanding.
Mr. MARSHALL. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to yield at this time to the
gentleman who chairs the Projection Forces Subcommittee, the wonderful
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who lives on the Monocacy River
and spends so much of his time and has spent a lot of time this last
year working on the issues of shipbuilding and power projection of
maritime forces and he has done a wonderful job.
[[Page H12205]]
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for completing the impressive task of
this conference report in such a short period of time. I also want to
thank my subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Taylor, for his tireless
efforts and dedication to the preparation of this report while
simultaneously coordinating Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in
Mississippi. The intense work involved in preparing the conference
report has been accomplished only with the assistance of our able and
hardworking staff and I really want to commend their efforts and the
quality of the work they have so diligently done.
Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement provides the men and women in
our Armed Forces the tools to effectively project our Nation's power
and influence throughout the globe. Initiatives within this bill to
build the Navy of the future, authorize advance procurement funding for
the Navy's next generation platforms while continuing development and
buildout of the Littoral Combat Ship and Virginia Class attack
submarine fleet.
I am also pleased that this conference report takes steps to improve
our U.S. shipbuilding industry to make it more efficient and
commercially competitive in the future. Only by applying downward
pressure on shipbuilding costs will we be able to afford a fleet of
sufficient size to meet the national security needs and global
commitments of tomorrow.
This agreement authorizes multiyear contract authority for additional
C-17 aircraft if procurement is consistent with the results of the
Quadrennial Defense Review. Furthermore, we encourage the Secretary of
the Air Force to evaluate options for maintaining C-17 production
capability until results of the C-5 modernization programs are
available.
This conference agreement is an important milestone in making our
country more secure. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 is critical in meeting the challenges and demands placed upon
our Armed Services today, supplying a foundation on which to build well
into the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines by voting for the Fiscal Year
2006 National Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me first start by
thanking my good friend Roscoe Bartlett for his tremendous help this
year. The bill authorizes five ships, more than the administration
asked for, unfortunately not as many as I would like to build, but
very, very great help of the gentleman from Maryland on the part of
adding an LHA(R) for the Marine Corps to the ship; getting the next
generation destroyer, the DDX, started; and adding a Virginia Class
submarine to the fleet.
Again at five ships, if you figure the typical 30-year life of a
ship, we are cruising toward a 150-ship Navy. That is entirely too
small, despite Navy projections that they think they can get the fleet
up to about 313 by 2013. But again these are important steps in the
right direction.
I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland for his help in making
that happen. There are a lot of people who have a lot of things they
want to say.
I want to yield what remains of my time to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would simply add to what my friend from
Mississippi has said and others have said that this bill is the
culmination of months of work by the committee in a bipartisan way to
give the men and women that we have in uniform, particularly those men
and women in harm's way what we believe they need in order to carry on
their duty on behalf of the United States. I think everybody on the
committee agrees with me that everything that we can possibly do to
support them we are going to do. I want to compliment the chairman, the
ranking member, and other members of the committee for a job well done.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of
the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report, although I am concerned about provisions of the bill that have
the potential to create a chilling effect that would harm the ability
of the intelligence community to gather vital information to protect
our country. I want to first thank Chairman Hunter for his outstanding
personal efforts to safeguard our Nation's intelligence capabilities
and our intelligence personnel.
{time} 0030
I appreciate his close coordination with me and with the Intelligence
Committee during the negotiations on this bill.
Let me be crystal clear: The United States does not engage in
torture, and the United States abides by its treaty obligations with
respect to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The principles of
the conference report relating to cruel and inhuman and degrading
treatment should not be controversial or even remarkable. As the
President said earlier this week, we should make it clear to the world
that we do not engage in torture.
But I want to record my substantial discomfort that this bill could
be read more broadly than intended and have a detrimental effect on our
national security. After the 9/11 attacks, we learned the hard way that
excessive restrictions on our intelligence agencies such as the Deutch
Doctrine and the ``wall'' between intelligence and law enforcement
often had a chilling effect on operations that was far broader than
intended and significantly hurt our intelligence gathering
capabilities. I want to reinforce Chairman Hunter's efforts to make
very clear that this conference report does not create new criminal
liabilities and does not create any private right of action with
respect to interrogation practices. It also does not modify the
substantive definition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that
applies to the United States under its existing treaty obligations.
Despite those concerns I fully support this agreement because of the
provisions of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Chairman Hunter's
efforts has significantly improved this legislation, clarified its
intent; so I will vote for the conference report and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 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, we have handled, the conference has handled, leadership
has handled, and the staff, a record number of amendments in a record
period of time. And while I have some problems with the process, I
commend them for the end result. It is a good piece of work.
There are many good features to it. We retained intact the McCain
language which prohibits the United States from engaging in torture of
prisoners. There are a number of very fine personnel improvements here
which our service personnel dearly deserve.
We have given the impetus to start up something called a caps
reliable replacement warhead program but at the same time put it within
reasonable and restrictive bounds, which I think is smart. And I could
go on and on. There are some good features to this bill.
I am not criticizing anyone in particular when I say that I find
fault with the process, but I have been on this committee for 23 years,
all the time I have served here. And, unfortunately, given the time
restraints, which were largely the result of the fact that the Senate
put us on abbreviated schedule, they were late getting their bill done,
we have had to do this with much too much haste.
Here is the bill right here that we are about to consider, and we
only saw it really in final form on Friday afternoon. We were appointed
at one hour, and at the very next hour we were meeting for our first
and only formal meeting. I hope this will not become a precedent for
the process in the future, and that is why I express this concern now.
The bill itself I support.
[[Page H12206]]
I am also very concerned about what is happening to the defense
appropriations bill, and I do not want to see it happen to our defense
authorization bill. We do not want our bill to become a must-pass piece
of legislation to which other bills, other wholly unrelated
legislation, gets attached because ours is must-pass legislation, a
moving vehicle. That could have happened to this very bill, and it is
the reason we are standing here at 12:30 at night instead of dealing
with it yesterday afternoon with much more leisure than we are giving
to the bill right now because it was almost hijacked by something
totally extraneous. And I would say to the chairman I am glad that this
did not happen, glad that we have got a clean bill, and glad that we
can vote on it without having these extraneous matters to consider and
weigh.
