[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 56 (Wednesday, May 10, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2360-H2366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5122, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 806

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2007 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
     year 2007, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. After disposition of the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, the 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule 
for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 
2007 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
  Additionally, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed 
in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment and shall be considered as read.
  It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services and makes 
in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report 
accompanying the resolution.
  Furthermore, it provides that the amendments printed in the report 
accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the Rules Committee report, and the rule provides that after 
disposition of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, 
the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further 
consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent 
order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and 
the underlying legislation. This important legislation takes a number 
of dramatic steps to better the lives of our servicemen and women, 
increase our defense capabilities, and more aggressively conduct 
operations in the generational global war on terror that is now under 
way. It is a bill that fundamentally addresses many of the 
transformative challenges for the future and provides many of the 
interim steps to meet those challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member on leave from the House Armed Services 
Committee and a member of the Rules Committee, I firmly believe that 
this legislation takes the appropriate and necessary steps to better 
secure America's security and more successfully prosecute the war which 
we were drawn into on September 11, 2001.
  To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 5122, one most 
understand the four long-term challenges that we face in the 21st 
century security environment. Briefly put, these challenges are, first, 
responding to the dramatic procurement holiday we took in the 1990s; 
second, responding to the operational demands for the transformation of 
our forces; third, responding to the operational and strategic demands 
for increased end strength; fourth, shaping our military for a 
generational war, the global war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, these challenges are not options. They are requirements 
that the Armed Services Committee must address on a continuing basis. I 
am happy to report that there is a bipartisan agreement that the 
committee has done precisely that in H.R. 5122.
  The gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman 
from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, have worked in a good, 
bipartisan

[[Page H2361]]

way to bring forward a legislative package that we may all be proud of. 
Now it is important that we collectively, as the House, support our 
deployed servicemen and women by supporting the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this legislation responds in a 
dramatic way to all the long-term challenges that we face. Being 
specific, the underlying legislation increases the procurement accounts 
by approximately $9 billion over fiscal year 2006 and effectively 
replenishes several historically underfunded accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also takes dramatic steps forward in 
transforming the nature and the structure of our operational forces by 
funding the Brigade Combat Team conversions for the Army, addressing 
the needs of the Navy's future shipbuilding program and increasing the 
end strength of the Army by 30,000 soldiers and 5,000 Marines to the 
Marine Corps to better support the war on terror.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes dramatic 
steps to better ensure our long-term success in the global war on 
terror. Specifically, this legislation includes a $50 billion 
allocation of supplemental funding to support ongoing war-related costs 
and procurement of replacement equipment.
  It significantly increases personnel protection efforts with respect 
to improvised explosive devices and authorizes support for shipyards to 
maintain the long-term operational success and stability of the 
shipping industry critical to all of our services.
  Also, the underlying legislation supports troop morale and welfare by 
ensuring a 2.7 percent pay raise and blocks the Department of Defense's 
proposed TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard fee increases and zeroes 
out copayments for generic and formulary mail order prescriptions for 
military beneficiaries.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 days, we will hear arguments in favor of 
specific amendments that do not relate to our four long-term 
challenges, nor do they address the subject matter of the underlying 
legislation in any real way.
  We will also hear arguments attacking the executive and our progress 
in the war on terror. Those discussions are appropriate, but they do 
not really relate to the purpose of this legislation.
  I would caution those who would like to politicize the defense 
authorization bill that this legislation is absolutely essential to our 
servicemen and women deployed overseas in a wartime deployment. The 
operational situation will not change through continuing attacks on the 
choices that we collectively as the House have made in the past.
  Our focus should be to advance our Nation's and our servicemen and 
women's interest by providing them with the tools they require to be 
successful. The underlying legislation does just that.
  Mr. Speaker, additionally, some Members may want to engage in debate 
that is essentially tangential to the issue at hand. What we must 
remember is that this bill is a finely crafted piece of legislation 
that attempts to bridge the policy and political divide to do what is 
best for our servicemen and women.
  Fundamentally this legislation moves us in the proper direction. No 
bill is perfect. However, this bill is a very good piece of legislation 
that increases our security, assists in prosecuting our global war on 
terror, protects our troops and enhances the lives of our servicemen 
and women.
  Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are now considering allows 
for general debate of the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill 
and also makes in order a limited number of amendments.
  The annual defense authorization is one of the most critical bills 
Congress considers. It serves two roles. First, for national security, 
it is a blueprint to ensure our military has the resources and tools to 
meet any threat from abroad.
  Second, and just as important, this bill provides for the men and 
women standing on the front lines of our Nation's defense. These men 
and women work tirelessly to protect this country. It gives me great 
pride to support the most professional and dedicated military in the 
world.
  For all that we ask of them, these individuals, be they members of 
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserves or National Guard, 
ask very little of us in return. What they ask is that we provide the 
equipment they need to get the job done, provide for them and provide 
for their family.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is with these two key points in mind, our 
national security and our duty to our troops, that many of us were 
dismayed by several of the President's proposals for the Defense 
Department.
  Our National Guard is an important source of strength for this 
country, both overseas and here at home. Whether they are risking their 
lives in combat or overseas or bringing order to a stressful situation 
after a natural disaster, it is clear that our National Guard is worthy 
of our strong support. The twin challenges we faced this year with Iraq 
and Hurricane Katrina could not have made this point more clearly.
  I would like to thank the committee for preserving our Guard strength 
despite the President's recommendation to Congress to reduce the 
strength of the Army and National Guard by 17,100 and the Air Guard by 
5,000.
  From California alone, about 9,100 of our National Guard soldiers 
have been called to active duty. Almost 3,800 are still deployed, and 
another 2,300 are expected to be called up. Among those who recently 
returned after an 18-month tour are 350 soldiers from the 1-184 and 174 
members of the 2668th Transportation Company. Both groups are from my 
hometown of Sacramento. Weakening the Guard in this manner only serves 
to weaken our security.
  The strains of our current force strengths are already evident: In 
Iraq, too many Guard and Reserve have borne a heavy burden, some with 
multiple tours of duty. At home, we must have a strong responsive Guard 
if we are to be prepared for future natural disasters. Louisiana, 
facing one of the Nation's worst natural disasters, found its response 
efforts further hamstrung when one-third of its National Guard was 
serving in Iraq.
  I also appreciate the committee's decision to include $300 million 
for equipment for the National Guard. This is a strong acknowledgment 
of the very real impact the war in Iraq is having on the Guard, and it 
is a strong signal that to be prepared in the future current 
preparedness is essential.
  At a time when we are relying so heavily on our Armed Forces, there 
was also an attempt to urge Congress to allow an increase in premiums 
and fees for the military's health care plan TRICARE. Thankfully, this 
bill contains no such ideas, and I applaud the committee's decision to 
work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the needs of our troops. However, 
I am deeply concerned about one recommendation made that the committee 
did accept. This proposal would result in increases in TRICARE 
prescription drug copays.

