[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 56 (Wednesday, May 10, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2466-H2472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 806 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5122.
{time} 1817
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. Duncan (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-459 by the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 237, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 136]
AYES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--237
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
[[Page H2467]]
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Cardoza
Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Smith (WA)
{time} 1834
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by
Mr. Franks of Arizona:
At the end of title XII (page 419, after line 7), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 12__. HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT FOR IRAQI CHILDREN IN URGENT
NEED OF MEDICAL CARE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Secretary of Defense has discretionary authority to
permit space-available travel on military aircraft for
various reasons, including humanitarian purposes.
(2) Recently, 110 Iraqi children journeyed 22 hours by bus
from Baghdad, Iraq, to Amman, Jordan, for urgently needed
oral/facial surgery. While traveling, armed insurgents
stopped and boarded the children's bus, raising serious
questions about the safety of further travel by ground.
(3) Pursuant to the Secretary's discretionary authority
referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary authorized the
Iraqi children to travel on military aircraft for their
return trip from Amman to Baghdad.
(4) The Secretary is to be commended for his initiative in
providing for the safe return of these children to Iraq by
military aircraft.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should continue to provide space-
available travel on military aircraft for humanitarian
reasons to Iraqi children who would otherwise have no means
available to seek urgently needed medical care such as that
provided by a humanitarian organization in Amman, Jordan.
(c) Funding Support.--Within the amount provided in section
301 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide--
(1) $1,000,000 shall be available only for Department of
Defense support of the Peace Through Health Care Initiative;
and
(2) the amount provided for Budget Activity 4 is reduced by
$1,000,000.
Modification to Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my
amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
considered in accordance with this modification.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 6 printed in House Report
109-459 offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
In the text proposed to be inserted by the amendment,
insert ``due to operational unobligated balances'' before the
period at the end.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed
to.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will provide
funds for a critical component in our Nation's effort to win the hearts
and minds of Iraqis and others in the global fight for freedom and
democracy.
For 25 years, groups like Operation Smile have sent teams of
volunteer surgeons and medical personnel throughout the world to
provide medical treatment and surgery to children suffering from facial
injuries, cleft palates and other facial deformities.
Last year, I had the wonderful opportunity to travel to Jordan to
take part in the first mission of the Iraq Initiative of Operation
Smile. I was able to observe the indescribable joy of families as the
lives of over 50 Iraqi children were transformed.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to describe how moving such an
experience really is. It made clear absolutely to me the vital role
these efforts play in our Nation's diplomatic efforts.
Recently, the Secretary of Defense exercised his discretionary
authority to permit space available travel on military aircraft in
order to safely return 110 Iraqi children to Baghdad from Amman where
they had undergone urgently needed oral and facial surgeries. This
intervention was deemed necessary and appropriate because armed
insurgents had stopped and boarded the children's buses when they were
traveling to Amman, raising serious questions about the safety of
undertaking the return trip by ground.
Mr. Chairman, such activities are vital to our efforts in Iraq. Not
only are many young children receiving critical, life-changing
reconstructive surgeries, Iraqi physicians are also being trained so
that even more children can be helped. This helps the Iraqi people
understand that our war is with the terrorists and not with the Iraqi
people.
Mr. Chairman, Americans have a genuine and abiding compassion for
their fellow human beings, and if our diplomatic efforts and our
military efforts in other Nations are to truly succeed, compassion must
always be a centerpiece of those efforts. Groups such as Operation
Smile provide a clear, tangible demonstration of such compassion. They
put a smile on the face of freedom and our Nation's commitment to
liberty in Iraq and the world over.
I truly believe these efforts save American lives by helping to win
the peace, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, although we do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York.
There was no objection.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman's amendment.
The amendment would provide $1 million for the Peace Through Healthcare
Initiative to provide humanitarian assistance for critically ill Iraqi
children.
Mr. Chairman, it is well known that nothing aids the international
reputation of our country, and particularly our image in the developing
world, as much as our humanitarian and our relief efforts. Following
the aid we provided after the recent disasters of the tsunami in
Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan, polls in both countries
showed a significant increase in those who viewed America favorably.
