Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 57 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 57 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2520-H2551]
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 811 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} 1310

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. LaTourette (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, May 10, 2006, amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-
459 by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) had been disposed
of and the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 4 printed in
that report by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had been
postponed.
Pursuant to House Resolution 811, no further amendment to the
committee amendment shall be in order except those printed in House
Report 109-461 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of that
resolution.
Each amendment printed in the report shall be offered only in the
order printed in the report, except as specified in section 4 of the
resolution, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent of the amendment, except that the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one
pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting
of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments
en bloc shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before
disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of any amendment printed in the report out of the order
printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a
request to that effect.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House
Report 109-461 consisting of amendment No. 1; amendment No.
2; amendment No. 4; and amendment No. 19.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Baca

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title III (page 67, after line
8), add the following new section:

SEC. 316. REPORT REGARDING SCOPE OF PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION
AT FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report containing the results of a study of the scope of
perchlorate contamination at Formerly Used Defense Sites. As
part of the report, the Secretary shall identify the military
installations or contractors that may have stored perchlorate
or products containing perchlorate.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Castle

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title VIII (page 295, after
line 20), insert the following new section:

SEC. 815. AWARD AND INCENTIVE FEE CONTRACT STANDARDS.

(a) Requirement to Develop and Issue Standards.--Not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall develop and issue--
(1) standards that link award and incentive fees to desired
program outcomes, such as meeting cost, schedule, and
capability goals;
(2) standards that identify the appropriate approving
official level involved in awarding new contracts utilizing
award and incentive fees;
(3) guidance on when the use of rollover is appropriate in
terms of new contracts utilizing award and incentive fees;
(4) performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of
award and incentive fees as a tool for improving contractor
performance and achieving desired program outcomes; and
(5) guidance for the development of a mechanism to capture
award and incentive fee data and to share proven award and
incentive fee strategies with appropriate contracting and
program officials at the Department of Defense.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``rollover''
means the process of moving unearned available award and
incentive fees from one evaluation period to a subsequent
evaluation period, thereby providing the contractor with an
additional opportunity to earn that previously unearned award
or incentive fee.
(c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on the status and effectiveness of
developing the standards required under subsection (a) for
award and incentive fee contracts.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
award and incentive fees should be used to motivate excellent
contractor performance and that such fees should not be
awarded for below-satisfactory performance.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII (page 499, after
line 15), add the following new section:

SEC. 2826. DEFENSE ACCESS ROAD PROGRAM.

Section 2837 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109-163; 119
Stat. 3522) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and transit systems''
after ``that roads''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1); and
(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following
new paragraphs:
``(2) to determine whether the existing surface
transportation infrastructure, including roads and transit at
each installation identified under paragraph (1) is adequate
to support the increased traffic associated with the increase
in the number of defense personnel described in that
paragraph; and
``(3) to determine whether the defense access road program
adequately considers the complete range of surface
transportation options, including roads and other means of
transit, necessary to support the national defense.''.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Schiff

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), add the
following new section:

SEC. 1041. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESPONSE TO THREAT
POSED BY IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report regarding the status of the
threat posed by improvised explosive devices (in the section
referred to as ``IEDs'') and describing efforts being
undertaken to defeat this threat. Supplemental reports shall
be submitted every 90 days thereafter to account for every
incident involving the detonation or discovery of an IED
since the previous report was submitted. Reports shall be
transmitted in an unclassified manner with a classified
annex, if necessary.
(b) Joint IED Defeat Organization and Related Offices.--The
reports required by subsection (a) shall provide the
following information regarding the Joint IED Defeat
Organization and all other offices within the Department of
Defense and the military departments that are focused on
countering IEDs:
(1) The number of people assigned to the Joint IED Defeat
Organization and the related offices.

[[Page H2521]]

(2) The major locations to which personnel are assigned and
organizational structure.
(3) The projected budget of the Joint IED Defeat
Organization and the related offices.
(4) The level of funding required for administrative costs.
(c) Existing Threat and Counter Measures.--The reports
required by subsection (a) shall include the following
information regarding the threat posed by IEDs and the
countermeasures employed to defeat those threats:
(1) The number of IEDs being encountered by United States
and allied military personnel, including general trends in
tactics and technology used by the enemy.
(2) Passive countermeasures employed and their success
rates.
(3) Active countermeasures employed and their success
rates.
(4) Any evidence of assistance by foreign countries or
other entities not directly involved in fighting United
States and allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(5) A list and summary of data collected and reports
generated by the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces
on counter-IED efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other
fronts in the Global War on Terrorism.
(d) Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation of New
Countermeasures.--The reports required by subsection (a)
shall include the following information regarding research,
development, testing, and evaluation of new active and
passive countermeasures and impediments to those efforts:
(1) The status of any and all efforts within the Department
of Defense and the Armed Forces to research, develop, test,
and evaluate passive countermeasures and active
countermeasures and to speed their introduction into units
currently deployed overseas.
(2) Impediments to swift introduction of promising new
active countermeasures.
(e) Interdiction Efforts.--To the extent not previously
covered in another section of the reports required by
subsection (a), the reports shall identify any and all other
offices within the Department of Defense or the Armed Forces
that are focused on interdicting IEDs, together with the
personnel and funding requirements specified in subsection
(b) and the success of such efforts. For purposes of this
subsection, interdiction includes the development of
intelligence regarding persons and locations involved in the
manufacture or deployment of IEDs and subsequent action
against those persons or locations, including efforts to
prevent IED emplacement.

{time} 1315

The amendment offered by Mr. Davis is the defense access road
amendment; and this program, which is known as the DAR program,
currently allows DOD to pay for road projects made necessary by DOD
actions, and this amendment would allow DOD to consider transit
projects as part of DAR as well.
Mr. Schiff's amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress a series of regular reports on the threat to American
personnel posed by IEDs, improvised explosive devices, as well as
action being taken to interdict IEDs and to develop more effective
active and passive countermeasures. The first report would be due 30
days after enactment, the subsequent reports every 90 days thereafter.
Reports would be unclassified, with a classified annex if necessary.
Mr. Chairman, the committee supports these amendments, and let me
just say with respect to the last amendment, that the committee works
every day on the IED issue, and we communicate with DOD every day on
operations and on the development of the countermeasure systems that we
are currently undertaking to rush to the battlefield. So I very much
appreciate the gentleman's concern. I think that IEDs, and I am sure he
shares this concern, are an instrument of choice now by terrorists, and
this is probably the most compelling challenge facing us in the
warfighting theaters and in the global war against terror right now.
We work this issue every single day. We have got a new package of
equipment that we are moving out, and we have added $109 million to
this countermeasure fund this year. We are going to try to move that
up, even if we have to move money out of the various services, and we
are going to work this problem every day. So I invite the gentleman to
work with us and work with our staff, and I think these reports will be
value added to the process. I thank the gentleman from California for
his work.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc
amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff).
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for working with me on this amendment, and I in
particular want to thank you for all of your diligence in making sure
that we have the best equipment and that the Pentagon is doing
everything else possible to interdict and to defend against these
improvised explosive devices.
We have all been to the funerals of our constituents that were lost
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of them have been lost through improvised
explosive devices. I think it is the number one cause of American
deaths in Iraq, and I think three out of the four families that I have
gotten to know that have lost loved ones in Iraq were killed by IEDs.
They have been responsible for 38 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq,
including those from non-hostile causes, for every month since May of
2005. Through Sunday, IEDs caused 790 American deaths in Iraq,
representing a third of all U.S. fatalities since the start of the war.
Clearly, the Iraqi insurgents have learned to adapt to U.S. defensive
measures by using bigger, more sophisticated and better concealed
bombs. In the first few months of the insurgency, IEDs were often
little more than crude pipe bombs that used old-fashioned wire
detonators. Now they are sometimes made with multiple artillery shells,
Iranian explosives, and rocket propellant. Gone are the days of wire
detonators that were easy to spot. IEDs are now detonated by cell
phones or a garage door opener and other devices. They range in size
from massive explosives capable of destroying 5-ton vehicles to
precision-shaped charges that tear through armored vehicles.
IEDs have also become, unfortunately, a greater problem in
Afghanistan where, according to analysts, Taliban and al Qaeda forces
have been studying the lessons learned by the insurgents in Iraq. Over
the past several months, American and NATO forces have been the victim
of roadside bombs that previously we had just seen in Iraq.
So, Mr. Chairman, to the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member, I very much look forward to working with you on this issue. I
appreciate your willingness to work on this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and let me just lay out
some of things that we are doing because I think this area is so
important for us. Included in the base bill, the gentleman from
Missouri and myself and our great members of the committee on both
sides of the aisle worked out, we added $109.7 million for jammers.
Jammers are very important in this IED business because these
improvised explosive devices are largely detonated remotely.
As the gentleman knows, few of them, some of them, are detonated by
wires that are connected to detonators, and you may have an insurgent
hiding 20, 30, 40, 50 yards from the roadside or from the dismounted
U.S. military unit and he detonates it with a clacker or a detonation
device in the style that has been utilized by militaries up to the last
several years ago.
The other detonation device, and one that is now the device of
choice, is a remote detonation, and that detonation