                              {time}  1230

  If passed without further amendment, this legislation would double 
copays for generic drugs, and raises the costs of name-brand drugs 75 
percent.
  This potential increase in copays could be devastating to a young 
family. It is not enough to exempt mail orders from this hike. Our 
troops should have a guarantee that as they are serving on the front 
lines, their families back home are not presented with impossible 
choices because of financial hardship.
  I mentioned the 2668th Transportation Company having recently 
returned from Iraq. During their deployment, I was privileged to sit 
down with the family members of these soldiers. They conveyed to me 
that for their family, the last thing the spouse serving overseas 
should be worrying about is whether their family is provided for.
  The esteemed ranking member on the committee, Mr. Skelton, proposed 
an amendment in committee which would have blocked these large copay 
increases. Unfortunately, it was narrowly defeated, by just two votes. 
I

[[Page H2362]]

hope that the Rules Committee allows the Skelton amendment as part of a 
second rule on the floor tomorrow. Such an important change should be 
debated in the most open manner possible on the House floor.
  I would also like to highlight an additional Democratic amendment 
that has not yet been made in order from Mr. Israel. Today's military 
manual currently includes complete guidelines for the role of military 
chaplains, who play a critical role in the spiritual lives and health 
of our troops. Despite this, the underlying bill usurps that local 
control with language that the rear admiral in charge of Navy chaplains 
says will ``degrade military chaplains use and effectiveness to the 
crew and commanding officer.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will include the letter from the Department of Navy 
for the Record.
  If the language cannot be removed from the bill, the House should at 
least allow debate on Mr. Israel's amendment. The language should be 
corrected so that it more closely mirrors current military manuals. I 
hope this amendment is made in order before we finish the bill.
  As I conclude, I would like to commend the committee for their 
decision to authorize funds for the costs of the first 6 months of the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2007. This provision will 
allow Congress to resume its important oversight responsibility. Its 
inclusion is also an opportunity for this institution to discuss one of 
the largest issues facing this Nation, the war in Iraq. While we may 
all not agree, it is our duty as Members of Congress to discuss and 
debate our Iraq policy, as I know Ranking Member Skelton has urged. I 
hope we may have more opportunity soon. With that in mind, this bill is 
an important first step.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from Rear Admiral 
Iasiello, Chief of Navy Chaplains.