Yet humanitarian relief is more than just a tool of international
politics. It is exactly who we are.
Americans are the most generous people in the world. We give more to
charity each year than any other nation. We are just and we do not hold
a people guilty for the sins of their leadership.
Mr. Chairman, health care in Iraq is in a perilous state, but time
and time
[[Page H2468]]
again American servicemembers in the field, warriors and medics, and
American hospitals and doctors back home have gone out of their way to
help those in need. I have read numerous cases of Iraqi children being
medivaced out of the country in order to receive first class medical
treatment for everything from cleft palate to congenital heart disease.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has heard these stories as
well, and we both recall one case of the chief of police in the
southern Iraqi province of Wasit. He worked hand-in-hand with our
troops every day, putting his own life at risk. And then, one night, he
turned to his American advisers and said, ``My son is dying of leukemia
and the road to Baghdad is too unsafe for me to drive him to a good
hospital.''
Within 24 hours, the child and his mother were helicoptered to
Baghdad. The child was treated there by U.S. Army medics in the
International Zone and airlifted to Jordan.
In Jordan, very sadly, Mr. Chairman, the child passed away, but with
tears in his eyes, the chief of police turned to his American friends
only days later and said, ``I will never forget what you have done for
me.''
That, Mr. Chairman, is what this amendment is about. It is about
doing the right thing for innocent children. It is about making friends
and building relationships with the people of Iraq and all for only $1
million.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would just thank the gentleman
for his kind words and support. I now yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to reinforce and echo the very eloquent words of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).
I listened to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) when he brought
in Operation Smile, and I saw the pictures and I listened to his
description of how important this is. This is part of the American
ripple. It is part of the effect that those 138,000 ambassadors in
desert camouflage uniforms have in that theater on a human basis, on a
personal basis.
If the gentleman would just tell us, because I thought this was the
neatest part of your presentation when you brought Operation Smile in,
the effects of this operation, because you had these kids with cleft
palates. I saw the pictures of their fathers and mothers with their
children after the operation. If the gentleman could describe that, I
think we would all appreciate it.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I guess the only way I can describe this, Mr. Chairman, is as they
begin to create these surgeries, as they begin to pull the child's lip
together with a giant hole in the center of his face or her face, it
not only seems to pull a face together, it seems to pull a life
together. If you understand the significance of going through life with
an uncorrected cleft palate or cleft lip, this is to also take the
child out of an emotional darkness that is almost impossible to
describe.
The ultimate impact to these families is one that is emotional beyond
words. When you hand the child back to the mother or the father, there
is a wailing and a moved feeling that they express that, again, is just
beyond my ability to describe.
But it does have I think an effect, as I said, of putting a smiling
face on the face of freedom, and I just am so grateful that this is
something that we can do together as a House and that while we may have
differences on a lot of our policies throughout the world, the one
thing remains that America is a noble Nation and we are committed to
making sure that all of God's children, as it were, have an opportunity
to lay hold on this miracle of life and to live as meaningful as they
can possibly can, and I appreciate the support that is demonstrated for
the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side. So I would
close by again thanking the chairman and the gentleman for his
leadership and agreeing with them that nobility is a bipartisan virtue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I am not sure what else I can add to this except to just simply
express that we are not only changing the lives of children in the
profoundest sense, but we are letting our soldiers in different parts
of the world demonstrate their own compassion to these children as they
are a part of the logistical process of making this real.
I would just suggest to you that the bottom line is that this is a
diplomatic effort, a medical diplomacy, that is in the best interests
of America. It saves Americans lives, and it transform the lives of all
the children.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
{time} 1845
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Simmons
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by
Mr. Simmons:
At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 10__. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPIRE CLEARANCES REVOKED.
(a) Prohibition on Expired Clearances.--No security
clearance granted by the Department of Defense that has been
requested to be renewed, based on a requirement for periodic
reinvestigation, shall be permitted to expire until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense
committees and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives that--
(1) the Defense Security Service has continued to accept
industry requests for new personnel security clearances and
periodic reinvestigations; and
(2) the Defense Security Service has fully funded its
requirement for fiscal year 2007 security clearances and
taken steps to eliminate its backlog of requests for security
clearance and periodic investigations by September 20, 2008.