Once again, congratulations on a job well done.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in the last few minutes, I have gone
through a few hundred pages of this bill, which I think it is
instructive to know that $1 billion for a so-called Iraqi Freedom Fund
is being authorized. We do not know what that is. There is $2.5 billion
for classified ops in Iraq. We do not know what that is, certainly.
On the issue of alleged clandestine detention facilities for
individuals captured in the global war on terrorism, here is what it
says: ``Conferees determined the amendment was outside the jurisdiction
of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. So we still do not know whether or not this House has
any authority to rein in the administration's rendition policies.
I would ask the gentleman from California a question. I have just
read a couple hundred pages. I have not seen the whole bill. Could the
gentleman tell me if there is a provision in this bill that permits
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. No. As the gentleman knows, the ANWR position is not in
this bill.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman explain what the Iraqi
Freedom Fund is about?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
Iraqi Freedom Fund is a fund that includes money for body armor and
lots of other equipment. It is a fund that we supply each year. It is a
revolving fund that we keep money in so that the war-fighting
commanders can buy what they need immediately when they need it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation.
Could the gentleman clarify this report language on page 210 that
says that the amendment was outside the jurisdiction of the Committees
on Armed Services in the Senate and the House with respect to alleged
clandestine detention facilities?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, let me
just say to the gentleman that is a classified portion that is within
the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. KUCINICH. So it is not covered in this report is what he is
saying?
Mr. HUNTER. That is correct.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the combination of
institutional incompetence and ideological extremism that has us
contemplating this bill at this hour with further important legislation
to go, all kinds of stuff gets put in and the regular process gets
degraded.
I just want to call attention to one wholly irrelevant provision,
irrelevant to the defense. The Boy Scouts of America have been found by
States and cities to be violating their anti-discrimination policies
with regard to both sexual orientation and religion, and some cities
have said that they do not want anyone who fails to follow their State
or city's policy getting free facilities. That I suppose can be debated
or not as to whether it is right or wrong, but it does not seem to me
that there is any argument for having it in the Armed Services
authorization bill in a Congress run by supposed States rights
conservatives, a provision that says to every city in America you will
let the Boy Scouts use your facilities for free whether or not you
think they violate the law against discrimination based on religion or
sexual orientation.
Now, that is probably going to be found unconstitutional, but I find
that to be way beyond the scope of this bill and an example of the
degradation of the legislative process that it is in here.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, for all the meritorious provisions of this
bill dealing with national defense, there is one that has nothing to do
with national defense, and that is the provision on Peotone Airport,
Illinois. The language would make it a requirement of Federal law that
the governing body of South Suburban Airport in Will County, Peotone
Airport, Illinois, be comprised of a majority of local residents of the
county.
There was an effort to stick this language in our surface
transportation, SAFETEA-LU, last summer. I vigorously objected. It has
nothing to do with surface transportation. It has nothing to do with
the substance of that bill. So now here it reappears. And this is a
total contradiction to the often professed Republican stance that the
Federal Government should not tell local governments how to run their
business. It is an unprecedented change in the longstanding policy of
the Department of Transportation and the FAA that State and local
governments determine the structure of airport organization and
management and the Federal Government regulates airport safety. This is
objectionable.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the provision on Peotone
Airport, which was inserted into this conference report at the last
minute. The amendment would make it a federal requirement that the
governing body of the South Suburban (Peotone) airport in Will County,
Illinois be comprised of a majority of local residents of the county.
Insertion of this provision in the Conference Report is but the
latest example of the abuse of the conference process to enact a
legislative provision, which couldn't be passed on its merits, as a
separate bill. The provision was never considered by the Committee of
jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Last
summer, there was an unsuccessful, last minute effort to add this
provision to the Transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU. Now the provision
appears again in a Conference Report that has nothing to do with
aviation, or transportation. The provision was not in either of the
defense bills that went to conference. It is now protected against
points of order. Regrettably, this type of abuse of the process seems
to happen every time a major conference report comes before the House.
In addition to the abuse of process, the provision is bad policy. It
is an unprecedented change in the longstanding policy that state and
local governments determine the structure of airport organization and
management, while the federal government regulates airport safety. The
FAA is a safety organization, and its highest priority is to ensure the
safe and efficient operation of the airport and airway system, not to
arbitrate disputes between local authorities. The State of Illinois
should determine what body will govern and develop the Peotone airport
and how that body should be structured.
Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the conference process has been
abused to pass this undesirable provision.
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. 1063. AIRPORT CERTIFICATION.
For the airport referred to in paragraph (1) to be eligible
to receive approval of an airport layout plan by the Federal
Aviation Administration, such airport shall ensure and
provide documentation that--
(1) the governing body of an airport built after the date
of enactment of this Act at site number 04506.3*A and under
number 17-0027 of the National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems is composed of a majority of local residents who live
in the county in which such airport is located; and
(2) the airport complies with sections 303, 303A, and 303B
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (41 U.S.C. 253-253b) as implemented by the Federal
Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant
[[Page H12207]]
to section 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 421) regarding land procurement and developer
selection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the conference report, and I express my
appreciation that this report affirms the principle that a great power
should not need to resort to inhuman tactics to pursue its objectives.
The anti-torture language that is in this conference report is entirely
appropriate.
I also appreciate the fact that it strikes the proper balance between
an affirmation of our principles and an understanding that our
intelligence agents must act with discretion and flexibility when
dealing with the very difficult job that we have given them. This is an
important affirmation that strengthens our country, that improves our
intelligence, and makes us safer.