                                       Department of the Navy,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2006.
     Hon. Steve Israel,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Israel: In response to your inquiry regarding the 
     Department of the Navy's position on Section 590 of H.R. 
     5122, the Department has concerns with the proposed language. 
     It is the Department's position that the proposed section 
     will lead to confusion, compromise, and loss of credibility 
     of religious ministry and chaplains services for the men and 
     women of the sea services.
       The chaplain's role in the Navy is as naval officer, 
     counselor and religious advisor. The chaplain is assigned to 
     commands to help commanding officers administer their 
     religious ministries program. The chaplain is a 
     representative of his or her faith group and provides or 
     facilitates for the religious needs of all members of the 
     command. For this reason, it is essential that the chaplain 
     possess the trust and respect of all the crew, not simply the 
     members of his or her own faith group. The proposed language 
     will alter this historic relationship and responsibility of 
     chaplain's to their commanding officer and their crew.
       Primarily I have three concerns with the proposed language:
       The language ignores and negates the primary duties of the 
     chaplain to support the religious needs of the entire crew 
     and to be a faithful representative of the chaplains 
     endorsing faith group. Current practice carefully balances 
     establishment of religion with free exercise of the chaplain 
     and crew's religion, by providing almost unlimited 
     opportunity for the chaplain to pray according to his 
     conscience and faith and providing safeguards where he or she 
     cannot be forced to violate their conscience in all matters 
     regarding religious ministry. It also ensures a commanding 
     officer can balance religious needs and provide a non-
     coercive, non-denominational spiritual presence during 
     command functions.
       The proposed wording will compromise religious ministry for 
     Sailors and Marines. By allowing chaplains to lead prayers in 
     nearly all situations, potentially independent of the 
     endorsing faith group and legitimate concerns of the command 
     and crew, chaplains will be independent agents operating 
     outside the military command structure. Commanders, who must 
     ensure good order and discipline in their commands, will have 
     no choice but to limit chaplain access to the crew to 
     preserve such good order, discipline and morale. Commanders 
     will have no choice but to limit chaplain access to the crew 
     in order to ensure good order and discipline.
       The proposed section will also lead to a loss of 
     credibility for religious ministry and chaplains services to 
     all military members. The U.S. military has always recognized 
     that those given the high privilege of serving as chaplain do 
     so with an obligation to meet the needs of all members of the 
     command regardless of religious preference. It has made 
     chaplains part of the command structure with recognized 
     credibility. The proposed language opens opportunity to drive 
     wedges into the Chaplain Corps due to the emphasis it puts on 
     each chaplain doing that which is right in his or her own 
     eyes. It also offers chaplains a role outside of the command 
     structure, by offering him or her prerogative outside what 
     the command needs for good order, discipline and morale.
       This proposed legislation will, in the end, marginalize 
     chaplains and degrade their use and effectiveness to the crew 
     and the commanding officer.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 
     issue and I appreciate the support you provide the fine men 
     and women of the Department of the Navy.
           Sincerely,

                                                L.V. Iasiello,

                                      Rear Admiral, CRC, U.S. Navy
                                          Chief of Navy Chaplains.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her recognition of 
the National Guard. I share her admiration and appreciation for that 
splendid service. I certainly appreciate her remarks and the bipartisan 
way in which we arrived at a common agreement on end strength, and also 
appreciate her praise for the committee's strong bipartisan work on 
TRICARE, while recognizing she would prefer to go a little bit further. 
But I think we certainly went much further in both those areas than the 
original administration proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5122. I would like 
to commend Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, my colleague on 
both the Rules Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Cole, and thank him for this time; and all of the Members of the Armed 
Services Committee for their hard work on this legislation in support 
of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are bravely defending 
us at home and abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does a remarkable job covering a wide scope of 
issues that are vitally important to our armed services, both active 
and Reserve components. It clearly meets the immediate needs of the 
warfighter. From a 2.7 percent across-the-board pay raise to an 
additional $50 billion to prosecute the war on terror, this legislation 
addresses the most pressing needs of our troops in a very trying time 
for America.
  H.R. 5122 also recognizes the perils of cutting force numbers at a 
time when our troops are stretched thin by increasing both active duty 
personnel and National Guard end strength.
  For our deployed soldiers, this legislation authorizes additional 
funding for their force protection and needs and support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, to include 
up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED protection kits and gunner protection 
kits, and, perhaps most importantly, improvised explosive device 
jammers and state-of-the-art body armor to protect our brave men and 
women from roadside bombs.
  Speaking on behalf of my district, Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful for 
the hard work of the House Armed Services Committee this year in 
authorizing funding for 20 F-22 Raptors, as well as conditionally 
approving the multiyear contract. Authorizing funding for the 
procurement of C-130Js and for the modernization of the C-5 will go a 
long way toward providing stability for our forces and ensuring that 
America maintains a modern airlift capability for the foreseeable 
future.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am especially appreciative for the efforts of 
Chairman Hunter and subcommittee Chairman McHugh in listening to my 
concerns and addressing the needs of the families of our fallen 
soldiers.
  Mr. Speaker, a brave young man from my district who heroically gave 
his life for our country, Sergeant Paul Saylor, from Bremen, Georgia, 
his family was not able to view his remains for a final time when his 
body was returned. With the help of Chairman Hunter and Chairman 
McHugh, H.R. 5122 includes a provision requiring the Department of 
Defense to train health care professionals on the best practices for 
the preservation of remains following field combat death. With this 
provision, we are taking steps to ensure that we can honor the remains 
of