(b) Exception to Prohibition.--The prohibition in
subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of Defense
determines that sufficient cause exists to revoke a security
clearance, that has been requested to be renewed, based on
other requirements of law or Department of Defense policy or
regulations.
(c) Duration of Prohibition.--The prohibition on expired
clearances authorized by this section expires on September
30, 2008.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section alters
the process in effect as of the date of the enactment of this
Act for security clearances and periodic investigations.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``backlog''
means the body of industry requests for new personnel
security clearances and periodic reinvestigations that have
not yet been completed or that have not yet been opened for
investigation.
(f) Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report
detailing the actions required by subsection (a)(2) no later
than September 30, 2007. A final report shall be submitted no
later than September 30, 2008.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to commend Chairman Hunter and Mr. Bartlett, as
well as Mr. Skelton and Mr. Taylor for their leadership and vision on
this bill. This bill is particularly historic with respect to the
shipbuilding programs that it supports.
But I am rising today, Mr. Chairman, to offer a bipartisan amendment
that would protect our industrial base workers from losing their jobs
because of the failure of our Federal bureaucracy to process security
clearances and periodic updates. Last month, without
[[Page H2469]]
warning or notice to Congress, the Defense Security Service stopped
processing security clearance background checks and periodic updates
for defense contractor workers.
What makes this most frustrating is the fact that the Department of
Defense said it had fixed the security clearance problems last year
when it transferred responsibility for these investigations to the
Office of Personnel Management. Many of us who have defense workers in
our district questioned DSS on that point, but they were emphatic that
OPM could get the job done.
Well, Mr. Chairman, they were wrong. We cannot allow their failure to
result in cleared defense workers losing their jobs.
Very simply, this amendment would prevent the Department of Defense
from firing workers whose security clearance may have expired through
no fault of their own. It does not change the security clearance
process or prevent the Department from revoking security clearances for
reasons other than the backlog, but it does protect our workers who
currently have clearances that simply need to be updated.
Those already at work eventually need renewals to stay on the job,
and there are thousands of shipyard workers in my district and
elsewhere across the country who need clearances updated to design and
build the best ships in the world. But we must give these defense
workers peace of mind that they won't be out on the street because of a
botched job in the bowels of the Pentagon.
Our amendment has support from both sides of the aisle as well as
from numerous national security organizations, and I include for the
Record a list of these associations. I urge my colleagues to support
the Simmons-Davis-Davis amendment to keep American defense workers at
work.
Security Clearance Coalition Supports Simmons/Davis Amendment to H.R.
5122
The associations listed below have joined in coalition to
work to address the significant problems their members
encounter negotiating the security granting process. All of
the problems that this process has experienced for the last
several years were severely compounded when the Defense
Security Service placed a moratorium on the acceptance of new
security clearance applications and applications for periodic
reinvestigations at the end of April.
The coalition supports the Simmons/Davis amendment as a
positive first step toward reversing the impact of this
decision and to mitigating its impact. While the ability to
attract, hire and retain qualified personnel who are able to
get a clearance has been greatly impacted, this proposal will
at least assure those that currently employed and holding a
clearance that their job will not be impacted because of
their inability to submit an application for reinvestigation.
The actions by DSS are symptomatic of the chronic problems
found in the Federal government's security granting process.
We hope that Congress will act to mitigate the impact of this
action by adopting the Simmons/Davis amendment. It is also
our hope that Congress will recognize the need to overhaul
the entire clearance granting process and work with this
coalition and others to bring about a more enlightened and
21st Century approach to providing trusted personnel to meet
our National Security needs.
Please vote yes in support of the Simmons/Davis Amendment.
Aerospace Industries Association
Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association
Contract Services Association
Information Technology Association of America
Intelligence and National Security Alliance
National Defense Industrial Association
Professional Services Council
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time in opposition even though I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is critical that our Department of Defense provides
clearances to the right people to get access to the right information
so they can do their jobs in support of our troops. Access to
classified information should be need driven rather than budget driven.
For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I
want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. It is
a fair amendment, and I ask and urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the Simmons-Davis-Davis amendment in the defense
authorization bill.