[[Page H2522]]

allows a person, the insurgent, to be many yards away, far away from
the particular avenue that he is ambushing. In many cases, he does not
even need to have a weapon. He may be lost in a crowd, and he waits for
a convoy to line up on a particular lamp post or other object, and he
blows this device, which may be a 152-millimeter artillery round by
using this remote detonation capability. Without getting into the
classified areas, there are a number of remote detonation capabilities,
and what we are trying to do is to direct our countermeasures to be
able to jam those detonations.
So we have put a lot of extra money in. The administration has a lot
of money in, but we have put in more. We have been working on equipment
packages with them, and the key is to move this stuff through the
training ranges here, the testing ranges, quickly into the field; and I
can assure the gentleman we are really going to be working on this. So
I thank him so much for his focus on this important area, and we will
work together.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and, of course, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) too, as well, and I would like to also
thank Congressman Dreier, Congressman Lewis, and Congressman Pombo in
helping us work with this simple amendment that basically asks the
Department of Defense to require a study of the perchlorate
contamination at formerly utilized defense sites, otherwise known as
FUDS.
The amendment also requires an assessment of what military
installations or contractors have stored perchlorate. This study will
help us have a national understanding of this problem that has so far
been seen in our region.
Southern California, the Bay Area, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, are only a few of the regions affected. Is this happening in
your State?
Cities and counties across the country are closing their groundwater
wells due to perchlorate contamination. From most accounts, 90 percent
of perchlorate in water comes from a Federal source, primarily from
former military sites and other Department of Defense installations.
This volatile organic compound is a rocket fuel additive that has
been found to be harmful to thyroid function. 319 groundwater wells are
impacted in California alone, with 78 of them in my district; and 186
sources in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange Counties have been
impacted.
Several States throughout the county are now waking to a similar
problem and are also seeing similar effects in their areas.
Perchlorate does not just affect the drinking water supply, but our
food supplies as well. So it does affect supplies. It has been reported
in lettuce in the Imperial Valley which relies on the Colorado River
for irrigation, and perchlorate has been found in milk.
Hardworking families living in the United States with large military
and aerospace facilities are not at fault and should not have to pay
for a federally created problem.
Many communities cannot afford costly toxic cleanups, and the
alternative is no better. Cities are being forced to raise water rates
to outrageous levels, forgo dust control on highways to meet clean air
requirements, and to truck in water from other regions.
For the 43rd Congressional District of California and many other
districts throughout the country, the Federal Government needs to step
up and take responsibility. That is basically what we are asking is
just the Federal Government to take responsibility and do a study.
We need to fully understand the scope of the problems so we can
protect our children and protect the elderly from this dangerous health
risk.
The House of Representatives has already twice passed a bill I
introduced, H.R. 18, the Southern California Ground Remediation Act,
which authorized $50 million for groundwater remediation, including
perchlorate. Meanwhile, the Senate has not allowed this bill to become
law. It is clear my colleagues in the House support this measure.
But our communities cannot wait any longer. That is why I have
introduced this amendment to study the perchlorate contamination legacy
from FUDS. This is required to advance the body of research already
under way.
Ultimately, we must remember that this is a federally created
problem; and, hence, the solution must be Federal as well.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleague from
California that he has brought an excellent amendment to the floor
here, and this is certainly something that does require action,
justifies action by the Federal Government, and we totally support his
amendment on this side.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this
amendment to help States all across the Nation deal with the dynamic
affects of BRAC can have on their local communities. In my district
alone we will incur the single largest loss and gain in the most recent
round of BRAC. We will have roughly 23,000 positions vacated out of DoD
leased space in Arlington, Virginia and roughly the same number of jobs
added to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
While we give warm welcome to the additional jobs coming to Fort
Belvoir we must ensure that we are able to continue to observe our
smart growth principles. The transportation infrastructure in the
vicinity of Fort Belvoir/Southern Alexandria sector is already
overburdened and inadequate. It is important that DoD has a wide array
of tools at its disposal in order to work with our local community to
help absorb the affects of such a massive growth.
The Defense Access Road (DAR) program currently allows DoD to pay for
road projects made necessary by DoD actions. My amendment would simply
allow DoD to consider transit projects as part of the Defense Access
Road program as well. It does not force DoD to enforce a blanket policy
because I know each community has its own specific needs and a one size
fits all is simply not appropriate. Some communities could use more
roads and others could use buses.
Mr. Chairman, I know my district was not the only one effected by
BRAC. My amendment is important to every State across the Nation that
was affected by BRAC or any other DoD action that will significantly
impact their local communities. I have already received a call from the
North Carolina's Governor's office supporting this effort.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank Chairman Hunter,
Senator Warner, and Jim Moran for working with me to make this
amendment a reality. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House
Report 109-461 consisting of amendment No. 3; amendment No.
5; amendment No. 17; and amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chabot

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title VI (page 229, after line
16), insert the following new section:

SEC. 644. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL DEPENDENT CHILDREN FOR ANNUITIES
UNDER MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN.

It is the sense of Congress that eligibility for a
surviving child annuity in lieu of a surviving spouse annuity
under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for a child of a
member of the Armed Forces dying while on active duty should
be extended so as to cover children of members dying after
October 7, 2001 (the beginning of Operation Enduring
Freedom), rather than only children of members dying after
November 23, 2003.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 504, after
line 7), add the following new section:

SEC. 2844. MODIFICATIONS TO LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY,
ENGINEERING PROVING GROUND, FORT BELVOIR,
VIRGINIA.

(a) Construction of Security Barrier.--Section 2836 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1314),

[[Page H2523]]

as amended by section 2846 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public
Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3527), is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``$3,880,000'' and
inserting ``$4,880,000''; and
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``Virginia,'' the
following: ``and the construction of a security barrier, as
applicable,''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``Building 191''
the following: ``and the construction of a security barrier,
as applicable''.
(b) Authority to Enter Into Alternative Agreement for
Design and Construction of Fairfax County Parkway Portion.--
Such section 2836 is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) except as provided in subsection (f), design and
construct, at its expense and for public benefit, the portion
of the Fairfax County Parkway through the Engineer Proving
Ground (in this section referred to as the `Parkway
portion');''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``C514'' the
following: ``, RW-214 (in this section referred to as
`Parkway project')'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g);
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) Alternate Agreement for Construction of Road.--(1)
The Secretary of the Army may, in connection with the
conveyance authorized under subsection (a), enter into an
agreement with the Commonwealth providing for the design and
construction by the Department of the Army or the United
States Department of Transportation of the Parkway portion
and other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway off the
Engineer Proving Ground that are necessary to complete the
Parkway project (in this subsection referred to as the
`alternate agreement') if the Secretary determines that the
alternate agreement is in the best interests of the United
States to support the permanent relocation of additional
military and civilian personnel at Fort Belvoir pursuant to
decisions made as part of the 2005 round of defense base
closure and realignment under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
``(2) If the Secretary of Defense certifies that the
Parkway portion is important to the national defense pursuant
to section 210 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary
of the Army may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of
Transportation to carry out the alternate agreement under the
Defense Access Road Program.
``(3) The Commonwealth shall pay to the Secretary of the
Army the costs of the design and construction of the Parkway
portion and any other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway
off the Engineer Proving Ground designed and constructed
under the alternate agreement. The Secretary shall apply such
payment to the design and construction provided for in the
alternate agreement.
``(4) Using the authorities available to the Secretary
under chapter 160 of title 10, United States Code, and funds
deposited in the Environmental Restoration Account, Army,
established by section 2703(a) of such title and appropriated
for this purpose, the Secretary may carry out environmental
restoration activities on real property under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary in support of the construction
of the Parkway portion.
``(5) The alternate agreement shall be subject to the
following conditions:
``(A) The Commonwealth shall acquire and retain all
necessary right, title, and interest in any real property not
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary that is necessary for
construction of the Parkway portion or for construction of
any other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway off the
Engineer Proving Ground that will be constructed under the
alternate agreement, and shall grant to the United States all
necessary access to and use of such property for such
construction.
``(B) The Secretary shall receive consideration from the
Commonwealth as required in subsections (b)(2), (b)(3), and
(b)(4) and shall carry out the acceptance and disposition of
funds in accordance with subsection (d).
``(6) The design of the Parkway portion under the alternate
agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary
and the Commonwealth in accordance with the Virginia
Department of Transportation Approved Plan, dated June 15,
2004, Project #R000-029-249, PE-108, C-514, RW-214. For each
phase of the design and construction of the Parkway portion
under the alternate agreement, the Secretary may--
``(A) accept funds from the Commonwealth; or
``(B) transfer funds received from the Commonwealth to the
United States Department of Transportation.
``(7) Upon completion of the construction of the Parkway
portion and any other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway
off the Engineer Proving Ground required under the alternate
agreement, the Secretary shall carry out the conveyance under
subsection (a). As a condition of such conveyance carried out
under the alternate agreement, the Secretary shall receive a
written commitment, in a form satisfactory to the Secretary,
that the Commonwealth agrees to accept all responsibility for
the costs of operation and maintenance of the Parkway portion
upon conveyance to the Commonwealth of such real property.'';
and
(4) in subsection (g), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by
inserting ``or the alternate agreement authorized under
subsection (f)'' after ``conveyance under subsection (a)''.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 50, after line
23), insert the following new section:

SEC. 2_. HIGH ALTITUDE AIR SHIP PROGRAM.

Within the amount provided in section 201 for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force--
(1) $5,000,000 is available for the High Altitude Air
Ship Program; and
(2) the amount provided for the Space Based Space
Surveillance System is reduced by $5,000,000.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title V (page 193, after line 20), insert the
following new section:

SEC. 5XX. INCLUSION IN ANNUAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT ON
SEXUAL ASSAULTS OF INFORMATION ON RESULTS OF
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.