[[Page H2363]]

our fallen heroes with the dignity and respect they and their families 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member of the committee for their hard work, as well as my 
colleague, Mr. Cole. H.R. 5122 is a strong bill. We can be proud of it, 
and it deserves the unanimous support of this House.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues on the Rules Committee to 
make in order my amendment to save Santa Rosa Island in the second 
rule. Santa Rosa Island is part of the Channel Islands National Park 
located in my district. This bill kicks the public off the island, 
which the public bought for $30 million in 1986.
  The bill prohibits the Park Service from carrying out a court-ordered 
settlement to phase out and shut down the privately run, extremely 
lucrative trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island, as ordered, by 
2011 and requiring removal by that date of non-native deer and elk. 
This ridiculous provision has no place in a Defense bill. There have 
been no hearings, the Pentagon hasn't requested it, and the Park 
Service strongly opposes it.
  Under this provision, the former owners of the island, who were 
already paid $30 million, will continue this money-making trophy 
hunting operation indefinitely. Since hunting basically closes the 
island to the public for 5 months a year, taxpayers will keep getting 
shortchanged.
  In addition, the Park Service's plans to expand visitor services will 
be halted and the huge non-native herds will continue to threaten 
several endangered species on the island.
  It remains unclear why this provision was even in the bill. The 
chairman has said it was to increase access to the island for veterans. 
But veterans can visit today, and the park superintendent has offered 
to work out any accessibility problems, if they are identified.
  There is also a fuss about how this will protect the deer and elk 
from extermination. Nonsense. These privately owned animals are 
presently required to be removed from the island, not killed. And since 
when was an effort to keep hunting animals a strategy for protecting 
animal rights?
  I have here a letter from many groups opposing this provision, 
including the Humane Society, which I will include as part of the 
Record.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision is a travesty. It is an affront to all 
taxpaying Americans. That is why I hope the Rules Committee will make 
my amendment in order for the second rule. It will give us an 
opportunity for debate and the ability to strike this shameless 
provision and let all American taxpayers, including veterans, enjoy 
their own national park.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from the various groups opposing 
this provision for the Record:

                                                     May 10, 2006.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of members 
     represented by our organizations, we write to express our 
     strong opposition to Section 1036 of the FY 2007 Defense 
     Authorization Bill put forth by Representative Duncan Hunter 
     concerning Santa Rosa Island, part ofthe Channel Islands 
     National Park.
       Section 1036 would counteract restoration efforts at the 
     national park, as well as decrease public access to the park. 
     The proposal represents a severe threat to the recovery and 
     survival of 3 subspecies of the island fox that are each 
     listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species 
     Act. This unique fox species is found nowhere else in the 
     world and only 32 wild foxes currently exist on Santa Rosa 
     Island. The proposal would undermine the immense amount of 
     time and resources that have been spent to address the 
     recovery needs of this species on the island.
       The provision would close off a portion of the island to 
     the public, and undermine a court ordered settlement that 
     calls for the phase out of hunting on the island over the 
     next five years. The current court settlement regarding 
     hunting on Santa Rosa Island requires that Vail & Vickers 
     Inc., which owned the island since 1902 and sold it to the 
     National Park Service in 1986 for about $30 million, phase 
     out deer and elk hunting by 2011. The hunting currently 
     prohibits full public access to the park as portions open to 
     hunting are closed to the public. Maintaining populations of 
     non-native species for the expressed purpose of hunting is 
     contrary to the intended purpose of the island as a national 
     park.
       In short, Section 1036 of the FY Defense Authorization Bill 
     would undermine the ongoing and successful work to restore 
     the island, including the recovery ofthe federally endangered 
     Channel Island fox, and greatly reduce the accessibility and 
     ultimate value of the Channel Islands National Park.
       The National Park Service is strongly opposed to this 
     provision and the Defense Department has not requested it. We 
     strongly urge you to oppose this unnecessary provision that 
     will harm both restoration and public access on one of our 
     nation's crown jewels, the Channel Islands National Park.
           Sincerely,
         Kieran Suckling, Policy Director, Center for Biological 
           Diversity; Mary Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative 
           Affairs, Defenders of Wildlife; Liz Godfrey, Program 
           Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Dr. C. Mark 
           Rockwell, D.C., Vice President, Conservation Northern 
           California Council Federation of Fly Fishers; Nancy 
           Perry, Vice President, Government Affairs, Humane 
           Society of the United States; David K. Garcelon, 
           President Institute for Wildlife Studies; Karen Steur, 
           Vice President, Government Affairs, National 
           Environmental Trust; Blake Selzer, Legislative 
           Director, National Parks Conservation Association; 
           Emily Roberson, Ph.D., Director, Native Plant 
           Conservation Campaign; Karen Wayland, Legislative 
           Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Sara 
           Barth, California/Nevada Regional Director, The 
           Wilderness Society.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the 
distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this great bill, because it is an 
important bill for America.
  Let me just lead by following my good colleague from California, Mrs. 
Capps, with the statement about Santa Rosa Island, which is a very 
small part of this bill. It is important that the gentlewoman knows 
that there was virtually one sentence in our Defense bill with respect 
to Santa Rosa Island. It doesn't prohibit anybody from enjoying the 
park or the transfer from taking place or the court-ordered operation 
or transfer from the private entity to the public entity to take place. 
It only says one thing: Don't exterminate the deer and elk that are on 
that island.
  The court-ordered plan is to exterminate them, and a number of 
disabled veterans, if you would read the letter from the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, would like to keep that population of deer and elk 
on the island after it comes over to government ownership. I think that 
is wise also, because the chronic wasting disease and brain disease in 
deer and elk is sweeping the western United States right now, and that 
herd that we have offshore on Santa Rosa Island could be a vital 
restocking resource if, in fact, we have chronic wasting disease rise 
to a pandemic proportion in the West.
  It is a little, protected group of animals there. This is not any big 
deal in terms of stopping anybody from using that huge island. It just 
says, don't exterminate all the deer and elk, and the court order says 
to shoot the last of them from helicopters. We agreed with the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America that it would be nice to have a small 
herd there where veterans, disabled, paralyzed and others, could enjoy 
that resource.
  Let me talk about this bill a little bit, because this is a 
tremendous bill and it has been put together on a bipartisan basis. I 
want to thank Mr. Skelton for all the great work he did. I want to 
thank the Rules Committee.
  This bill provides for the protection of our soldiers in theater, in 
the shooting wars we are engaged in right now in Afghanistan and Iraq 
and the global war against terror, and it also looks over the horizon 
and provides for new equipment, new trucks, tanks, ships, planes and 
new technology to protect our country.
  On the force protection side especially, we put in over $100 million 
in additional money for jamming devices to handle roadside bombs. We 
put in new and improved armor. Our laboratories and the private sector 
are developing new technology all the time. We have new and improved 
armor, both in platforms and in body armor, that we are bringing to the 
field to try to give our troops more and more ballistic protection and 
protection from fragments. So we truly have a troop protection package 
in this bill that is going to be very important for everyone who cares 
about folks in uniform.

[[Page H2364]]

  We also have some long-range proposals in this bill. For example, we 
think it is important to keep some of the stealth aircraft around for a 
while longer than the administration thought. Those great stealth 
aircraft, like the F-117s that did only a couple of percent of the 
missions in the first gulf operation, yet knocked out over 20 percent 
of the targets, that combination of stealth and precision munitions is 
a very, very important capability for the United States and we don't 
want to retire those birds too early.
  We also feel that in this bill retiring our B-52 force to the degree 
that is recommended by the Air Force is not providing as much insurance 
as we need for deep strike capability, the capability to deliver 
precision munitions at great distances. So we have moved to protect 
more of those bombers from being retired. We think that is important, 
to keep them in place until we bring on the new bomber program.
  We have a great package in here for people. I just thank my 
colleagues, Mr. Cole and Mr. Gingrey, who did such great work on this 
bill, and the Rules Committee and Mr. Hastings and all the others who 
really care about national security.
  Thank you, gentleman, for the great work that you did, because we 
have in this bill expansion of medical benefits for our National Guard 
personnel and for their families.
  We have lots of resources in this bill for quality of life, for 
housing. We have a 2.7 percent pay raise, which now means that we are a 
little bit under, and I heard this from Mr. Gingrey the other day and 
Mrs. Miller, we have provided now in the last 5 years now right at a 30 
percent increase in pay for the 2.5 million people that wear the 
uniform of the United States.