This amendment will safeguard national security and ensure fiscal
responsibility by preventing the security clearances of defense
contractors from expiring until the Department of Defense resumes
processing their requests for security clearance investigations and
fully funds its personnel security clearance program for fiscal year
2007. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
On Friday, April 28, I discovered DOD's security clearance processing
arm, the Defense Security Service, was imposing a moratorium on all
requests for private sector security clearance investigations. DSS
reported that it experienced a massive spike in the number of clearance
requests and that it didn't have the resources to handle this spike.
DSS, therefore, decided to just turn off the spigot. This is, frankly,
unacceptable. It is an unacceptable solution to what should have been a
very foreseeable problem.
I will be chairing a Government Reform Committee hearing on May 17 to
examine this issue in more detail. In the meantime we cannot put
defense contractors that need to review employees' clearances in the
position of having to choose between firing their employees or granting
uncleared personnel access to classified materials and facilities.
The government spends billions of dollars each year on defense
contracts requiring workers with security clearances to do the work. If
contractors are unable to find enough cleared personnel who have access
to classified information, the cost of these contracts increases
dramatically. Simply supply and demand, not enough people with the
clearance, too much work to do, and the taxpayers are then forced to
pick up the tab and our national security suffers.
Therefore, I rise in strong support of the Simmons-Davis-Davis
amendment to prevent the Department of Defense from revoking expiring
security clearances until DOD is able to get a handle on the current
crisis and resume processing requests for security clearance
investigations in a timely and efficient manner.
This amendment does not fix the problem, but it keeps it from getting
worse. It is an important issue for national security and fiscal
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
thank the chairman and my colleagues from across the aisle for bringing
fairness and peace of mind to our defense workers.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of this amendment that I am offering with my colleagues from
Connecticut and Virginia.
As we continue to fight the Global War on Terror, the Department of
Defense must adapt to meet the challenges posed by this new kind of
war. I believe that it is our responsibility in Congress to exercise
proper oversight and direction of our military, and the recent
developments regarding the processing of security clearances deserve
the attention of this body.
In our post 9/11 world, the need for precise and timely security
clearance processing has never been more important. The demand for
clearances of all types and levels continues to increase, yet our
budgets and our processes are not up to date.
I represent thousands of workers in my district who rely on their
security clearance to perform their jobs, from the shipbuilders in
Newport News to the thousands of uniformed service members and
contractors that are working to support our national defense. In fact,
I've heard from a lot of them in the last few weeks. Our amendment will
temporarily prohibit the Department of Defense's authority to expire
clearances that have requested renewal until September 30, 2008, unless
certain criteria are met. I firmly believe that we should not be
penalizing our military and contracting community because the
Department cannot adequately estimate or budget its future security
clearance requirements.
Additionally, I'm pleased that a separate amendment offered by
Congressman Simmons
[[Page H2470]]
and myself was included in the underlying legislation that is before
the House today. The provision requires the Department to submit a
series of reports on their progress in solving these problems, and I
believe this is an important step in our congressional oversight of
this extremely vital program for our national defense. I want to thank
Chairman Hunter for working with me on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our amendment.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by
Mr. Gutknecht:
At the end of subtitle B of title VI (page 220, after line
8), add the following new section:
SEC. 624. ELIMINATION OF INEQUITY IN ELIGIBILITY AND
PROVISION OF ASSIGNMENT INCENTIVE PAY.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of the Army should promptly correct the pay
inequity in the provision of assignment incentive pay under
section 307a of title 37, United States Code, to members of
the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve serving on
active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq that arose from the
disparite treatment between--
(1) those members who previously served under a call or
order to active duty under section 12302 of title 10, United
States Code, and who are eligible for assignment incentive
pay; and
(2) those members who previously served under a call or
order to active duty under section 12304 of such title and
who are currently ineligible for assignment incentive pay.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall
submit to Congress a report--
(1) specifying the number of members of the Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve adversely affected by the
disparate treatment afforded to members who previously served
under a call or order to active duty under section 12304 of
title 10, United States Code, in determining eligibility for
assignment incentive pay; and
(2) containing proposed remedies or courses of action to
correct this inequity, including allowing time served during
a call or order to active duty under such section 12304 to
count toward the time needed to qualify for assignment
incentive pay.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this as simple as I can. We have one
of the largest deployments right now of National Guardsmen from the
State of Minnesota since World War II. It has created a disparity.