Section 577(f)(2)(B) of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law
108-375; 118 Stat. 1927) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``and the results of the
disciplinary action''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me offer the description of the amendments.
Mr. Chabot's amendment expresses a sense of Congress that the spouses
of armed services members who have died between October 7, 2001, and
November 23, 2003, should be permitted to have the option of assigning
their SBP payments, their survivor payments, to their children.
Mr. Davis' amendment is another defense access road amendment. This
amendment would allow DOD to consider transit projects, as well, as
part of the DAR, the Defense Access Road program.
Mr. Ryan of Ohio's amendment authorizes $5 million for the High
Altitude Airship program. The HAA is designed to be an uninhabited,
long-endurance, platform for carrying forward-based sensors and a wide
range of other BMD payloads that will enable continuous over-horizon
communication. It would also provide wide-area surveillance and
protection without interruption or the risk associated with manned
aircraft. The offsets are $5 million from the Space Based Space
Surveillance program, and this is another tool for sensor and
surveillance capability.
The amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter requires the Department of
Defense to include the number of disciplinary actions as part of the
annual report on sexual assault in the military.
So those are brief definitions or descriptions of these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say I support this second en bloc series of amendments on
behalf of my colleagues, in particular Mr. Ryan and Ms. Slaughter, who
have amendments within this en bloc package.
Mr. Ryan's amendment in this adds money for High Altitude Airship,
and it moves it to the Air Force.
Ms. Slaughter's amendment includes the number of disciplinary actions
as part of the annual report on sexual assaults within the military.
Those as well as the others, Mr. Chabot's and Mr. Davis' amendments,
do meet with our support and approval and I intend to support them, and
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1330

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter for his hard work,
not just this year but over the years working on behalf of our men and

[[Page H2524]]

women in uniform who serve us so well all around the globe. He, of
course, is a Vietnam veteran himself and has seen action and knows
exactly what he is talking about. I commend him for his work in this
area.
In November of 2003, President Bush signed into law the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2004. This legislation allowed spouses of
active duty personnel killed after November 23, 2003, the option of
signing their military survivor benefit plan, the SBP payments, over to
their child or children so they could receive the payment without being
subject to SBP dependency indemnity compensation, or DIC, the offset.
Unfortunately, this option is not currently available to spouses of
soldiers killed from the time period beginning October 7, 2001, which
was the start of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, until November 23,
2003, when the legislation was actually passed. There are approximately
400 families who are adversely affected by this glaring omission.
One such family who lives in my district is Shauna Moore and her 3-
year-old daughter, Hannah. Their loving husband and father, Army
Sergeant Benjamin Moore, was fatally shot during a rifle-training
exercise at Fort Hood, Texas, in February, 2003, while preparing for
deployment to Iraq. It is through these unfortunate circumstances that
I have had the chance to meet and talk with Shauna Moore and hear her
story.
So today I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of
Congress that the widows and widowers of these 400 brave American
soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedoms do not remain
the forgotten few.
If accepted, I am hopeful that this amendment is the start of a
process by which we may allow these 400 spouses and their families to
obtain the option of assigning their SBP payments to their children,
just as those whose spouses died after November 23, 2003, have been
given the opportunity to do.
I believe this is the least we can do for families and people like
Shauna and Hannah Moore who have already had to deal with the tragedy
of losing a loved one. They should not be penalized solely because
their loved one made the ultimate sacrifice protecting our country
after the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars but before November
23, 2003, when that particular legislation passed. These are 400
families that should not be forgotten. I believe my colleagues will
support this.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing
this to our attention. There are no more important citizens than those
who defend our freedom and carry our flag; and right there with them
are their family members.
I think this is an excellent amendment, and the committee supports it
fully.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this
amendment in an attempt to resolve deadlocked negotiations between the
State of Virginia and the Army. For years now, the completion of the
Fairfax County Parkway, a major parkway in my district, has been held
hostage to complications with building through the Engineering Proving
Ground. The Engineering Proving Ground was a former military airfield
which has environmental concerns that are inherent of its history.
Empirical data has shown the Engineering Proving Ground is suitable
for road construction. My amendment simply allows the State of Virginia
and the Army the authority they need to negotiate a sensible and
environmentally sound solution to complete the parkway. It allows the
Army to enter into a special agreement with the State of Virginia. This
agreement would authorize the State of Virginia to fund projects on the
Engineering Proving Ground while allowing the Army to maintain control
of the project.
I was Chairman of the Fairfax County Board back when we completed the
largest section of the Fairfax County Parkway and was proud to see the
road come to near completion. However, a number of years have gone by
since and it is truly frustrating to all northern Virginians not to
have the small portion of the parkway through the Engineering Proving
Ground completed at this time.
In addition, due to the most recent round of BRAC, Northern Virginia
will gain over 23,000 jobs in the Fort Belvoir area. This is equivalent
to gaining four major bases--was the single largest BRAC addition in
the country. Completing the Fairfax County Parkway is a critical step
in setting the infrastructure we need to help assuage the welcome, but
massive growth.
In closing I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, Senator Warner, and
Jim Moran for working with me to make this amendment a reality. I urge
an aye vote.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple, but much needed
amendment to the legislation before us today.
In an effort to encourage defense contractors to perform at the
highest level possible, the Department of Defense often gives its
contractors the opportunity to collectively earn billions of dollars
through monetary incentives known as award and incentive fees.
Unfortunately, the Department's acquisition process has at times run
into problems such as dramatic cost increases, late deliveries, and
significant performance shortfalls--wasting billions of dollars in
critical funding.
Last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that
the Pentagon's current award and incentive fee practices do not hold
contractors accountable for achieving desired outcomes and routinely
undermine efforts to motivate contractor performance.
In its study, GAO noted that the Department regularly gives defense
contractors multiple opportunities to earn incentive fees for work that
at times only meets minimum standards and has wasted billions of
dollars as a result of this incredibly flawed process.
The Pentagon has concurred with GAO's recommendations for improving
this system, and while the Department's acknowledgment of the problem
is an important step forward, the effectiveness of these changes will
ultimately be determined by how well GAO's recommendations are
implemented.
My amendment would ensure Congress performs appropriate oversight and
would require the Department to develop a strategy for linking
incentives to specific outcomes. such as meeting cost, schedule, and
capability goals. It would also makes certain that appropriate
approving officials are overseeing these decisions.
Cost increases and business management weaknesses damage our
government's ability to provide our men and women in the military with
the resources that keep us safe.
While we obviously have a lot of work ahead of us to improve the
efficiency of military spending, I believe this amendment is a simple
way to make certain that award and incentive fees are being used to
maximize our return on investment and provide American soldiers with
vital capabilities at the best value for the taxpayer.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
offer this very important amendment requiring the Department of Defense
(DoD) to provide the results of all disciplinary actions in their
annual report on sexual assault.
As part of the DoD Authorization bill in FY 2004, the DoD is required
to submit annual reports on sexual assaults involving members of the
Armed Forces.
This past March, DoD issued its second annual report. The military
criminal investigation organizations received nearly 2,400 reports of
alleged cases of sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces--
a significant increase from 1,700 cases reported in 2004.
Of the nearly 2,400 allegations, less than 1,400 cases were actually
investigated--91 received non-judicial punishments, 18 were discharged
in lieu of court-martial, 62 had administrative actions taken against
them, and 79 offenders had been court-martialed.
However, while this annual report has been helpful in presenting the
full scope of this growing problem, it fails to provide a complete
understanding of how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in the
military.
It does not include the results of all disciplinary actions,
including Article 15s and convictions. For example, of the 79 courts-
martial issued in 2006, we have no idea how many resulted in
convictions.
Mr. Chairman, DoD's response to sexual assault in the military
deserves more scrutiny. And as Members of Congress, it is our
responsibility to provide this oversight.
In order for us to effectively address this serious problem,
evaluations must be based on facts and statistics.
By including the results of all disciplinary actions in the annual
report, we will have a more complete, transparent understanding of how
DoD is addressing the problem of sexual assault in military.
We owe it to the men and women in uniform defending our freedom to
ensure that justice is served when they find themselves victims of
sexual assault.
I want to thank the Chairman for working with me on this amendment,
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will consider an
amendment offered by Congressman Tim Ryan, who represents the city of
Akron, Ohio with me.

[[Page H2525]]

The Ryan amendment will restore $5 million in the 2007 Defense
Authorization bill for the High Altitude Airship (HAA) Program. The HAA
is being built at the Lockheed Martin Airdock in Akron.
The HAA is an unmanned lightweight vehicle, which will operate above
the jet stream to deliver continuous over-horizon communication. In
position, an airship will survey a 600-mile diameter area without the
risks associated with manned aircrafts.
The HAA will be used for missile defense, but also to provide border
surveillance and emergency communication tools to improve homeland
security.
This project is expected to create close to 100 jobs, protect more
than 500 current jobs, and bring some $130 million in technology
development investments to the Akron area.
I am proud to support the HAA Program. It positions Summit County at
the heart of the development of this national security technology and
will strengthen Ohio's economic base.
Though I wish the House Armed Services Committee had authorized full
funding for the HAA, the Ryan amendment provides an opportunity to keep
this critical initiative moving forward.
I appreciate the Chairman's support in this effort and urge all of my
colleagues to join me in voting for the Ryan amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the second set of amendments en bloc offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Dent

Mr. DENT. 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. 6 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. Dent:
Page 427, line 14, insert ``, in coordination with the
Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after ``Secretary of
Defense''.
Page 427, line 15, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after
``Homeland Defense''.
Page 427, line 21, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after
``Homeland Defense''.
Page 427, after line 24, insert the following new paragraph
(2) (and redesignate existing paragraphs accordingly):
(2) the Department of Homeland Security;
Page 428, line 7, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after
``Defense''.
Page 428, line 19, insert ``and the Department of Homeland
Security'' after ``Defense''.
Page 429, line 1, insert ``and the Secretary of Homeland
Security'' after ``Defense''.
Page 429, line 13, insert ``and in coordination with the
Secretary of Homeland Security'' after ``Defense''.
Page 429, line 22, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after
``Homeland Defense''.
Page 430, line 10, insert ``or the Department of Homeland
Security'' after ``Defense''.
Page 431, line 4, insert ``, in coordination with the
Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after ``Secretary of
Defense''.
Page 431, line 11, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after
``Homeland Defense''.
Page 431, line 18, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after
``Homeland Defense''