                              {time}  1245

  Almost 30 percent. So we have been caring about the troops at the 
same time we are looking at the warfighting missions that we know are 
going to come to this country in the future.
  So I want to thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for 
their hard work on this very important bill, and we hope to be able to 
get it up and down in the next 2 days and truly serve the people who 
serve America.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate both our 
ranking member and the Chair of the committee for the bill that they 
put together. This is a fair reauthorization bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I do have some concern, though, that the bill does not 
do enough to address equipment shortages from our Reserve and National 
Guard units returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of these units 
are forced to leave their equipment in the theater when they return 
home, and this has resulted in some Reserve and National Guard units 
having less than one-third of the equipment they had prior to being 
deployed.
  Conservative estimates state that it would cost nearly $20 billion 
for National Guard and Reserves to re-equip to pre-Iraq war levels due 
to the extensive wear and the extreme conditions and loss of equipment 
in the theater.
  Many areas of the gulf coast are prone to flooding, and with 
hurricane season less than a month away we need to make certain that 
the Guard and Reserve have the resources and the equipment necessary to 
response to natural disasters.
  In June 2001, just days into the hurricane season, Tropical Storm 
Allison caused extensive flooding and damage in our congressional 
district, and the National Guard and Reserves were instrumental in 
providing assistance and rescue in high water.
  We saw again last year when Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast how 
important our Reserve and National Guard units are to natural disaster 
response. Congress needs to ensure that the equipment necessary to 
perform these duties is available if similar strikes occur.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ensure not only that our troops have the 
necessary equipment to fight overseas, but that troops serving here at 
home have the equipment to protect Americans and respond to natural 
disasters.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and 
colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole from Oklahoma, for granting 
me the time to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation. This is a fair rule providing for general debate and 
consideration of the amendments made in order.
  The underlying legislation is one of the most important measures we 
consider each year. I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member 
of that committee for their good, hard work. The National Defense 
Authorization Act is a statement of our support for the troops, the 
various missions our military are carrying out, and support for the men 
and women serving in the military once they return from their service.
  I have traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan on several occasions and have 
incredible memories from the discussions I have had with the young men 
and women serving in our Armed Forces. They are patriotic, capable and 
determined to complete the mission of spreading democracy throughout 
the Middle East. We are very proud of them and we must continue to 
provide them with the necessary equipment to continue this mission.
  I am very proud of those West Virginians who serve in the Guard and 
Reserves who have repeatedly, over time, shown their commitment to our 
country.
  First and foremost, we need to ensure that our troops are properly 
protected. I am especially pleased that this year's authorization 
includes additional funding for force protection needs in support of 
Operation Enduring Freedom, including state-of-the-art body armor for 
our troops and increased armor and better technology to protect our 
Humvees from the IEDs.
  This legislation also provides for a 2.7 percent pay increase for 
members of the Armed Forces. While no monetary amount will ever cover 
the debt of gratitude owed them, this pay raise will help the members 
of our Armed Forces and their families with their everyday needs.
  And finally, and very important to my constituency as well, this 
authorization blocks the Department of Defense proposed fee increases 
retirees must pay under the TRICARE standard health program and zeroes 
out copays for generic and formulary mail order prescriptions.
  Mr. Speaker, we must continue to honor the commitment made to provide 
quality affordable health care to our young men and women serving in 
the military.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, 
also for her leadership on the Rules Committee and on so many issues 
that we are addressing in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again I rise in opposition to this 
misguided $513 billion defense authorization bill.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what does it say really about our national 
security priorities when this bill authorizes a $9.1 billion missile 
defense program that has consistently failed, will never protect us 
from terrorists, and continues to siphon funds from other critical 
security priorities that keep nuclear materials out of the hands of 
terrorists and protect our ports from terrorist attacks?
  What does it say about our priorities when billions of taxpayer 
dollars are channeled to military contractors with little 
accountability or oversight for combating waste, fraud and abuse? What 
does it say when we have another bill that authorizes Cold War era 
weapons systems?
  Mr. Speaker, what does it say about our priorities when Congress once 
again authorizes nearly $50 billion more for the unnecessary war in 
Iraq without any accountability, direction or a way out? Every 
additional day our troops remain in Iraq is an extra day that they feel 
the insurgency in terms of the attacks. That is why I joined with my 
friend and colleague, Mr. Allen from Maine, in offering an amendment to 
clearly put Congress on record stating that it is the policy of