I commend the chairman, the ranking member for making sure the
provision is in here. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference
report.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Graham-Levin amendment language
contained in this bill. This provision restricts the jurisdiction of
the Federal courts to consider habeas corpus petitions from detainees
at Guantanamo or complaints about their treatment. It also would
require military tribunals to ``weigh the value of the intelligence
gained from an interrogation against a judgment on whether the
statement was coerced.''
In other words, even if the bill says they cannot torture, it also
says they can use the information they obtain by torturing people if
the military tribunal concludes the statement itself was not coerced.
These two provisions taken together, Mr. Speaker, make the anti-
torture provision of this bill unenforceable. They cannot complain
about it through habeas corpus. They cannot get into the Federal courts
to complain about it, and the military tribunal can use the coerced
evidence.
That is not right. This is un-American, and this language ought to
have been stricken from the bill.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The Chair will remind Members
to refrain from wearing communicative badges while under recognition.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member
very much for his leadership and the chairman.
As we all know, all of us have constituents in the U.S. military.
Texas has some of the largest numbers of military in the United States,
living in Texas.
I rise to compliment some of the aspects of this bill, such as the
increase in the death gratuity and the TRICARE increase for the
military and their families. I see the impact on my constituents for
improved health care. I also applaud the avian flu provision and as
well the issue dealing with the Department of Energy that will not
allowed the DOE to increase our nuclear warheads but will only allow
the DOE to study the effectiveness of existing warheads.
Finally the conferees agreed that our that our values do not support
torture practices, however, I am certainly disappointed that the habeas
has been taken away from so called enemy combatants. And I might also
add that here we go again with ``Star Wars,'' and program doubtful in
value.
But it is important that the Goode amendment was not included. We do
not need to use the military at the border. We are a country of laws as
we are a country of immigrants. And I might say as well that the 527
campaign reform legislation belongs somewhere else, not in the Defense
bill.
Our soldiers need the funding resources. They need our help. They
need an increase in compensation. They need better health care. And
their families, tragically, when they die in the line of duty, the
least we can do is to provide their dependents with a decent, livable
opportunity to survive.
I hope that we will have a better process the next time, but I say on
behalf of my constituents that I hope we will move this legislation
forward.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just one or two points, Mr. Speaker. Again in the detainee
legislation, the House inserted protections for American uniform
personnel and nonuniform personnel.
The other point that was mentioned by the gentleman from New York was
on probative value of evidence that might have been obtained under
coercion. We all know that we have an exclusionary rule in this country
domestically, and that means, as in Davis v. Mississippi, which is one
of the threshold cases, the fact that the person did have his
fingerprints on the threshold of the grandmother that he murdered, was
picked out of an unconstitutionally developed lineup; and therefore we
said, as a matter of disciplining our process, we would let people go
even though we knew they had committed the crime.
This is a different situation, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation where
a person may have been interrogated and may have disclosed, for
example, a cache of weapons with which he was going to use to destroy
American soldiers on the battlefield, the idea that in our review when
we determine whether we are going to free him and send him back, having
seen some of the people that we freed at Guantanamo show back up on the
battlefield intent on killing American soldiers, that we felt we could
not go that far. We could still take the probative value, and if that
interrogation developed that cache of weapons, we would look at the
cache of weapons and say the person who maintained that was in fact a
combatant and it is not fair to our soldiers to put him back where he
can shoot at them again.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say one last thing before my great colleague
winds up on his side. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is our
champion on the Armed Services Committee for military education. That
is an area in which he has more expertise than anybody else in this
body. And I thought, as we move toward the conclusion of this bill,
that it was only appropriate that as a gentleman who knows more history
than the rest of us, and, in fact, I went over a book that we were
going to get him and I found out he was already reading that book, I
wanted to dedicate to him and to give to him a book from the committee
signed by all the members of the committee, and the ones that have not
come to the floor yet will have their opportunity. It is the ``Battle
of Vicksburg.'' And for a gentleman who knows every battle that was
fought in America and knows it very well, I thought that this would be
an interesting tribute to us for a gentleman who really guides us,
Democrats and Republicans, in this very important area of military
education.
{time} 0045
So to the great gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I hope you
have good reading, and let me know the high points.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the chairman, Chairman Hunter, flatters me.
It is rather interesting, and it is important for me to point out that
my late wife, Susie Skelton, went to All Saints High School, which is
in the middle of the Vicksburg, Mississippi battlefield. And because of
that, that has special meaning to our family and, Mr. Speaker, I am
most appreciative.
This is an excellent bill. It includes language regarding detainees,
pay raises, and medical help. I hope that this does not set a pattern
on process. I realize that there was a time problem with the Senate
passing the bill so late, and with the Thanksgiving recess coming up.
But I hope that the panels will be able to meet fully, explore each of
the issues, and as we are not able to do that as nearly as fully as we
should, we had to rely on our wonderful staff, and they did an
outstanding job.
[[Page H12208]]
Toward the last, Mr. Speaker, this was a rather torturous procedural
effort. We jumped two major hurdles toward the end; and at the end of
the day, the bill is an excellent one for those in uniform and for
those who defend our country.
So with that I thank all of the members of the committee. Chairman
Hunter, thank you especially for your help, your leadership, and to
each member on our committee for the tremendous work that they did.
Hours and days went into this. And a special thanks, Mr. Chairman, for
this book on Vicksburg.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman. I
thought it would be appropriate for us also to thank this wonderful
staff, this great bipartisan staff who put this product together. Let
us thank them for what they did.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute so the gentleman from Georgia could make a presentation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much. It was when
Chairman Hunter provided the book to Ike about Vicksburg that I thought
that perhaps it was appropriate here publicly to say that there is
probably no person on the Armed Services Committee today, nor perhaps
no person in the history of the Armed Services Committee, who has done
so much for military education. Ike Skelton has constantly talked about
the need to provide education and training for our men and women in
uniform, and he is known throughout the armed services for that great
contribution that he has made.