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811 the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I thank Chairman Hunter and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton,
for their leadership on this very important piece of legislation.
I rise today to offer an amendment to title XIV to H.R. 5122 that
would ensure that the Department of Defense and the Department of
Homeland Security work together as part of a homeland defense-homeland
security technology transfer consortium to facilitate the transfer of
viable DOD technologies in order to enhance the homeland security
capabilities of Federal, State, and local first responders.
The Department of Defense has been a leading developer of technology
for years, and some of the innovations it has pioneered may have
outstanding homeland security applications. These types of technologies
include: unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs; ground sensors which help
authorities monitor activities over vast expanses of terrain; biometric
identification technologies which can assist in the creation of tamper-
proof identity cards; radiological detectors which can monitor the
transport of nuclear and other potentially dangerous materials; and
sophisticated surveillance equipment, examples of which include night
vision goggles and microwave and infrared imaging gear.
While these technologies have been helpful to our warfighters
overseas, the Federal, State and local agencies charged with protecting
us here at home could also make good use of these kinds of products.
Unfortunately, the process of transferring these technologies from the
military to the civilian sector has been a bit slow.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I would like first
responders and other appropriate authorities to have quicker access to
and to make good use of these technologies.
Accordingly, my amendment would provide for the creation of a
homeland defense-homeland security technology transfer consortium that
would facilitate this transfer. It specifically calls for the inclusion
of the Department of Homeland Security, which is already in the process
of developing and utilizing many of these technologies that I have just
described.
Within this consortium, it also brings State and local first
responders into the deliberative process. The consortium will be
involved in integrating new technologies into appropriate first
responder exercises, in promoting interoperability, and, of course, in
identifying and developing those defense technologies that have the
most promising applications for homeland security.
By facilitating these kinds of transfers, Federal, State, and local
agencies can work better together and can function more efficiently and
the homeland can be safer.
I thank Chairman Hunter and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, for
their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment as stated.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of 26\1/2\ years of working with the
Border Patrol, I understand and appreciate the necessity of Mr. Dent's
amendment that requires close cooperation between the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
More than ever today, post-9/11 and with the many different
challenges that we face with the potential of another strike against
our country, it is critical, it is imperative that we continue to urge
both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security
to do as much as possible to cooperate, share information, and provide
a unified front and protection for our country.
This is a way of ensuring that we codify that cooperation by
expressly putting it into the legislation that this cooperation take
place. It is critical. It is vital; and based on my experience where
there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation traditionally between
the Department of Defense and agencies such as the Border Patrol, for
Border Patrol operations on the border itself, I believe that this is a
good amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, it is especially appropriate to be able to
follow the gentleman from El Paso, Mr. Reyes, who was in my estimation
the greatest Border Patrol chief in the history of our country. He did
a tremendous job under very challenging odds.
I remember working with him long before he became a Representative in
the most southern areas of Texas and then ultimately up in the El Paso
area. One thing that challenged him and challenged us in San Diego in
more recent times was tunneling. Of course, detection of tunnels is
something that the military engages in every now and

[[Page H2526]]

then, and that is a good example of candidate technologies for sharing
of technology between DOD and the Department of Homeland Security.
Likewise, surveillance sensors, it has always been a pleasure to go
down with the gentleman from El Paso, go down to his district with
Joint Task Force 6 and look at that interaction. And I really
appreciate Mr. Dent coming up with this amendment that will move to
mesh these technologies and make sure that when the American taxpayers
pay for the development of something that will accrue to the benefit of
our security, that it gets shared and gets moved across what is
sometimes kind of a bright line between the military and the Department
of Homeland Security.
You have done a great job and thank you for bringing this amendment
to our attention. We support it fully.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank everybody involved for their support for this amendment. Its
interdisciplinary approach is most appropriate. This transfer
technology consortium is long overdue. As has been stated several times
already, there is so much technology coming out of the Department of
Defense that needs to be shared with the homeland security. Of course,
this will also make its way down to our first responders, State and
local first responders.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Building on the comments of my good friend and my chairman, I can
attest to all of the cooperation, having spent 26\1/2\ years in the
Border Patrol, to all of the cooperation since the creation of Joint
Task Force 6, which was headquartered in my district, now Joint Task
Force North. The number of projects and programs that the Department of
Defense provides support to both State, local, and Federal agencies,
and in specific consortium projects such as building roads, building
infrastructure support such as strategic fencing in certain parts of
the border area, that greatly acts as a barrier and as a force
multiplier for our Border Patrol agents.
So there are many, many things that the Department of Defense is
doing and has done that provide that kind of support to the Department
of Homeland Security, formerly Border Patrol and INS.
I know in the next amendment we are going to be debating the issue of
giving the Secretary the flexibility to send troops on the border, and
I just want to state here in anticipation of leading the debate on that
issue, as a Member that represents a border district, we do not need
troops on the border. Sufficient support is already coming from the
Department of Defense. The reality of this is there are other things
that I will address at that time that we could be doing and that we
should have done as a result of the law that we passed in 1986.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to support Mr. Dent in his
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENT. 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
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Goode

Mr. GOODE. 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 109-461 offered by
Mr. Goode:
At the end of subtitle C of title X (page __, after line
__), add the following new section:

SEC. 1026. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO
ASSIST BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter
18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 374 the following new section:

``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol
and control

``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request
consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may
assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps
to assist the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the
Department of Homeland Security--
``(1) in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug
traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States; and
``(2) in the inspection of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at
points of entry into the United States to prevent the entry
of weapons of mass destruction, components of weapons of mass
destruction, prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other
terrorist or drug trafficking items.
``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members
under subsection (a) may occur only if--
``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Secretary of
Homeland Security; and
``(2) the request is accompanied by a certification by the
Secretary of Homeland Security that the assignment of members
pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat
to national security posed by the entry into the United
States of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens.
``(c) Training Program Required.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a
training program to ensure that members receive general
instruction regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the
border areas in which the members may perform duties under an
assignment under subsection (a). A member may not be deployed
at a border location pursuant to an assignment under
subsection (a) until the member has successfully completed
the training program.
``(d) Conditions of Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is
assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection or the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement is performing duties pursuant to the
assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the
agency concerned shall accompany the member.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to
conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement
activity or to make an arrest; and
``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known
as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
``(e) Establishment of Ongoing Joint Task Forces.--(1) The
Secretary of Homeland Security may establish ongoing joint
task forces if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines
that the joint task force, and the assignment of members to
the joint task force, is necessary to respond to a threat to
national security posed by the entry into the United States
of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens.
``(2) If established, the joint task force shall fully
comply with the standards as set forth in this section.
``(f) Notification Requirements.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall provide to the Governor of the State in which
members are to be deployed pursuant to an assignment under
subsection (a) and to local governments in the deployment
area notification of the deployment of the members to assist
the Department of Homeland Security under this section and
the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
``(g) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title
shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection
(a).''.
(b) Commencement of Training Program.--The training program
required by subsection (c) of section 374a of title 10,
United States Code, shall be established as soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goode) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

{time} 1345

Mr. GOODE. This is an amendment that we have addressed in the past.
This amendment would authorize but not mandate the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, working with the Secretary of the
Department of Defense, to utilize troops, if necessary, to protect our
borders in peace time in a nonemergency situation.
The gentleman from Texas, who had a long and distinguished career
with the Border Patrol, indicates that we don't need troops on the
border now. I would certainly say that the massive invasion from Mexico
into this country on a daily basis that reaches thousands upon
thousands in numbers day after day and month after month and year after
year, we need something. And just having this authority, in my opinion,
would enhance our border security so that it could be utilized in peace
time in a nonemergency situation to supplement the Border Patrol and
other efforts to secure our borders.