[[Page H2365]]

the United States not to have permanent military bases in Iraq.
  This would take the target off of our troops' backs. Unfortunately 
this amendment was rejected, along with dozens of others which would 
have made this bill better. Yes, as the daughter of an Army officer, 
career Army officer, who consistently has supported our brave troops, I 
believe in a strong national defense, but this bill provides 
authorization for too many wasteful programs that fuel military 
contractors, does nothing to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse at 
the Pentagon, and does very little, if you ask me, to put money into 
21st century era national security needs that we need at this point 
rather than building in the continuation of Cold War era weapons 
systems.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out simply for the record that this bill 
was reported out of committee by a 60-1 margin, a very strong 
bipartisan indication of support and appreciation for the main points 
in the bill.
  As to the point on missile defense, I think the activities in Iran 
and certainly North Korea indicate that we would be prudent to think 
about developing missile defense. So I am very pleased with the 
bipartisan nature of this legislation. Frankly, I suspect most Members 
will vote for it in the end.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time. I thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for 
bringing the rule to the floor today.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, I am 
extremely proud of the bill that we have brought to the floor here 
today, and I certainly want to congratulate and thank Chairman Duncan 
Hunter as well for his outstanding leadership and his dedication to a 
strong national defense and particularly to our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the most important parts of this bill, I think, 
is that we do recognize that the most important asset in our entire 
arsenal is really not our incredible weapons or vehicles or ships, it 
is the men and women who bravely wear the uniform. That is why this 
bill has put such a strong focus once again on supporting our troops.
  The bill will provide for an across-the-board increase of 2.7 percent 
in the base pay for our troops, as has been mentioned numerous times 
already. It blocks increases in fees for those who are enrolled in 
TRICARE prime and standard.
  It also allows full TRICARE coverage for select Reserve personnel. It 
provides enhanced pharmacy services for nearly every military 
beneficiary. In addition, we forcefully attack the persistent problem 
of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs as they are commonly called, 
which have caused so many terrible problems for our troops.
  The enemy knows that they cannot defeat our forces on the 
battlefield, so they are resorting to planting bombs along the 
roadside. This bill authorizes over $100 million for radio signal 
jamming devices to prevent the detonation of IEDs.
  It also provides for another $100 million for 10 or more surveillance 
aircraft to patrol those areas where the IED activity is most deadly, 
and we must do certainly more to protect our troops from IEDs so that 
we can limit the amount, the number of casualties in battle. But in 
addition we need to learn better really how to defeat these terrible 
weapons, because, guess what, they could soon be finding their way to 
our streets here within our own borders in America.
  The American people and our troops can rest assured that we 
understand the problem of IEDs, and with this bill, again, we are 
taking very forceful action to defeat them.
  When we take the oath of office, we swear to uphold the Constitution 
of the United States, whose preamble actually requires for us to 
provide for the national defense. This bill not only allows us to live 
up to our constitutional responsibilities to provide for that defense, 
it ensures that our Armed Forces will remain the best trained, the best 
equipped and the most lethal fighting force the world has ever known.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I was eating my lunch downstairs, and as a 
member of the committee I voted for this bill in committee, as did Mr. 
Skelton, and I support the bill.
  However, Mr. Hunter's discussion of the provision about Channel 
Islands National Park, Santa Rosa Island, I thought was incomplete and 
gave an inaccurate picture of what the situation is. I agree with Mrs. 
Capps. This is a provision, section 1036(c) of the bill, that should 
never be in the defense bill. You read the one sentence. It has nothing 
to do with veterans. There is not the word ``veterans'' or ``military'' 
anywhere in the provision. This should have been a provision that was 
considered by the Resources Committee.
  Having said that, this is the background on this situation. In 1902 a 
private family owned and took control of the Channel Islands. In 1986 
they sold it to the National Park Service as part of the Channel 
Islands National Park for about $30 million and had an agreement that 
they could be on the island managing their own private herd of elk and 
deer for some period of time.
  In the late 1990s there was litigation brought by the National Parks 
and Conservation Association, and a settlement was reached between the 
National Park Service, the family that owns the deer and the elk, and 
the National Parks and Conservation Association. Everyone agreed to 
this settlement that has been going on now for the last decade, that by 
December 31, 2011, there would be no more hunting on this island 
because the island is shut down, about 90 percent of it, 4 to 5 months 
of the year.
  But here is the key point. Number one, this is a privately owned 
herd. It is the same as if Mr. Cole or Mr. Skelton had a herd of cows. 
This herd of deer and elk is owned not by the government, not by the 
National Park Service, this herd is owned by a private group. It is not 
the government's business to decide what to do.
  Second, there is not a plan, as was described by the Armed Services 
Committee chairman, to exterminate the herd. Here is what the plan is. 
And several months ago I talked to a member of the family. They love 
this herd. They have professionally managed this herd for years. They 
have trophy hunts on the island. Their intent is to move this herd off 
the island and find a place, they do not know where yet, I do not 
think, but to move it off of the island.
  According to the settlement that was reached, it is what I call the 
Wiley Rogue provision, if there are a few animals that are left that 
the company is having trouble, that own it, they are having trouble 
trapping those animals, the National Park Service has agreed to share 
in half of the expense of getting those last few animals, including 
perhaps, perhaps, if necessary, the hiring of professional hunters or 
helicopters or something to get them. There is not a plan to 
exterminate this private herd. This is a privately owned herd. It is 
not up to the government to exterminate it. This provision is only to 
help this private company get these last few animals. That is only if 
necessary. This provision should not have been in the defense bill.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 5122. I thank 
Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their exceptionally hard 
work on this bill.