A couple of years ago, he came up with the idea of commissioning a
scholarship program for the graduates of 2-year military colleges to
continue their education, with DOD paying for it if DOD thinks that it
is appropriate to do so; scholarships for these graduates as newly
commissioned officers to finish their college educations. This year,
unbeknownst to Ike, that scholarship program was named the Ike Skelton
Early Commissioning Program Scholarship.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present Senator Isakson's, a Member of
the other body, his bill originally signed by him naming that program
the Ike Skelton Early Commissioning Program Scholarship.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an
additional 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed flattered, and I do thank the
gentleman from Georgia for this unexpected tribute, and a special
thanks to Senator Isakson, the fellow Georgian, for his efforts in
this. I am indeed flattered, and I will do my best to merit the
confidence both of the chairman for his presentation and the
presentation Mr. Marshall made, and with deep appreciation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
bill, but not without great reservation. Despite my concerns, I am
pleased to see that the bill really provides good provisions for our
troops and their families. Moving into the specifics of the bill, H.R.
1815 authorizes $441.5 billion for defense programs in FY 2006,
slightly less than the President's request. The total is $20.9 billion
(5%) more than the current regular authorized and appropriated level
not counting $75.9 billion in FY 2005 emergency supplemental defense
funds appropriated last month for operations in Iraq. Among other
things, the bill increases the death gratuity for all active and
activated service members to $100,000 retroactive to October 7, 2001.
This authority is needed to pay the higher death gratuity to all
service members, and more importantly pay it retroactively to those
what do not qualify under the combat-related requirements since October
7, 2001. Furthermore, for the first time ever, all reservists who agree
to continue service in the Selected Reserves will have an opportunity,
depending on their status, to buy into a government subsidized TRICARE
Standard health care program for themselves and their families. This
authority is needed to allow expansion of the program to all drilling
Selected Reservists, and enhances the current TRICARE Reserve Select
program.
In addition, H.R. 1815 authorizes the President's request of an
across-the-board 3.1% pay increase for military personnel. Further, the
measure authorizes targeted increases for mid-grade and senior non-
commissioned officers and mid-grade officers. The raises would reduce
the pay gap between the military and private sector to 4.6%, from 5.1%.
Even more important, the measure increases payments to survivors of
deceased military personnel to $100,000, from $12,000, and eliminates
the requirement that these families have to deduct those payments from
the total they can receive from a similar program at the Veterans
Affairs Department. The bill also report increases the bonuses for
enlistment and reenlistment and raises the eligible enlistment age to
42. These authorities are needed by the Department and most will expire
on December 31, 2005.
From a health care prospective, for the first time ever, all
reservists who agree to continue service in the Selected Reserves will
have an opportunity, depending on their status, to buy into a
government subsidized TRICARE Standard health care program for
themselves and their families. This authority is needed to allow
expansion of the program to all drilling Selected Reservists, and
enhances the current TRICARE Reserve Select program. H.R. 1815 also
extends TRICARE coverage for children of service members killed in the
line of duty until 21 years of age, or 23 years, if a full-time
student.
Under the bill the Department of Defense is required to report back
on its plans to respond to an international and/or domestic outbreak of
avian flu. This is very important as our nation combats the potential
outbreak of this flu. Lastly Requires the establishment of a Mental
Health Task Force that will look at how the Department and the Services
can better identify, treat, and support the mental health needs,
including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, for service members and their
families. An effort to provide a comprehensive examination of the
mental health programs and policies of the Department of Defense and
other federal programs, this effort will not be initiated without a
defense authorization bill.
Title 3 of the bill allows the Department of Defense to accept gifts
on behalf of wounded service members, Department of Defense civilians
or their families. Soldiers are currently restricted from accepting
more than $20 in gifts. This makes it impossible for well meaning
people to give gifts to wounded troops or their families without
violating ethics laws. The provision will only partially fix the issue
as people will not be able to give gifts directly to the soldier. The
bill recognizes the diversity of members of the Armed Forces who serve
and died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Additionally, the bill authorizes $30 million for Department of Defense
Impact Aid. These are funds provided to states that have military bases
in communities and these bases are feeding of the economy of the
community.
Before closing, let me take a few moments to express my concerns with
the bill. In terms of ``Star Wars'' I would only say, here we go again
providing for additional testing on unproven technology that will not
ensure our safety. Finally I am disappointed that the bill provides
limited judicial review of appeals from prisoners seeking
determinations of enemy combatant status. This does nothing but closes
the court doors which going against the principle of judicial review
and due process.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I support the extension of the Defense
Department's 1207 program, which ensures that the Department's federal
contracting process in no way supports or subsidizes the discrimination
that has long existed in the contracting business. The extension of the
program through September 2009 is needed to help achieve that goal.
Overwhelming evidence has shown that minorities historically have
been excluded from both public and private construction projects,
particularly from defense contracts. Since its adoption in 1986, the
Department of Defense's 1207 program has helped level the playing field
for minority contractors, but there is still much work yet to be done.
A 2004 North Carolina study by MGT America, an independent research
and consulting firm, revealed that North Carolina continues to
underutilize businesses owned by minorities or women in nearly all
categories of transportation contracts. More specifically, African
American and Hispanic businesses are underutilized in every business
category of contracts awarded by the North Carolina Department of
[[Page H12209]]
Transportation. In an earlier Charlotte study, Hispanic contractors
reported that they are treated differently and experience more pressure
to get the work done. Clearly, efforts to encourage minority
participation in government contracting are still necessary.
The Department of Defense's 1207 program helps to counter
discrimination without imposing an undue burden on white-owned
businesses. Small businesses owned by white contractors are eligible to
receive the benefits of the program if they are socially and
economically disadvantaged.