[[Page H2527]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goode amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that I rise in opposition to that
I was talking about in the previous conversation. Every year we debate
this issue, irrespective of the cooperation that is ongoing, has been
ongoing for many, many years from the Department of Defense, that
provides technical expertise, that provides construction support, that
provides technical support, that provides, even on a limited basis,
operational specialized support on that border.
The reality of this amendment is that it is very expensive. It
provides authority to the Department of Defense that already exists
with the President of the United States should an emergency come up or
an emergency exist. It is a bad idea because we need trained,
experienced professionals on that border. That border is way too
dangerous for us to be sending troops that are trained primarily for
combat into a law enforcement situation, understanding that that
capability is in reserve, because the President of the United States
has that authority.
So I would hope that we would stop bringing these kinds of
amendments, because they really are not useful and are
counterproductive to our enforcement presence on the border.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difference of opinion in
the people's House. I listened with great interest to my friend from
Texas. Indeed, when this question was before the House on prior
occasions, at least a couple of times in my time in this Congress, I
sided with my friend from Texas.
And yet, we have been overtaken by current events and a literal
admonition from the Constitution of the United States, article IV,
section 4: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
against invasion.''
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, regrettably, in my home State of
Arizona, especially along the width and breadth of our southern border,
our Nation is being invaded. And not only is it those coming to our
country illegally seeking work, the sad fact is, according to the
Department of Homeland Security, in the year 2004, 650 people from
nations of a ``national security interest'' to the United States, in
other words, enemies of this Nation, at least 650, crossed the border
illegally.
It has been documented in my State that nightly between 6,000 and
6,500 attempt to gain illegal access to the United States of America.
Some within that group are people who intend our Nation harm.
People say we are in a nonemergency situation. Mr. Chairman, my
colleagues, I say quite the opposite is true. I say, and I believe
Members of this House and the American Nation as a whole understand,
that in many areas, our borders, sectors of our borders, have
essentially devolved into de facto war zones.
``Yes'' to this amendment. ``Yes'' to dealing with this emergency.
``Yes'' to our military on the border. ``Yes'' to stopping this
invasion.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and former
sheriff, who represents a border district, Congressman Ortiz.
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, this is very simple. The Department of
Defense says, Goode amendment, we don't need it.
Under present law, the Homeland Security Secretary can call the
Secretary of Defense and state that, you know, he needs troops. It is
very, very simple because under existing law, it says he can request of
the Secretary of Defense assistance from the Armed Forces.
In fact, in 2002, the Secretary of Defense authorized such support on
a reimbursable basis to organizations formerly components of the
Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury and currently
components of the Department of Homeland Security. So why do we want
something else that we don't need?
Not only that, do you know that they will have to spend more money
that the Department of Defense doesn't have to train?
Oppose this amendment, and when we come to the wall I would just hate
for one day for the President of Mexico to come down and say, Mr.
President, tear down this wall.
Our servicemen/women are spread too thin.
This is never a good idea, but certainly not in a time of war . . .
to put soldiers in a new, civilian role . . . which has previously
resulted in accidental deaths.
This damages our readiness.
I have been a law enforcement officer, and served in the Army. We are
talking about two vastly different things--protecting the borders--and
using the military in law enforcement.
This new war includes a host of fronts, including law enforcement for
domestic interests related to terrorists who try to cross our borders.
I've led efforts for more border security: our investment should be
in Border Patrol officers and detention beds to hold the OTMs--Other
Than Mexicans--we now routinely release into the general population.
Even if we caught every single illegal immigrant crossing our border,
we would still have no place to hold them, and we would be forced to
release them--as we are doing now.
We should be focused on the need for professional law enforcement
officers/intelligence associated with knowing who is coming across our
borders . . . and providing funds to hold them.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
In response to what the gentleman from Texas was saying, we are
talking about the authorization for troops to be on the border in
nonemergency situations. If you allow troops on the border in
nonemergency situations, you will see lawsuits, litigations and
potential for liability for anything that happens along the border
involving those troops.
We need to secure America and authorize troops in peace time in
nonemergency situations along the border.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to
my colleague from Laredo, Congressman Cuellar, also representing a
border district.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Goode. I
understand why he wants to protect the border, but being from the
border, I understand that the military already provides technical
support, construction of roads, clearing of brush; but they do have a
very different mission from the Border Patrol.
What we need to do is keep in mind that the Border Patrol's mission
is to enforce immigration law. What we need is a smart, tough, border
security policy, not the military, and certainly not a wall, but more
technology and more Border Patrol agents.
Being from the border, I understand what we need to work on, and I
would ask the House to please consider the Members from the border that
do live there and live there on a daily basis.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.
There can be no question that in this country, at this time, we have
a huge problem along the southern border. As the Congressman from
Arizona indicated, we are being massively invaded every day by hundreds
and thousands of persons. Drug smugglers are among this number. Persons
from terrorist countries are among this number. We need to use every
tool we possibly can to address this situation. We need to authorize
troops on the border in peace time, and we need some rough and tough
people down there to get this situation straight because it is
certainly not straight today.
Stand up for preserving the integrity of the United States of America
and vote ``yes'' for troops on the border.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, every year we come to the
floor and we talk tough about putting troops on the border. It is
expensive. The Department of Defense already has that authority. The
President can direct it at any time based on whatever situation he is
made aware of.
One of the things that I would like to tell my colleagues is that we
are often here talking about issues and about problems and providing
solutions. One of the things, an observation that I will

[[Page H2528]]

make about us is that oftentimes we are very hypocritical about the
things that we say versus the things that we do in the people's House.
In 1986, we passed employer sanctions to address the pull factor in
the issue of illegal immigration and immigration reform. This Congress
failed to fund employer sanctions, failed to fund the very vehicle that
would have addressed the pull factor.
For the last 10 years that I have been in Congress, we have been
debating troops on the border. I would say to my good friend from West
Virginia, my good friend from Arizona, my good friend from California,
if we are interested in controlling the border, if we are truly
interested in doing a good job for the American people, then let's fund
employer sanctions. And short of that, let's fund H.R. 98, which gives
us a fraud-proof Social Security card and a system where employers
would be accountable. You would eliminate the pull factor. We wouldn't
need to have this useless debate on troops on the border.
Vote ``no'' on the Goode amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. 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. 15 printed in House Report No. 109-461
offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), insert the
following new section:

SEC. __. DETERMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTRATHEATER
AND INTERTHEATER AIRLIFT AND SEALIFT MOBILITY
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Determination of Requirements.--The Secretary of
Defense, as part of the 2006 Mobility Capabilities Study,
shall determine Department of Defense mobility requirements
as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall determine intratheater and
intertheater airlift mobility requirements and intratheater
and intertheater sealift mobility requirements (all stated in
terms of million ton miles per day) for executing each
scenario that was modeled in the 2005 Mobility Capabilities
Study and each scenario that is modeled in the 2006 Mobility
Capabilities Study.
(2) The Secretary shall determine intratheater and
intertheater airlift mobility requirements and intratheater
and intertheater sealift mobility requirements (all stated in
terms of million ton miles per day) for executing the
National Military Strategy with a low acceptable level of
risk, with a medium acceptable level of risk, and with a high
acceptable level of risk, for each of the following:
(A) Major combat operations.
(B) The Global War on Terrorism.
(C) Baseline security posture operations.
(D) Homeland defense and civil support operations.
(E) Special operations missions.
(F) Global strike missions.
(G) Strategic nuclear missions.
(b) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2007, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report providing the mobility requirements
determined pursuant to subsection (a). The report shall set
forth each mobility requirement specified in paragraph (1) or
(2) of that subsection.
(c) Mobility Capabilities Studies.--For purposes of this
section:
(1) The term ``2006 Mobility Capabilities Study'' means the
studies conducted by the Secretary of Defense and the Joint
Staff during 2006 as a follow-on to the 2005 Mobility
Capabilities Study.
(2) The term ``2005 Mobility Capabilities Study'' means the
comprehensive Mobility Capabilities Study completed in
December 2005 and conducted through the Office of Program
Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of Defense to
assess mobility needs for all aspects of the National Defense
Strategy.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask support of
my colleagues for this amendment that I am offering which calls for the
Secretary of Defense to include as part of the 2006 update of the
Mobility Capability study, a comprehensive analysis of future air lift
and sea lift mobility requirements.
This study would examine both the strategic and intratheater mobility
requirements with full consideration of all aspects of the national
security strategy, and will analyze low, medium, and high risk
alternatives.
The new analysis will be delivered to Congress by February 4, 2007.
One would ask why this study is important. There has not been a study
that examines our Nation's air lift requirements since prior to 9/11.

{time} 1400

Contrary to past mobility studies, the most recent study analyzed
only the capabilities of the current programmed airlift fleet, but it
did not analyze the Nation's airlift requirements. There is a big
difference between studying capabilities and studying requirements when
prescribing future airlift force level recommendations.
DOD's definition of a military requirement is an established need
justifying the timely allocations of resources to achieve a capability
to accomplish approved military objectives, missions or tasks, all
called operational requirements. Now translated into layman's terms,
this means one cannot effectively allocate resources to achieve a given
capability, in this case airlift resources, without first knowing what
the requirement is.
In 2001, our airlift fleet requirements were at 54.5 million ton-
miles per day. The question that this study asks and seeks to have
answered is, what is the quantitative yardstick that describes the
required airlift needs. Is 54.5 million ton-miles per day enough
airlift? Do we need more? The mobility capability study alone does not
give us this needed information.
As we are all aware, there have been significantly more requirements
pressed upon our airlift fleet over the past 5 years. The world we live
in has changed a great deal. For example, we know our Nation has been
attacked by terrorists. We are engaged in an ongoing global war on
terrorism. Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the gulf coast region, and we
have repeatedly been summoned to help with global humanitarian efforts,
particularly natural disasters such as the tsunami and earthquakes. All
of these occurrences have called upon our Nation's airlift resources.
Furthermore, what concerns me the most is that there does not appear
to be a comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's future
airlift demands.
Last February, the Pentagon released the Quadrennial Defense Review,
QDR, the 20-year blueprint of our Defense Department needs and
projections. Specifically, the QDR recommended the ability to swiftly
defeat two adversaries in overlapping military campaigns with the
option of overthrowing a hostile government in one.
However, in the 2001 strategy, the U.S. military was to be capable of
conducting operations in four regions abroad, Europe, the Middle East,
the Asian littoral and Northeast Asia. But the new plan states that the
past 4 years demonstrated the need for U.S. forces to operate around
the globe and not only in these four regions.
Whatever that scenario is, Mr. Chairman, clearly we need more air
cargo planes, and we know this by experience too. Take the C-17, an air
cargo plane, for example. This air cargo plane is being flown over 167
percent over the normal hours scheduled to deliver supplies to the war
theaters where most planes cannot land, as well as the many
humanitarian missions in which our country is engaged.
Since 9/11/01, the C-17 has flown 59 percent or about 358,000
additional miles more than was originally scheduled. The C-17 has been
on the front line of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eighty percent of
our airlift missions in these battlefronts are done by the C-17.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, after only 15 years in commission, the C-17
fleet just recently reached its 1 millionth flying hour. The C-17,
though, is just one example, but it is an excellent one and an
excellent example of how much our Nation is relying on our airlift
fleet.