Back in January, members of the 1st Platoon Bravo Company asked my
office to help with a pay problem. It just so happens that most of them
were called up to serve in the Balkans back in 2003. Part of them were
called up under a Presidential Reserve Call Up, and others were called
up under a Partial Mobilization.
What this has led to is a discrepancy in how much they may be
eligible for in terms of what we used to describe as combat pay. The
bottom line is that about 400 members of the Minnesota National Guard,
who will be doing the same duty as the other members of the National
Guard in Iraq, will not be eligible for roughly $7,000 in incentive
pay. This is an inequity. It is unfair, and it is something that we in
Congress can and should do something about.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member
and the staff as well. We have been working with them for several weeks
and they have been extremely helpful on this matter. Hopefully tonight
we can adopt this amendment and send a clear message to the Pentagon
that this inequity needs to be resolved and it needs to be resolved
soon.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment and I am unaware
of anyone on our side of the aisle who opposes this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very straightforward amendment
supported by the entire Minnesota delegation. My understanding is it
expresses very clearly that we expect people who perform equally for
their government are meant to be treated equally. I also ask for the
study and I support the amendment, as does this side of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gutknecht for his leadership on
this issue and for yielding me this time.
I rise today in strong support of this amendment. In my 25 years of
military service, sadly I have witnessed other examples of pay
discrepancies. It is unfortunate that even today such issues arise, but
I am pleased to be in a position now to help solve this problem.
In a true sign of their dedication to duty and camaraderie, many
members of the 34th Brigade Combat Team volunteered to join their
fellow Guardsmen in Iraq despite having previously deployed to Bosnia
and Kosovo. I was disappointed to hear that many of these dedicated
citizen-soldiers were denied incentive pay simply because of the
administrative mechanism used to mobilize them. This is not the way we
as a nation should treat those who have volunteered to serve.
Mr. Gutknecht and I promptly engaged the House Armed Services
Committee professional staff to help solve this problem. As a member of
the House Military Personnel Subcommittee, I was gratified by the
staff's prompt action, and I would like to thank them as well as
Chairman McHugh and Chairman Hunter for their efforts.
I would also like to commend the entire Minnesota delegation for
their strong support in both the House and Senate.
This past week, my staff delivered a letter signed by the entire
delegation to the Department of Defense requesting their assistance in
resolving this inequity, and I will include a copy of the letter for
the Record.
This amendment is a fitting addition to that initial effort, and it
is my hope it will help spur the resolution of this significant
problem. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Thomas F. Hall,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Hall: We are writing to request a review and
adjustment of the current policy regarding Assignment
Incentive Pay (AIP). Several activated members of the
Minnesota National Guard (MNNG), now deployed to Iraq,
recently brought to our attention a pay technicality that
makes the distribution of AIP inequitable. Specifically,
under current finance rules, the soldiers who previously
deployed and served in Kosovo are eligible for AIP, whereas
the soldiers who previously deployed and served in Bosnia are
not. We believe these soldiers, whether having served in
Kosovo or in Bosnia, should be treated equally for purposes
of AIP eligibility.
After consulting with House Armed Services Committee staff,
we conclude that this would best be treated as a Department
of Defense (DOD) policy matter. There appears to be nothing
in the law that would preclude DOD from modifying the
technical eligibility criteria, making these soldiers, and
others like them, eligible for AIP.
Enclosed please find the letter we received from the MNNG
soldiers who brought this matter to our attention. Also
enclosed is a letter from Major General Larry W. Shellito,
Adjutant General of the MNNG. General Shellito's letter
supports our view that a change to current policy regarding
AIP is needed.
After an initial review of this issue, we would request an
update from your office. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact Fred Chesbro in Congressman John
Kline's office at (202) 225-2271.
Sincerely,
John Kline; Martin Olav Sabo; James L. Oberstar; Collin
C. Peterson; Jim Ramstad; Mark Kennedy; Mark Dayton;
Gil Gutknecht; Betty McCollum; Norm Coleman.