I strongly support the reauthorization of the Department of Defense's
1207 program.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the defense
authorization bill conference report for fiscal year 2006. The bill
includes language regarding U.S. policy concerning the war in Iraq,
which reflects substantially House Joint Resolution 55 of which I am a
prime cosponsor, with regard to phased redeployment of U.S. forces in
Iraq during calendar year 2006. There is also language in this bill
that clearly lays out how detainees in the custody of the U.S.
Government will be treated. However, it does not address the question
of the outsourcing torture or contracting with third parties for
interrogation and detention not subject to the provisions of this bill.
We will pay a heavy price in terms of world condemnation for this
deliberate omission when such activities are revealed.
There are several measures to improve the oversight of major
acquisition programs for the Department of Defense. Each year the
nation gives the Pentagon hundreds of billions of dollars, and each
year the Pentagon spends a good portion of that money buying things:
ships, planes, tanks, helicopters, and other items. Unfortunately, in
recent years almost every single high-profile defense acquisition
program has experienced cost overruns, performance shortfalls, or
testing problems. I believe that one reason for these problems is that
Congress hasn't done everything it could to make sure that these
important programs stay on track and that the companies building the
systems deliver what they promise to deliver. At the end of the day,
this is about getting our troops in the field what they need, when they
need it. Making sure this happens is one of Congress' primary
Constitutional duties.
I am pleased then that this year, the defense authorization bill puts
measures in place that will improve Congress' visibility of several
major programs that are facing challenges, including the Future Combat
System, the Joint Tactical Radio System, and the new Presidential
helicopter. In each case, both myself and my subcommittee chairman
Congressman Curt Weldon, are committed to making sure that these
programs deliver the capability our military needs at a price we can
afford.
I am also encouraged that for the first time, this bill requires the
Department of Defense and the military services to report back to us on
options for moving to a capital budgeting approach for defense
acquisition, which I have advocated. Today, the DOD is one of the few
government entities in the United States that continues to cash-finance
the purchase of multi-million dollar capital items such as ships and
aircraft. As I've pointed out many times during committee discussions,
this cash-financing and budgeting system is leading the Department to
make poor decisions on major capital acquisition programs. In effect,
the way we budget for new equipment is determining what we end up
buying. That is a completely backwards system and one that needs to
change. The conference report before us today will require the DOD and
the Armed Services to take a serious look at using an alternative,
modern, and more flexible capital budgeting approach that will help the
DOD get our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs.
As I indicated earlier, this bill includes language in Section 1227
on U.S. Policy in Iraq that I think represents bipartisan agreement
with House Joint Resolution 55, which I introduced with Congressman
Walter Jones this past June. Joint Resolution 55 called for the
President to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006.
Similarly, the bill before us today says that:
``Calendar Year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to
full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi forces taking the lead for the
security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions
for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.''
I think the bipartisan support in Congress for a phased redeployment
and the President's eventual signature for this measure should signal a
significant step toward getting US troops out of Iraq. I'm pleased that
despite the recent White House overheated rhetoric about ``total'' or
``complete'' victory and casting aspersions on the patriotism of those
opposed to this war that we may finally be at a point where we can all
agree that in 2006 US troops will begin to come home from Iraq. If the
President signs this bill it follows that support for this language
requires beginning the drawdown of US forces in Iraq as soon as
possible.
Again, as I indicated earlier, this bill contains language clarifying
how individuals detained and held by the United States Government will
be treated and interrogated. The language originally sponsored by
Senator John McCain that prohibits ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading''
treatment of prisoners is retained in the conference report in its
original form. However, while I'm pleased that this language is
included in the bill--after the President threatened to veto this very
same language--I am troubled by an issue that this bill does not
address.
This issue is the issue of whether or not the United States condones,
by default, the torture of prisoners by ``outsourcing'' interrogations
to other nations. The technique of handing over prisoners in our
custody to other countries is called ``extraordinary rendition,'' and
has been described in numerous press reports. In some cases, it may
even be an appropriate way to deal with a prisoner wanted for crimes in
their home country.
However, what happens to those prisoners when they leave U.S. custody
is not addressed in this bill in any way. As a result, while the bill
prohibits people in our direct custody and control from being tortured,
it is silent--and thus, complicit--with regard to our handing over
prisoners to other nations so that they can be tortured on our behalf.
So, while we have made some progress with regard to making it clear
to our military and intelligence services how they are to treat
prisoners in our custody, I am concerned that this bill doesn't go far
enough. I intend to support this bill today based on what is in it, but
I want to make it clear that Congress must, as soon as possible, deal
with the issue of the outsourcing of torture. If Congress does not do
so soon, there will likely be some kind of incident somewhere involving
a prisoner in our care that is handed over to another country and is
subsequently tortured, or even killed. When that happens, if Congress
has remained silent on this issue the United States will suffer another
needless defeat in the court of global public opinion. When that
happens, millions around the world may conclude that Congress condones
the outsourcing of torture simply because we have chosen not to act to
stop it.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1815, and
thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work.
Once again the committee has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring
the security of our nation and the safety of our men and women in
uniform.
I am extremely pleased that we were able to consider this measure
without extraneous and controversial provisions that would have
endangered its passage. Our troops and the civilian employees in the
Department of Defense have performed valiantly and made enormous
sacrifices to safeguard the United States, and H.R. 1815 recognizes
their commitment by providing much-needed assistance to them and their
families. The conference report includes a pay raise of 3.1% for
military, increases certain enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, and
allows certain members of the reserves to buy into the TRICARE health
care program for themselves and their families. The measure also
increases the endstrength of the Army and the Marine Corps, which
should help relieve some of the stress on troops who have experienced
repeated deployments.
The legislation also contains $50 billion in supplemental funding to
provide force protection equipment, such as up-armored Humvees and
jammers for improvised explosive devices, to our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as to replace equipment that has been degraded by
the high operations tempo. Though the military has accomplished a great
deal with what they have, we have clear indications that we are wearing
down our equipment, perhaps faster than we can replace it. The
investment in this bill is an important step, but we must not forget
that it will take billions more to completely reset and recapitalize
our force.