[[Page H2529]]

This study will provide a basis for determining the future of our
Nation's airlift fleet. This is about providing our military with the
tools to succeed, and it is about fiscal responsibility, and most
importantly, it is about national security.
I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). Without objection, the gentleman
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
of the gentlewoman from California, and I commend her for her
thoughtfulness for bringing this matter to the House in the form of an
amendment.
This amendment will allow proper congressional oversight for the
mobility system to ensure that our Nation's future force structure and
capabilities will be able to meet the well-defined requirements that
certainly exist, existed prior to September 11, 2001, and certainly
exist to an even greater extent today.
Over the past few month, there have been significant changes in the
Department of the Air Force's position on the necessity of purchasing
additional C-17 aircraft beyond the currently contracted 180. Senior
leaders of the Department of Defense have stated requirements ranging
from 187 to more than 222 C-17 aircraft in the fleet.
However, the last comprehensive analysis of mobility requirements was
released 5 years ago, prior to 9/11, when the global war on terror had
commenced.
The underlying bill, H.R. 5122, includes provisions to authorize
funding for an additional three C-17 aircraft, allow for the retirement
of the 1960s vintage C-5A fleet, that has rarely lived up to its
operational expectations, and set a minimum floor of 299 for strategic
airlift aircraft, which is a necessity and a necessary first step in
meeting our Nation's growing airlift requirements.
This amendment, directing the mobility requirements study, will
enhance our ability to identify the correct future actions needed to
support our Nation's airlift missions capability.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I fully support this amendment, and I urge
all of my colleagues to do the same.
I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I certainly want to support the gentlewoman's amendment also.
Representative Millender-McDonald's amendment is certainly one on which
we should all agree. This is something that needs to be clearly defined
and stated, that airlift and sealift requirements to ensure our
Nation's future mobility force structure capabilities are able to meet
future needs.
In this war, 70 percent of the cargo missions have been flown by C-
17s. That is a 60 percent increase over the military's own prewar
anticipated usage of the plane. In addition to military uses, C-17s
have been used in humanitarian efforts to bring food and supplies to
victims of Hurricane Katrina and to the Far East disasters there last
year.
Senior leaders at the DOD can't seem to find clearly the exact number
of C-17s required. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force states 187
TRANSCOM and Air Mobility Commander stated 200 C-17s are required. The
former TRANSCOM commander, General Handy, whom I respect immensely,
stated that 225 C-17s are required.
In addition to senior leaders of DOD, the Defense Science Board, in a
report dated September 2005, raised concerns about the adequacy of the
Pentagon's organic and strategic sealift and aerial tankers.
Therefore, I support this amendment so we can get on to fulfill our
congressional oversight responsibility and ensure that our mobility
system adequately supports current and future force structure
requirements.
Mr. SAXTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this
comprehensive analysis is critically needed for our military might, for
our strength in doing those things that are asked of us with the
airlift cargo; and it is not only fiscally responsible, but it is
national security.
I ask support for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT. 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. 7 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. Gohmert:
At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 504, after
line 7), add the following new section:

SEC. 2844. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LAND CONVEYANCE
INVOLVING ARMY RESERVE CENTER, MARSHALL, TEXAS.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Army
should consider the feasibility of conveying the Army Reserve
Center at 1209 Pinecrest Drive East in Marshall, Texas, to
the Marshall-Harrison County Veterans Association for the
purpose of assisting the efforts of the Association in
erecting a veterans memorial, creating a park, and
establishing a museum recognizing and honoring the sacrifices
and accomplishments of veterans of the Armed Forces.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that expresses
simply a sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Army should
consider conveying the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Marshall, Texas, to
the Marshall-Harrison County Veterans Association for the purpose of
erecting a veterans memorial, creating a park, and converting the
present building to a veterans museum to recognize and honor the
accomplishments of our Armed Forces.
I have received letters, phone calls and personal visits about such a
project. Harrison County, back in the 1990s, had closed a huge Army
facility. There were thousands of people that lost jobs, and now BRAC
has recommended closing a reserve center there.
This is not trying to undo the BRAC process whatsoever. BRAC is
already closing the reserve center. What this will do is allow them to
transfer this.
We have a letter from the Army indicating this should be surplus,
less than 3 acres. This will allow them to have a veterans museum, a
veterans center, a place veterans can go, many of whom will never have
the opportunity to come here to Washington, D.C., to see the museums
and see the memorials. And it will give them a chance there in East
Texas where there have already been so many jobs lost because of BRAC.
This is a bipartisan issue in the county. There are Democrats and
Republicans both that are urging and pushing for this, and I was proud
to go ahead and bring this amendment as a sense of Congress to urge
that this is something that could be done. It will help the community
in an area there in east Texas.
Recruiting is up, recruiting is going well, but it further emphasizes
and will give an opportunity to emphasize the importance of valor,
duty, honor, country.
I would like to thank Chairman Hunter and his committee for their
hard work on this bill that will undoubtedly benefit our Armed Forces.
I would ask that this amendment also be added to the bill to assist
those folks there in Harrison County.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment; however, I do not intend to vote against the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ORTIZ. I think this is a good amendment and we accept the
amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H2530]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave). I would yield to the gentlewoman for purposes of the
colloquy.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I have recently become aware that the
Army is considering expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Area in
Colorado. I have two concerns about this expansion plan.
First, the Army hasn't been responsive to my questions about their
plans. Second, I am troubled that the Army may use eminent domain or
unfriendly condemnation to acquire property in that area.
You are probably aware that I offered an amendment for today's debate
that would help the farmers and ranchers in my area get information
about this and would limit the powers of eminent domain, but the Rules
Committee did not make that amendment in order and we can't debate it.
But I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your assistance in getting
information on this proposal by the Army.

{time} 1415

I am very disappointed in the lack of response, and I hope the
chairman can use the power of your committee to assist me and the rest
of the Colorado delegation in this matter. Remarkably, when my office
called the Army on this, they said it was ``an academic discussion.''
Thus, they refused to provide any details at all.
Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns.
First, I strongly believe that DOD should make every effort to acquire
property through fair-market value purchases from willing sellers. The
use of eminent domain or unfriendly condemnation should only be used as
a measure of last resort in cases of compelling national security
requirements.
So I would be very pleased to work with the gentlewoman as a
representative of the farmers and ranchers surrounding Pinon Canyon to
ensure that the Army does not use eminent domain before exhausting all
other options.
Secondly, I would note that the defense bill before us today contains
a provision that makes sure that Congress has oversight of DOD plans to
use eminent domain, as its application is a matter of great concern to
all of us.
Finally, I would be happy to work with the Colorado delegation to
talk to the Army and ensure that they are very forthcoming in
discussing plans for the expansion of Pinon Canyon. Having a good
relationship with our communities is an important obligation of the
armed services, and they should certainly sit down with their elected
representatives and discuss their plans and any issues that will
concern the community.
I will be happy to help the gentlewoman on this issue.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for your
commitment to work on this issue, and I look forward to working with
you.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY. 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. 9 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Ms. Hooley:
At the end of subtitle C of title III (page 70, after line
16), add the following new section:

SEC. 324. ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT AND
MANAGE CH-47 HELICOPTER RESET.

The Army and the National Guard Bureau are authorized to
contract with a United States contractor to perform the RESET
of the CH-47 helicopters assigned to the Nevada and Oregon
National Guard in order to reduce the non-operational rate of
their CH-47 fleet. Costs, completion time, and maintenance
capabilities shall be the major considerations in the process
used by the Army and National Guard Bureau in selecting the
contractor to perform the RESET activity.

Amendment No. 9, As Modified, Offered by Ms. Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, 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:

The amendment as modified is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title III (page 70, after line
16), add the following new section:

SEC. 324. REPORT ON CH-47 HELICOPTER RESET.

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report that outlines the
plan of the Army to reset all CH-47 aircraft in the active
and reserve components. The Secretary shall include in the
report a description of the plan, the timeline, and the costs
for the reset of those aircraft.

Ms. HOOLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is accepted,
and, without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment,
which has the support of all of my colleagues in the Oregon delegation.
Our amendment, as agreed to by the chairman and the ranking member,
would require the Secretary of the Army to supply Congress with a
report no later than 60 days from the enactment of this act that
outlines the Army's plan regarding the receipt of all CH-47 aircraft in
the active and Reserve components.
I would like the record to reflect that it is my intent that this
report should include a description of the Army's plan, timeline and
the cost for the reset of those aircraft. I also believe that the
Secretary should include the status of the current backlog and the
options that currently exist to accelerate the reset program.
I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for
working with us on this important issue to address our concerns. I look
forward to working with them in the future to address the problems and
obstacles that I anticipate will be identified in the Secretary's
report regarding the reset program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague,
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague permitting me
to speak on this. As she indicated, this is a bipartisan amendment
sponsored by the entire Oregon House delegation.
Our interest is making sure that the men and women in our armed
services have access to the best possible equipment. Currently, the
efforts that have been under way overseas and at home have put a great
deal of stress and strain. We have had people in the Northwest explain
to us opportunities that they think are available to both save money
and to improve opportunities to make sure that the equipment is
recycled, brought up to par as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I think having a report from the Secretary of the Army in this fashion
will help spotlight this opportunity.
We are confident that we will see real opportunities to save money
while we improve the equipment that our men and women are dealing with.
I appreciate the cooperation both from the Oregon delegation and from
the staff on the minority and the majority in helping move forward so
we have got some good information. I express my appreciation to the
Chair and to the ranking member.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and the
gentlewoman for their contribution here, and just assure them we are
very interested in making sure that this equipment, some of which has
been wearing out pretty quickly in the desert sand in the warfighting
theaters, is maintained in excellent condition, both with our great in-
house resources and our depots and with the private sector, so we use
all of our resources in the U.S. to make sure we have got good, sound
platforms.

