[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.
____________________