This bill also contains important language to ensure that Department
of Defense does not contract out existing government work without
realizing actual cost savings. Earlier in the year, I drew the
committee's attention to DOD's practice of reorganizing or
reclassifying existing government work in order to circumvent required
contracting rules without demonstrating savings. The language in this
measure closes that loophole and goes much farther by establishing much
clearer standards about how DOD can contract out work. I thank the
chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, as well as the
committee staff, for working with me and my office to address my
original concern, and I will continue to work with the committee to
monitor the implementation of this new language to ensure that all
parties involved are treated fairly and that taxpayer dollars are used
as effectively as possible.
[[Page H12210]]
Finally, H.R. 1815 demonstrates its interest in maintaining a strong
Navy through a continued commitment to the next-generation destroyer,
DD(X). It also includes language affirming the committee's support of
the VIRGINIA-class submarine and directing the Navy to initiate a
program to improve future submarine technology in a cost-effective
manner. This provision should be welcome news to Electric Boat, a major
employer in my district, which has announced as many 2,400 layoffs in
2006, primarily due to insufficient submarine design and construction
work. To prevent our submarine force from shrinking to dangerously low
levels, I will continue my efforts to integrate cutting-edge technology
into VIRGINIA-class submarines and to increase procurement of these
ships to two per year. Given other nations' investments in their navy
and undersea capabilities, we cannot afford for the United State to
lose its undersea dominance.
Again, I commend the Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton and my
colleagues on the committee for a well-balanced bill, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report for H.R. 1815, the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense
Authorization. This legislation is critically important to our troops
and our efforts in the global war on terror. In addition, the
conference report contains a provision that is extremely important to
my constituents in Illinois's 11th Congressional district. The ``Weller
Amendment'', which pertains to Chicago's South Suburban Airport,
ensures that the airport is built with local control and through a
transparent process.
The South Suburban Airport will be one of Illinois' largest
infrastructure projects to be undertaken since the construction of
Chicago O'Hare International airport. With the construction of the
South Suburban Airport, an estimated 236,000 jobs will be created and
it is projected to generate $5.1 billion in economic growth. In
addition to the boost it will give the local economy, the South
Suburban Airport will further reduce the congestion that currently
plagues Chicago O'Hare.
The ``Weller amendment'' is necessary to protect the taxpayers of
Will County who will have the ultimate responsibility for the
infrastructure and development associated with the airport. Local
responsibility, accountability and control is essential for the airport
to be successful. For Will County, where the entire footprint of the
airport is located, to have a majority control on how this airport
should take shape and operate. It is just common sense.
The first section of my provision will ensure that Will County
residents will receive a majority of the seats on the governing board
of the airport. Since my days in the Illinois General Assembly, I have
been a strong supporter of the Third Airport and have always maintained
that local control is vital to the airport governance. It is the
residents of Will County who will have to live with both the benefits
and the consequences the new growth will bring to the county. They must
have a majority of seats on the governing board to represent Will
county taxpayer interests.
The second section of my provision applies to current law, requiring
that all contractual dealings of the airport follow federal procurement
laws. There must be transparency and open bidding in the contracting
for this airport. There is no room for sweetheart deals or backdoor no
bid contracts which is the practice of the Abraham Lincoln Airport
Commission, which is composed of communities in Cook County who seek to
control the Will County site. This point has also been reinforced by
the recent opinion by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. In her
opinion, issued last Friday evening, the process that the Abraham
Lincoln Airport Commission used to pick two airport developers violated
state procurement laws.
I also realize that some of my constituents, especially near the
airport site, do not support the construction of a suburban third
airport. With this understood, should an airport be built, I think they
would agree that those that have to live with the airport should
control the operation of the airport.
I would like to deeply thank Speaker Hastert and Chairman Hunter for
their support of this amendment. I would also like to thank Will County
Executive Larry Walsh, Will County Board Chairman Jim Moustis, Illinois
State Senator Debbie Halvorson and all of the public officials in Will
and Kankakee counties for their support.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let me start by
adding my thanks to the Armed Services Committee staff for their hard
work and long hours in getting this conference report to the floor.
On the whole, I think this is a solid bill--a bill that does a lot of
good for our servicemembers and their families.
It raises basic pay and hardship duty pay. It provides TRICARE
coverage for Reservists. It increases the death gratuity for all
activated servicemembers. It begins the much-needed reform of the DOD
acquisition system.
And with the inclusion of the McCain language, this bill makes a
strong statement to the world that the United States does NOT condone--
and will not tolerate--the torture or abuse of detainees.
But I'm particularly happy to note that the final conference
agreement includes two important revisions to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ).
The first revision would update Article 120 of the UCMJ making it a
modern, complete sexual assault statute that protects victims, empowers
commanders and prosecutors, and improves good order and discipline of
the armed forces.
It offers military prosecutors a clear definition of sexual assault
and better tools for prosecuting sexual offenses, and it affords
increased protection for victims by emphasizing acts of the perpetrator
rather than the reaction of the victim during an assault.
The second revision to the UCMJ involves the addition of stalking as
a specifically defined offense, bringing the UCMJ in line with federal
laws and the laws of all 50 states.
The language in this bill will offer commanders and prosecutors a
clear definition of stalking. It will raise awareness, strengthen law
enforcement, and underscore the criminality of this conduct to all
members of the military community.
Furthermore, it will give commanders a powerful tool to cut stalking
off in its early stages--before a stalker's behavior escalates.
I have pushed for these changes for a long, long time, and I am
thrilled to see both chambers finally agree on these major steps
forward for the military justice system and for the men and women of
our armed forces.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today we are being asked to vote on the
Department of Defense Authorization conference report. Once again, the
House is being required to vote on a bill in the dead of night, without
the opportunity to read the language or consider its ramifications. I
am especially concerned about two provisions in this bill--provisions
that were not in the original House bill, were not the subject of
Congressional hearings, and have not been carefully scrutinized. Yet,
those two provisions--one that undermines the fundamental right of
habeas corpus and the other that undermines the ban on torture--will
have profound implications for our legal traditions and our reputation
throughout the world.