[[Page H2471]]
Enclosures.
____
January 27, 2006.
Dear Congressman Ramstad: We are soldiers in the Minnesota
National Guard currently in Mississippi training to go to
Iraq, and we have a concern we hope you can help us with.
As you know, for some of us, this is not our first
deployment; many of us also went to Bosnia or Kosovo in 2003-
2004. Because of our prior deploymemt those of us that went
to Bosnia or Kosovo had to sign a volunteer form to go on the
OIF rotation we have been tasked with. But, here comes the
problem, there is a type or pay called COTTAD that is
specific to soldiers who have been recently deployed. The
guys who went to Bosnia are not going to receive this pay;
however, the soldiers that went to Kosovo are going to
receive this pay. We feet that anyone who volunteered to go
to Iraq after recently going on a separate deployment are
entitled to that extra pay, and should not be discriminated
based on where and when they were deployed before.
Being deployed is a hardship. We take time off from our
fami1y and friends, many of us are trying to finish our
civilian educations or advance our civilian careers, and we
have put all that on hold and volunteered for this rotation.
Now, because of what best we can tell is a technicality, we
will not be receiving a substantial amount of pay. This
affects a lot more soldiers than those that signed this
letter; hundreds are affected by this. But we, unfortunately,
do not have the time to have them all sign this letter.
However, I believe that most would have the same viewpoint as
we do.
Congressman, we would appreciate any help you can give us.
If you have time can you please respond to us and let us know
if there is anything you can do. Thank you for taking the
time to read this.
1st Platoon Bravo Company Crews.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives, March 24, 2006.
Interested Soldiers from 1st Platoon,
Company B, 2nd Battalion, 136th CAB 1 BCT, 2490 25th SF, Camp
Shelby, MS 39407 (ATTN: B Co. 1SG)
Dear Soldiers: Thank you very much for taking the time to
write to me. While it is always good to hear from fellow
Minnesotans, it is especially meaningful to hear from members
of the Minnesota Army National Guard. I appreciate that you
brought to my attention the issue of compensating Soldiers
who, like you, are mobilized in support of the Global War on
Terrorism.
In response to your request, I've asked my staff to
research the current law and to provide me with possible
recommendations taking into account your special
circumstances. I believe it is particularly important to
provide fair and equitable pay and benefits to all members of
our armed services, active and reserve components alike.
Please know that I am very proud of you and I applaud each
of you for stepping forward and volunteering to serve our
State and Nation during these challenging times.
Sincerely,
John Kline,
Member of Congress.
____
Department of the Army,
Saint Paul, Minnesota, March 13, 2006.
Hon. John Kline,
Representative in Congress, Burnsville, MN.
Dear Congressman Kline: Thank you for your inquiry of March
10, 2006 raising concerns regarding the compensation of
Soldiers mobilized for deployment in support of the Global
War on Terrorism. Your issues were researched by Colonel Greg
Langley, Mobilization and Readiness Officer for the Joint
Force Headquarters in Minnesota. Detailed below is an
explanation of the different categories of mobilization and
what qualifies a Soldier for the entitlement to the
Assignment Incentive Pay requested by the Soldiers in their
letter of January 27, 2006. In their letter they referred to
Assignment Incentive Pay as ``pay called COTTAD''.
Within federal law there are different types of authority
to mobilize the Reserve Components (RC). The two types of
authority pertaining to this matter are Title 10, USC 12302,
called Partial Mobilization (PM) Authority and Title 10 USC
12304, referred to as Presidential Reserve Callup (PRC).
Since President Bush signed Executive Order 13223 on
September 14, 2001 authorizing partial mobilization of the
reserve components, Minnesota Soldiers have been mobilized
under the provisions of both Partial Mobilization Authority
and Presidential Reserve Call-up Authority, depending upon
the needs of the Army.