                              {time}  1300

  This bill helps our men and women serving in the Armed Forces and 
makes investments to keep our military strong in the future.
  Now, I supported this measure in the House Armed Services Committee 
because it contains a number of provisions to assist our service 
members and

[[Page H2366]]

their families, as well as military retirees. It includes a 2.7 percent 
pay increase for military personnel. This is higher than what the DOD 
requested, and much-needed increases to end-strength numbers.
  It blocks a controversial DOD recommendation as well to increase 
TRICARE fees and deductibles for military retirees and also extends 
TRICARE eligibility for reservists, two issues that have been very 
important to my constituents.
  I thank the committee leadership for their efforts to accomplish all 
of these important goals.
  Now, I am particularly pleased that H.R. 5122 addresses the current 
crisis in our submarine industrial base. Mr. Speaker, our Navy right 
now has no plans to develop a replacement for the Virginia class which 
I believe threatens to cause our design and engineering base to 
disappear. Now, if we lose design capability, we will do irreparable 
harm to our shipbuilding industry.
  The bill also includes $400 million to expedite the construction 
schedule for the Virginia class so that we can start building two 
submarines per year as early as 2009. This is critically important. The 
submarines current shipbuilding plan would have our submarine fleet 
drop to dangerously low levels and this bill clearly states that we 
cannot allow that to happen.
  I commend the chairman and ranking member for all those provisions. 
That is the good news.
  The bad news, however, I remain troubled by provisions regarding fee 
increases for certain prescription drugs under the TRICARE program as 
well as controversial language regarding religious expression by 
military chaplains. I hope that we will be able to consider amendments 
tomorrow to address these topics.
  But overall, however, the underlying bill addresses many urgent needs 
of our military, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Rhode Island's bipartisan remarks about the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan collaboration between Chairman Hunter and 
Ranking Member Skelton has yielded a thoughtful, balanced defense 
authorization bill that seeks to meet our current and future defense 
needs. They should be commended for their hard work. However, there are 
still areas within this bill that can be improved. As we move to floor 
consideration, we have an opportunity to make this bipartisan bill even 
better.
  Still pending before the Rules Committee are more than 90 amendments 
covering a host of critical issues. This includes Ranking Member 
Skelton's proposal on TRICARE prescription drug copays and Mr. Israel's 
correction to the guidelines for military chaplains.
  Other amendments not yet allowed on the floor concern our Nation's 
Iraq policy, abuses of military contracting, and boosts to our critical 
nonproliferation initiatives.
  It is my hope that when the Rules Committee reports out the second 
and final rule today these amendments will be made in order. Allowing 
these amendments to be debated on the floor will continue the 
committee's bipartisan precedent, something this body would benefit 
from, as well as show the issues addressed in this legislation, so 
critical to our Nation's well-being, the respect they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, I want to take this opportunity to remind our Members 
that this rule and the underlying legislation is not about us or our 
interests. It is fundamentally about the long-term interests of our 
Nation, the security and stability of our military, and the welfare of 
our deployed servicemen and women.
  Mr. Speaker, no generation undertakes a war lightly. Certainly, the 
World War I and World War II generations and the Cold War generations 
did not do so, and it is clear that historically there is always 
dissent. That is good and it is American. However, the previous 
generations understood that if they were not firm in their commitment, 
unwavering in their support for the troops and sure in their 
convictions, America would be the worse for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, we face the very same challenges as these previous 
generations. Today is the day that we must support our forces to secure 
the peace for our progeny and to spread freedom around the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate at this particular moment in our 
history to have men like Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton 
heading and cooperating so closely on this very important committee, 
one in which whatever our differences may be, we come together as 
Americans to support those Americans who defend our freedom and who put 
themselves in harm's way for our benefit.
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying legislation. It is critical for America, for the cause 
of freedom, and for the success of the brave men and women who proudly 
wear the uniform of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jindal). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________