The first provision, based on a Senate amendment, would limit U.S.
courts' historic habeas corpus jurisdiction to review detentions. This
would cut off access to the courts by persons held at Guantanamo Bay.
Habeas corpus is one of the most fundamental precepts of American
Constitutional tradition. The court-stripping provision included in
this legislation would do grievous harm to the rule that the government
cannot just lock up people without showing cause to a court. It is not
a change that we should enact without careful consideration by the
appropriate committees in the House and Senate.
In a letter to Members of Congress commenting on the Senate
amendment, Leslie H. Jackson, head of the POW organization, American
Ex-Prisoners of War, said ``As we limit the rights of human beings,
even those of the enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us
weaker and imperils our troops. I am proud to be an American and proud
of my service to my country. This Amendment, well intentioned as it may
be, will diminish us.'' William D. Rogers, former Under Secretary of
State during the Ford Administration, also expressed serious concerns
about the possible impacts of this amendment. He warns, ``To proclaim
democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme form of
government at the very moment we eliminate the most important avenue of
relief from arbitrary governmental decision will not serve our
interests in the larger world.''
Second, this legislation also includes a provision that would
undermine a ban on torture by allowing testimony obtained by torture to
be used to hold and to punish detainees. Both the House and the Senate
have voted overwhelmingly in past weeks that our nation should prohibit
the use of torture. We have agreed that the use of torture is
antithetical to a moral nation and that it harms our reputation as the
exemplar of democracy and freedom throughout the world. We have also
heard from intelligence experts that information obtained in
interrogations that use techniques like ``waterboarding'' or simulated
drowning, often produce unreliable information. Yet, while this
legislation condemns the use of torture on one hand, on the other hand
it countenances the use of information obtained through torture to
eliminate legal rights.
I urge my colleagues to reject these provisions in order to protect
our time-tested judicial review process and to keep our commitment to
end the use of torture.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this conference report has flaws,
and I dislike the way it was developed. But I think it deserves to be
approved, and want to highlight a few reasons why.
[[Page H12211]]
First, the conference report includes the original McCain amendment
related to treatment of detainees, with additional language agreed to
by the conferees and the Administration that provides our military and
intelligence personnel with criminal and civil defenses modeled on
those already provided to military personnel under the Uniformed Code
of Military Justice in specific circumstances.
I strongly supported the McCain amendment because, while it's said
actions speak louder than words, reputations depend on both--and,
fairly or not, for people around the world the actions of a few
Americans at Abu Ghraib have left a stain on America's reputation and
have made it harder for our troops to win the war against Islamic
terrorists. Erasing that stain and protecting our soldiers from abuse
will take both respectable actions and credible words--and enactment of
this part of the conference report will give credibility to our words.
I also am glad to note that the conference report includes the
language adopted by the Senate saying that says 2006 should be a period
of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi
security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and requiring quarterly reports
until all combat brigades have been redeployed from Iraq.
With my colleagues Representatives Osborn, Tauscher, and Schwarz, I
urged that this be retained in the conference report as a step toward
the greater unity among Members of Congress and the Administration that
I think will be needed for a successful outcome in Iraq. So, its
inclusion is another reason I support the conference report.
There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our
troops. An important one increases the end strength for the Army and
Marine Corps by 30,000 and 4,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease
the strain on our troops. I'm also glad that the bill includes
provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, increase
the death gratuity to $100,000, and provide a 3.1% pay raise for
members of the armed forces. The bill also provides better force
protection for our troops, including nearly doubled funding for up-
armored Humvees.
Also critical is the report's provision authorizing reservists who
agree to continue service to buy into a government-subsidized TRICARE
healthcare program for themselves and their families. Along with many
of my colleagues in the House, I have fought for some time to expand
TRICARE for the Guard and Reserve, so I take great pleasure in knowing
that the report includes this provision that will improve healthcare
access for our men and women in the Selected Reserve. As long as our
Nation continues to use our reserve components in the same capacities
as active duty troops, they deserve similar benefits for similar
service. The needs of our Reservists will continue to grow as we
continue to call them to service in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the
report's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs,
particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have
relied on immature technology. Similarly, provisions included to reform
the acquisition system will strengthen current law governing cost
overruns.
I am also pleased that the report fully authorizes Cooperative Threat
Reduction funding as well as additional funding for a Department of
Energy nonproliferation program to implement agreements between the
U.S. and Russia. One of the biggest dangers we face is the threat of
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the hands of
terrorists, yet the CTR program is currently funded at a lower level
than it was before September 11th. So I am glad that report conferees
recognized the importance of increasing CTR funding.
On a less positive note, I am concerned that the report authorizes
nearly $50 billion in a ``bridge fund''--over and above the $440
billion in the regular bill--for FY06 supplemental appropriations for
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. While
inclusion in the report does mean that the authorizing process has been
followed to an extent, still, the additional money in this bridge fund
should be included in the regular budget request, since there is
nothing unexpected about the need for these funds. The ``emergency''
label that these funds bear hides the fact that they do increase the
size of the budget deficit. I don't believe this is a responsible way
for us to pay for our military operations.
And I have concerns about the provision related to the ability of
detainees at Guantanamo Bay to seek judicial review of their
situations. My understanding is that this could have the effect of
allowing use of evidence obtained by coercive interrogations. At least
one lawyer who represents detainees at Guantanamo has described the
combination of the McCain amendment and this provision as one step
forward and two steps back. I think we must carefully monitor
implementation of this provision and be prepared to consider revisions
in the near future.
Further, Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Armed Services
Committee, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hunter and for
working with me on a number of provisions in the report that are
important to me and my state of Colorado.