The Soldiers from 1st Platoon, Company B, 2nd Battalion,
136th Infantry who wrote to you were previously mobilized in
July 2003 and sent to Bosnia as part of Stabilization Force
(SFOR) 14. The Army mobilized those Soldiers using Title 10,
USC 12304, PRC. The maximum length of this types of
mobilization is 270 days and most of these Soldiers returned
from the mission and left active duty in March or April of
2004. Each Soldier's individual record may have a different
release from active duty date based on their flight back to
the United States and the length of time out-processing at
Ft. McCoy, WI.
Other Soldiers from the same organization, 2nd Battalion,
136th Infantry, mobilized in October 2003 and went to Kosovo
as part of KFOR 5B. These Soldiers mobilized for a period of
365 days, which exceeds the time limit on PRC and therefore
the Army mobilized these Soldiers using Title 10, UCS 12302,
PM authority. Partial Mobilization authority has a maximum
time limit of 730 days. The KFOR Soldiers returned to the
United States in the August or September 2004 time period.
Another provision of federal law impacting on this
situation is Title 10, USC 12302 (b), whereby all members of
the RC must receive fair treatment when being considered for
recall to duty without their consent. Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld has directed he will personally approve or
disapprove any member of RC who has previously been
involuntarily mobilized under either PM or PRC since
September 11, 2001. All of the Soldiers writing to you on
January 27, 2006 were asked to volunteer for remobilization
during their Soldier Readiness Processing in Minnesota during
the June through September 2006 time period and did sign a
Volunteer/Waiver Certificate. Soldiers not signing the
Volunteer/Waiver Certificate were removed from this current
mobilization.
The maximum length of Partial Mobilization for any RC
Soldier is 730 days. The mission length of the mobilization
for the Soldiers in the 1st Brigade Combat Team is 608 days,
ending in May and June 2007. No RC Soldier is required to
serve more than 730 days of PM time under this current
Executive Order 13223. Any Minnesota Soldier who served in
Kosovo has already accrued a previous PM period of
approximately 330 to 360 days, depending on their return
flight and out-processing time. When added together the 608
days on this current mission, plus at least 330 days from the
previous Kosovo mission, the Soldier's mobilization time
exceeds the maximum of 730 days. Soldiers in this situation,
in addition to volunteering to be remobilized, had to
volunteer to serve beyond the 730th day in a different
portion of federal law called Contingency Temporary Tour of
Active Duty (COTTAD), which is Title 10, USC 12301 (d).
Soldiers mobilized to go to Bosnia previously served under
the provisions of Title 10, USC 12304, not 12302. Service
time in Title 10, USC 12304 by law, does not apply toward an
RC Soldier's 730 days of PM (Title 10, USC 12302) time. When
they mobilized for this current mission under the provisions
of Title 10, USC 12302, they still had 730 days remaining on
their PM mobilization clock. They will never reach the 731st
day of mobilization since this mission will end in
approximately 608 days. Therefore, their signing a Volunteer/
Waiver Certificate agreeing to be remobilized is all that is
required by the Army.
The provisions of federal law creating Assignment Incentive
Pay (AIP) recognized the hardship of prolonged periods of
mobilization on RC Soldiers. When Congress passed the law
they included Soldiers accruing 730 days of PM (12302)
mobilization time and volunteering under the provisions of
Title 10, USC 12301 (d) to remain on duty past 730 days with
their unit to finish their current mission as qualifying for
AIP. Congress omitted PRC (12304) mobilization time as
counting toward the 730-day maximum a Soldier can accrue
before being required to volunteer for COTTAD (12301 (d)).
This situation was explained to the Soldiers from 1st
Platoon, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 136th Infantry who
previously mobilized for the Bosnia mission under the PRC
(12304) mobilization authority prior to their signing of the
required Volunteer/Waiver Certificate. None of these Soldiers
will reach the 730th day of PM authority on this current
mission and will not serve under the COTTAD provisions of
Title 10, USC 12302 (d).
We believe any mobilization should count towards qualifying
for AIP. Soldiers sent to Bosnia served under the same
conditions as their fellow Soldiers who went to Kosovo. They
underwent the same hardships caused by separation from family
and civilian employer. However, we have no options to grant
AIP to the soldiers who previously mobilized under PRC
(12304) until they have also served 730 days under PM
authority.