[[Page H2531]]

The committee has no objection to the amendment. We thank you for
adding it to the base bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further,
to the extent any time is available, I appreciate the chairman's words
and for emphasizing that we want to be able to take advantage of the
resources where they are. Whether they are the folks we have right now
in the armed services or the private sector, the goal is to do the best
job possible with the resources. We appreciate your cooperation and
your words of support.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about a
compromise amendment that my colleagues and I in the Oregon delegation
negotiated with the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee.
Our amendment requires the Army to send a report to Congress within
60 days of enactment of this bill regarding the Chinook helicopter
Reset program. The Reset program repairs and restores helicopters to
their pre-combat deployment condition. The report requires the Army to
explain its plan to reset all active duty and reserve component
helicopters, including the timeline and cost for doing so.
The reason my colleagues and I offered our original amendment is
because of a dangerous situation facing the Oregon National Guard. The
Oregon National Guard is authorized to have six Chinook helicopters.
One was destroyed on a mission. One is too old and will be turned in to
the Pentagon. The other four need to go through reset after being
deployed to combat zones.
Timely repairs and rehabilitation are essential to ensuring the
Oregon National Guard has the equipment necessary for responding to
public safety threats, including forest fires, as well as other state
emergencies, homeland defense, and proficiency training.
Unfortunately, timely repairs are not happening today. Due to the
influx of aircraft returning from overseas and in need of repair, the
Army depots that generally perform this work are overstretched. As I
understand it, the average time to get a helicopter repaired and
returned to a unit is six months or longer.
I haven't seen the speech yet, but I've been told that Major General
Pillsbury of the Army Materiel Command recently gave a speech at a
conference lamenting how far behind the Army is on the Chinook RESET
program.
According to a letter from the Army in March 2006, the Oregon
National Guard will not get its helicopters back until November 2006.
During the interim period, the Oregon National Guard will have to do
without, which puts Oregon residents at-risk. That is not acceptable.
Congress, the Army and the National Guard Bureau must find a solution
to this problem. One logical solution is for the Army to allow the
Oregon National Guard to contract with a local private sector
helicopter maintenance provider in order to help alleviate the backlog
that would otherwise keep its Chinooks grounded for the next several
months. One company in Oregon, Columbia Helicopters, believes it could
get two Chinooks through the reset process by July, several months
sooner than the Army. Such private sector involvement in the reset
program is not unprecedented. Last year, the Army awarded Boeing a $40
million-plus contract to refurbish Apache helicopters under the reset
program. And, Columbia Helicopters has already done this type of work
for the Nevada National Guard, which had some discretionary money it
spent on getting its helicopters repaired.
Letters in support of this public-private concept have been sent to
the Army since February from myself, the Oregon National Guard, the
Nevada National Guard, Governor Kulongoski of Oregon, Governor Kenny
Guinn of Nevada, Senators Smith, Wyden, Ensign and Reid, and Reps.
Hooley, Wu and Walden. Yet, the Army has not taken any action to
expedite the reset of the Oregon helicopters.
Our amendment today puts the Army on notice that Congress is
interested in this issue and is concerned about growing repair burden
and backlog. Congress needs to ensure accountability by the Army for
timely repairs. This amendment is a first step. I will continue to work
with my colleagues in Oregon and on the committee to try to get the
Army to step up and ensure the National Guard is adequately equipped
and able to carry out its missions year-round.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hooley-DeFazio-Wu-
Blumenauer-Walden amendment to H.R. 5122, the Defense Authorization Act
for FY2007. Our National Guard has been stretched to its limit these
past few years, and without the timely return of equipment and aircraft
to their home units, the Guard's mission is in jeopardy of being
severely compromised. The Oregon Guard has performed outstandingly in
the Middle East and I commend them for their courage and fortitude.
Equipment, especially aircraft, needs thorough and vigorous
refurbishment when they arrive back from combat. Unfortunately, limited
options and a sprawling procurement bureaucracy have created a backlog
for equipment resets. By keeping the options limited, we are doing a
disservice to the Guard by not returning their core assets in a timely
manner.
I support this amendment because this issue cannot wait any longer
and needs to be addressed now. Every day that the Guard has to wait for
an aircraft is another day where they cannot perform their mission. The
Guard is ready to do their duty, now we must be willing to fight for
their needs. I am pleased to join my colleagues in the Oregon
delegation in sponsoring this important measure.
Ms. HOOLEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate or discussion on this
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT. 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. 13 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. McDermott:
At the end of subtitle B of title VII (page 268, after line
9), add the following new section:

SEC. 716. STUDY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED
URANIUM.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary for Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, shall conduct a comprehensive
study of the health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
munitions on uranium-exposed soldiers and on children of
uranium-exposed soldiers who were born after the exposure of
the uranium-exposed soldiers to depleted uranium.
(b) Uranium-Exposed Soldiers.--In this section, the term
``uranium-exposed soldiers'' means a member or former member
of the Armed Forces who handled, came in contact with, or had
the likelihood of contact with depleted uranium munitions
while on active duty, including members and former members
who--
(1) were exposed to smoke from fires resulting from the
burning of vehicles containing depleted uranium munitions or
fires at depots at which depleted uranium munitions were
stored;
(2) worked within environments containing depleted uranium
dust or residues from depleted uranium munitions;
(3) were within a structure or vehicle while it was struck
by a depleted uranium munition;
(4) climbed on or entered equipment or structures struck by
a depleted uranium munition; or
(5) were medical personnel who provided initial treatment
to members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1),
(2), (3), or (4).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to protect and defend the U.S.
soldiers who protect and defend us. I urge the House to pass my
amendment calling for a comprehensive study on possible health effects
on soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium.
I am a medical doctor. Like every doctor, I took an oath to use all
my knowledge and skill to heal the sick. I was trained to listen to the
patient and to use science, not conjecture, to make a diagnosis. I have
been listening to soldiers, and I am greatly troubled.
We need to do a study on the effects of depleted uranium. My
amendment includes a comprehensive study of the effects on our soldiers
from exposure to DU, and also includes the children of our soldiers
born after exposure.
I recognize there have been a number of studies done on this
exposure, but they do not answer all the questions. There has been no
comprehensive study of cancer rates in relationship to DU exposure in
gulf war veterans.
The VA has a volunteer medical DU follow-up program that has been
tracking about 60 veterans who signed themselves up for the study.
These veterans were all friendly fire victims who have DU imbedded in
their body, and I am heartened that the VA has been keeping track of
them. But 60 veterans is not enough to catch cancers that have a rate
of one in 1,000. This sample is not large enough to be statistically
reliable.

[[Page H2532]]

There are about 900 gulf war veterans who have had level one or level
two exposure to DU. We should be studying all of them and keeping track
of all their health. There has been no comprehensive study of the Gulf
War Syndrome in relation to exposure to DU. No definitive cause has
been established for Gulf War Syndrome.
Presently, between 150,000 and 200,000 soldiers who served in Gulf
War I could have Gulf War Syndrome. We need to study the possible
relationship between depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome. Any link
between these two or other negative health effects has not been
conclusively established or refuted.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to stand with me and protect and
defend the soldiers whom we send out to protect and defend us.
For me, this is a personal, not a political, quest. My professional
life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the United
States Navy during the 1960s when I treated combat soldiers returning
from Vietnam. Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed
any threat to soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth began
to emerge. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers; it made thousands sick and
some died.
During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while
our soldiers suffered, and for me there can be no more Agent Orange. We
have to think of that in terms of this DU. If DU poses no danger, we
need to prove it statistically and with independent, scientific
studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it and act
quickly, as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick.
We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads
us.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member rising in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of this
amendment, which I believe is very reasonable and will help ensure our
government is taking proper steps to protect the health of our troops.
Like many heavy metals such as lead, depleted uranium is harmful when
the resulting particles from a burned round are inhaled or ingested.
The use of these munitions, however, also provides a significant
advantage to our soldiers because they have the speed, mass, and
physical properties to penetrate exceptionally well against highly
armored targets.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY. 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. 22 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. Tierney:
At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 50, after line
23), insert the following new section:

SEC. 223. RESTRUCTURING OF MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

(a) Deployment Limitations.--The Secretary of Defense may
not deploy--
(1) any Ground-Based Midcourse Defense systems beyond the
authorized systems at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg
Air Force Base, California; or
(2) any space-based interceptors.
(b) Boost-Phase Defenses.--No funds available to the
Department of Defense may be obligated for deployment of any
boost-phase defense system.
(c) Funding Reduction and Program Terminations.--The amount
provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test,
and evaluation for the Defense Agencies is reduced by
$4,747,000,000, to be derived from amounts for the Missile
Defense Agency as follows:
(1) $595,000,000 from termination of the Airborne Laser
program.
(2) $500,000,000 from termination of additional AEGIS
Ballistic Missile Defense activities.
(3) $286,000,000 from termination of the Kinetic Energy
Interceptor program.
(4) $360,000,000 from termination of the Space Surveillance
and Tracking System.
(5) $56,000,000 from termination of the European Site.
(6) $2,500,000,000 from termination of Additional Ground-
Based Midcourse Deployment.
(7) $450,000,000 from reduction of programs designated as
Other MDA RDT&E Activities.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would adopt the recommendation
of the Congressional Budget Office to restructure our missile defense
programs, specifically, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. The
amendment would instruct the Secretary of Defense not to deploy any
Ground-based Midcourse Defense System beyond the authorized systems
that are now at Fort Greeley, Alaska and, the Vandenberg Air Force Base
in California or any space-based interceptors of intercontinental
ballistic missiles.
It would reduce funding for the research, development, test and
evaluation for the defense agencies by $4,747,000,000.
Under the Congressional Budget Office's ``evolutionary alternative,''
the Department of Defense would fund the capabilities planned for the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense System through 2007.