In particular, I am pleased that the report includes favorable
language on the Pueblo Chemical Depot, a former chemical weapons site
located in southeastern Colorado. Coloradans were alarmed last year
when the demilitarization project was put on hold, so they want to see
that the Defense Department is committed to using the neutralization
technology to destroy the 2,600 tons of mustard agent stored at
Pueblo--not transporting the weapons to a different site for
destruction. The Colorado delegation has worked hard to put the project
back on the right track, so I am grateful for language in the bill
directing the Secretary of the Army to continue to implement fully the
neutralization technology at Pueblo.
And, finally, the conference report includes provisions dealing with
a matter of particular interest to Coloradans--the future of Rocky
Flats.
Located at the edge of the Denver metropolitan area, Rocky Flats
formerly was part of the complex of sites where nuclear weapons were
made. After that use ended, the Department of Energy and its
contractors worked to have the site cleaned up and closed. That
monumental task is now complete, and when the regulatory certification
of cleanup and closure is issued, and most of the site will be
transferred to the Interior Department for management as a national
wildlife refuge pursuant to the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge Act.
That Act, which I sponsored with Senator Wayne Allard, includes some
provisions related to the non-Federal minerals--primarily sand and
gravel--at Rocky Flats. The purpose of those provisions is to make
clear that while these mineral rights are to be respected as private
property, their future development could have adverse effects on the
land, wildlife habitat, and other values of the future wildlife refuge.
I think the best way to avoid that is for the Federal Government to
acquire the minerals. This conference report will facilitate
acquisition of part of those mineral rights, and while I think its
terms leave room for improvement its enactment will enable valuable
progress to be made.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the conference report deserves
enactment and I urge its approval.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the extension
of the Defense Department's Section 1207 Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (SADBU) program through September 2009. I am very
pleased to see this program extended in this bill because it has proven
to be extremely effective in fighting discrimination in the defense
contracting process, and has been tremendously successful in ensuring
that African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans are able
to compete more effectively for government contracts.
The goal of the SADBU program is to provide opportunities for all
Americans to take part in the defense contracting process. Since its
inception in 1987, the SADBU program has helped to level the playing
field for small and disadvantaged businesses. However, there is still a
lot that needs to be done. Years of Congressional hearings have shown
that minorities have historically been unfairly excluded from both
public and private construction contracts in general, and from federal
defense contracts in particular. And a recent study by MGT of America
revealed that minority-owned and women-owned businesses in New Jersey
still faced significant challenges in obtaining state contracts. Many
business owners and representatives stated that their opportunities to
perform work as subcontractors on state contracts decreased after the
suspension of the state's minority and women business enterprise
program. If the federal SADBU program were to end, a lot of the
progress we have made to this point would likely be erased. That's why
this extension is so important.
Mr. Speaker, the 1207 program helps to correct the problems of
discrimination without imposing an undue burden on other businesses. It
is not a quota. It is not a set-aside. It is not a guarantee of
contracts or dollars. It is simply about fairness, and the ability of
minority-owned businesses to compete more effectively for federal
defense contracts. All of us benefit when recipients of federal
opportunities reflect America's diversity, and I'm proud to support the
reauthorization of the 1207 program.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this bill, but I
do not support all of the provisions in it. I am especially concerned
about the McCain language related to treatment of detainees in the War
on Terrorism and about the consequences of that language on our ability
to prevent attacks against Americans.
[[Page H12212]]
A recent editorial in the December 14, 2005 issue of USA Today
expresses my views very well, and I include it at this point in the
Record:
[From USA Today, Dec. 15, 2005]
Misguided Morality
(By Andrew C. McCarthy and Clifford D. May)
No one favors torture. Torture is already illegal under
both U.S. and international law. Nonetheless, the United
States is fighting a war against ruthless enemies who obey no
rules. We cannot afford to treat all of them with kid gloves
all the time.
On the battlefield, we can--and do--kill our enemies. Those
we don't kill but only capture should be treated humanely,
despite the fact that they do not return the favor when they
seize Americans. But those who have information that could
save lives must be interrogated effectively. That does not
imply torture. It does imply measures that the McCain
amendment would ban.
Contrary to what you might have heard, ``ticking time-
bomb'' scenarios are not uncommon. Consider the situation
faced by Army Lt. Col. Allen West: Fighting near Tikrit, he
captured a suspect who refused to divulge information about a
planned ambush.
West fired his revolver to frighten the suspect. The trick
worked. The terrorist talked. American lives were saved. And
West was accused of torture, charged with assault and drummed
out of the military. Next time, will an officer in the same
situation decide to let Americans be killed--believing that's
what Americans back home demand?
Even more common than the ticking time bomb is the scenario
in which a ``high-value'' suspect is captured, for example a
senior al-Qaeda commander who might not know about an
imminent attack but who does have information on terrorist
recruiting, training and communications.
In this circumstance, torture is not only unneeded but also
unhelpful. But the use of ``stress and duress'' techniques,
including rewards for cooperation and punishments for
defiance, can, over time, induce a subject to reveal what he
knows.
Good policy requires clarity and accountability. Though
torture is to be avoided, vague terms such as ``cruel'' and
``degrading'' inevitably would be stretched to coddle
terrorists unduly. Congress should instead set clear
standards, consulting intelligence experts and medical
professionals to flesh out which techniques should always be
prohibited (for example, those likely to cause death or
permanent disability), and which are permissible--and most
likely to yield reliable lifesaving information.
Accountability means not leaving serious judgments to
junior personnel. Harsh interrogation methods, such as covert
operations under current federal law, should require approval
by a highranking administration official.
Obviously, distinctions must be made between terrorist
leaders and low-level operatives. Even so, those arguing that
it is better to sacrifice the lives of U.S. troops--or even
an American city--rather than cause a terrorist temporary
discomfort are making a terrible mistake. They urge a self-
destructive policy and a misguided morality.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. SKELTON. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________