The solution to this problem is for Congress to change the
federal law authorizing AIP and include previous mobilization
under either authority, PM (12302) or PRC (12304), as
counting on the Soldier's mobilization clock to reach 730
days, after which the Soldier may volunteer to remain on
mission in COTTAD (12301 (d)) status and earn AIP.
I hope this information from Colonel Langley is helpful to
you. Please be assured we will continue to do everything we
can to provide Soldiers with the necessary information to
make informed decisions about remobilization and their
entitlements. It is always my pleasure to respond to the
concerns of our Congressional delegation regarding Soldiers
of the Minnesota National Guard.
Sincerely
Larry W. Shellito,
Major General, Minnesota Army
National Guard, The Adjutant General.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. I had the honor to serve 4 years on active duty in the U.S.
Army and over 30 years as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, and as
somebody who has commanded troops who have deployed, there is nothing
more demoralizing to get unequal pay for equal duty.
To support a resolution that provides for equity for our Guard and
Reserve is
[[Page H2472]]
very important. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of this amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Gutknecht.
This amendment fixes a pay disparity currently affecting almost 400
Minnesota National Guard, men and women, serving in Iraq. These members
of the 1st Platoon Bravo Company were previously on active duty in
2003, some in Bosnia and some in Kosovo, and I was pleased to be able
to visit them with Mr. Gutknecht.
However, unlike the soldiers that served in Kosovo, the Bosnia
contingent is not eligible for the extra $1,000 a month incentive pay
based on the circumstances of their mobilization.
This technicality will cost these soldiers and their families up to
$7,000. That is simply unfair and must be corrected. That is why I
support this amendment which directs the Army to fix this disparity so
those who have equally sacrificed for their country receive equality of
pay.
Again, I thank Mr. Gutknecht for his leadership on this issue.
{time} 1900
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
I want to thank my colleagues from Minnesota for helping to resolve
this inequity. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and my
colleagues from Arkansas.
In the big picture, when we were talking about spending hundreds of
billions of dollars, $7,000 for these families does not seem like a lot
of money in the big picture. But to those families, $7,000 is extremely
important. So I appreciate your support tonight to make certain that we
have equity and create a solution for this problem that is fair to all
of the folks who are proudly serving us in uniform wherever in the
world, but particularly in Iraq.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the
Gutknecht amendment along with my fellow MN Colleagues.
In January these soldiers wrote to me and every member of the MN
delegation asking for help. And I believe as their representatives we
have an obligation to address their concerns.
This amendment will correct a technicality that is affecting 400
Minnesota National Guardsmen who are now serving in Iraq. And who knows
how many other hundreds or even thousands of reservists all over the
country have fallen victim to a similar technicality .
Most of these soldiers had previously served on active duty in 2003,
some in Bosnia and the others in Kosovo. The two groups were activated
by different orders and now both of these groups are activated together
under the same order in Iraq.
The soldiers who served in Bosnia are not eligible for the extra
$1,000 per month in incentive pay because their tours cannot be added
together due to a mere technicality.
This issue is about fairness. Unless something is done to change this
Army policy, these soldiers and their families will lose out on $6,000
to $7,000 in extra pay. They are making a huge sacrifice for our
country and this is the least we can and should do for these men and
women.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
important amendment, which seeks to end a pay disparity for our brave
men and women who are serving in harm's way.
Today, Mr. Chairman, Minnesota National Guard troops are serving in
the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, with more than 3,000 citizen
soldiers recently called to service in support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
As my colleague has previously explained, at least 400 of these 3,000
Minnesotans in Iraq will not be receiving the same pay as many others
in their unit.
These are troops who have now bravely served our country in two
foreign theaters. These troops not only deserve our utmost respect and
gratitude, they also deserve their full compensation for their service
and sacrifice.
Mr. Chairman, the Minnesota National Guard truly represents the very
best of duty, honor and country. I join the people of the Third
Congressional District in thanking our Guard members for their selfless
service.
And I'd like to thank my colleague from Minnesota for sponsoring this
important amendment and thank all my colleagues from the Minnesota
delegation for cosponsoring the amendment and working to end this pay
disparity.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan). All time for debate having expired,
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No further amendment being in order, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Inglis of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, Acting
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________