{time} 1430

Money would continue to be provided to pursue upgrades to the
elements of the ground-based missile defense initial defense
capability, would continue testing its components and would explore
other missile defense concepts.
But the savings on the midcourse missile defense under the
Congressional Budget Office alternative would total $29 billion on a
Department of Defense-wide basis through 2007.
I commend to my colleagues no less than seven reports released in the
last 2 months critical of various aspects of the ballistic missile
system, and I will introduce copies for the Record. Two of them are
from the General Accountability Office, two from the Department of
Defense's own Inspector General's Office, one from the Congressional
Research Office, one from the Congressional Budget Office and one from
the Pentagon's own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
All of them raise doubts about the feasibility of missile defense.
And as a group they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense
system that supposedly, but not actually offers the United States an
initial defense capability.
The Center for Defense Information states in its analysis, changes
are imperative. If the Missile Defense Agency continues in the same
vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled with a
missile defense system that costs tens of billions, possibly hundreds
of billions of dollars, yet provides no actual defense.
What is more, by diverting that money to an unfeasible system, the
United States will miss out on the protection it could be getting from
weapons systems that actually work.
Mr. Chairman, the moneys are important, of course, but having a false
sense of security is dangerous. And not investing these moneys in
needed security systems, systems to protect our space and domestic
assets and for homeland security risk is criminally negligent.
The General Accountability reports note that if the Pentagon does not
move away from its spiral development or acquisition policy where a
system's progress is never held to any sort of accountability, has no
defined parameters, the Department of Defense will continue to start
more programs for more money and create the next set of case studies
for future defense reform reviews.
Fielding systems that still are in early developmental cycles,
rushing them into the field where they have very serious problems with
every component, that is a recipe for disaster. Immature technologies
are not perfected, integration of the systems is not happening, testing
in real-life scenarios is lacking, information assurance controls that
were built to the network are sadly out of date.
This report shows poor quality control, unreasonable, in fact
outrageous, cost growth, and schedule slips and inferior performance.

[[Page H2533]]

An ``F'' for Missile Defense: How Seven Government Reports in Two
Months Illustrate the Need for Missile Defense To Change Its Ways

(By Victoria Samson, CDI Research Analyst)

A certain amount of optimism is required to successfully
guide a weapon system through its development to completion.
However, at a certain point, reality needs to poke through so
that program and service officials can make relatively
objective assessments. Is it working? Is it going to work? Is
it staying on budget and schedule? If not, can it get back on
track? And finally, the most difficult question to ask of a
program: Should it continue?
The multi-faceted missile defense program, currently the
Pentagon's golden child, has effectively avoided any and all
tough questions. Over $92 billion has been spent on missile
defense systems since the Ronald Reagan administration, to
little avail. While the architecture still has not been
finalized, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) envisions a
system of systems, where there are ground-, sea-, and air-
based interceptors supported by a yet-to-be-built satellite
system, new X-band radars that are still being put in place,
and a command and control system that is not secure to
outside interference.
President George W. Bush announced in December 2002 that,
within two years, the United States would have deployed an
initial missile defense system that could defend the United
States against a limited ICBM attack. With that pressure from
above, MDA focused its efforts on the fielding interceptors
in Alaska and California the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
(GMD) system. As of writing, 13 interceptors have been
emplaced in missile silos. As well, MDA is working on a sea-
based interceptor that is carried on the Aegis ship, a sea-
based X-band radar that is slowly floating to its home port
in Alaska, a giant command and control module based out of
Colorado, a satellite network that could track enemy missiles
as they approach the U.S. homeland, and systems that are
geared toward providing defense against shorter-range
ballistic missiles (Theater High Altitude Area Defense
system, or THAAD, and the Patriot Advanced Capability PAC-3
system). In the long run, MDA is building a modified Boeing
747 airplane that would carry lasers in its nose and kinetic
kill vehicles which theoretically could obliterate multiple
targets.
MDA has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility.
It has not lived up to its tasks. In the past two months, no
less than seven reports have been released that were critical
of various aspects of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
(BMDS). For clarity's sake, this analysis will focus largely
on MDA's flagship program, the GMD system, whose existence is
used to falsely claim that the United States has an initial
defensive capability against ICBMs. And to head off
allegations of bias, it must be noted that these reports were
written by non-partisan government agencies. Two reports by
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two from the
Defense Department (DOD)'s own Inspector General's office,
and reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
Congressional Budgetary Office ``(CBO), and the Pentagon's
Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) all raise
doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. As a group,
they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system
that supposedly offers the United States an initial defensive
capability.

overshooting cost goals, falling short of planned achievements

Missile defense programs have featured prominently in two
recent reports by the GAO. The first, ``Assessment of
Selected Major Weapons Programs,'' examines the cost growth
of many Pentagon weapon systems. It notes, ``DOD often
exceeds development cost estimates by approximately 30 to 40
percent and experiences cuts in planned quantities, missed
deadlines, and performance shortfalls.'' The GAO points out,
``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost
and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in
launching product development, and fail to solidify design
and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in
development.'' The missile defense system prides itself on
its ``spiral development'' or acquisition policy that is
constantly evolving, under which a system's progress is never
held to strictly defined parameters.
``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost
and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in
launching product development, and fail to solidify design
and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in
development.''
The GAO takes this type of acquisition policy to task. In
fact, David Walker, comptroller-general of the United States,
warns that if the Pentagon doesn't move away from it, DOD
``will continue to start more programs than it can finish,
produce less capability for more money, and create the next
set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.''
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has argued that the
missile defense program needs the flexibility of spiral
development to allow it to mold itself to future threats and
to incorporate lessons learned while testing. Why other
Pentagon programs somehow manage to hold themselves
accountable and still meet evolving threats is never
discussed by MDA officials. Instead, MDA promotes the idea
that all possible missile defense candidate technologies will
be put through their paces, and eventually testing will prove
the winners and losers. Again, MDA has never stated at which
point it will definitively decide to drop a flagging program.
The closest it has come is in giving one of its programs
(Airborne Laser) what it calls ``knowledge parameters,'' in
an attempt to prove to critics that, despite outward
appearances, there is indeed progress toward development.
Another key part of spiral development is that weapon
systems will be fielded when they are still early in their
development cycles. The intent is that they can continue to
grow and presumably advance while providing some sort of
military utility. What ends up happening is that systems--
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system most
noticeably--are rushed out into the field even when there
are very serious problems with their components... or
indeed, are crucial elements to their architecture still
lacking. For example, the GMD interceptor suffered a
flight test failure in February 2005 due to poor quality
control by its contractor for the arm that holds the
missile up in its silo. In testimony to the Senate Armed
Services Committee on April 4, 2006, Obering acknowledged
this problem and stated that this component would be
replaced on the interceptors that have already been
fielded. Nonetheless, the $40 million missile as
originally designed continues to be built at a rate of one
every two months or so.
The GAO notes that weapon systems development programs
progress much better and keep costs lower if technology is
allowed to mature before being brought into a developmental
or initial operating system. GAO observes that program
acquisition unit costs for programs with mature technologies
increase by less than one percent over original cost
estimates, while the program acquisition unit costs for
programs with immature technologies increase by 27 percent
over the first full estimate.
The report goes on to review various weapon systems to
assess their level of technological maturity and cost growth.
The GMD system's ``concurrent testing and fielding efforts
may lead to additional design changes,'' warns the GAO, and
the program's ``prime contract could overrun its target cost
by as much as $1.5 billion. Boeing, GMD's prime contractor,
has already overrun its budget by $600 million as a result of
quality control issues. As what seems to be the standard for
missile defense, program officials differ from outsiders
about the program: while program officials rate GMD's needed
10 technologies as mature, the GAO differs, stating that
``four have not been demonstrated in an operational
environment and we believe that they cannot be considered
fully mature.'' And since the GAO's last assessment of GMD,
the program's planned budget through fiscal year 2009 (FY 09)
has risen by $2.9 billion, or 11.2 percent.
GMD's cost growth is bad enough, but as it turns out, the
United States is paying more and getting less than
anticipated. In another GAO report, the title says it all:
``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls
Short of Original Goals.'' MDA's accelerated development of
the GMD program in order to reach an initial capability by
the end of 2004 caused the agency to run over that portion of
its budget by $1 billion. For FY 05, GMD contractors had
exceeded anticipated costs by 25 percent. The GAO also took
to task the forced reliance by MDA upon spiral development
``[I]t allowed the GMD program to concurrently mature
technology, complete design activities, and produce and field
assets before end-to-end testing of the system--all at the
expense of cost, quantity, and performance goals.''
In addition, for the initial defensive capability stated as
the goal of the rapid fielding of the overall missile defense
network, MDA fell quite short of what it had hoped to have
accomplished. ``Compared to its original goals set in 2003,
MDA fielded 10 fewer GMD interceptors than planned, two fewer
radars, 11 fewer Aegis BMD missiles, and six fewer Aegis
ships,'' lists the GAO report. The United States has
officially fielded elements of the ballistic missile defense
system architecture, but these are really token efforts. Even
if the systems had proved themselves during testing and
development--which they have not--and even if they had all
their needed components at the ready--which they do not--this
system would be a feeble shadow of what planners had hoped
for.
Spiral development ``allowed the GMD program to
concurrently mature technology, complete design activities,
and produce and field assets before end-to-end testing of the
system--all at the expense of cost, quantity, and performance
goals.''
Another result of rushing the missile defense elements out
into the field is that workmanship has been shoddy, at best.
Poor quality control has been listed time and again as an
explanation for cost growth, schedule slips, and inferior
performance. The GAO report explains, ``According to MDA's
own audits, the interceptor's design requirements were
unclear and sometimes incomplete, design changes were poorly
controlled, and the interceptor's design resulted in
uncertain reliability and service life.'' The GMD interceptor
was not tested to ensure its parts could withstand the harsh
environment in space--which could result in catastrophic
failures after launch as the interceptors are supposed to
impact their targets outside the Earth's atmosphere. Further,
the failures of two recent flight tests--1FT-10 and 1FT-14--
were due to poor quality control procedures. The development
of some parts for the GMD interceptor has been so careless
that, according to the GAO, the parts in question would

[[Page H2534]]

have to be replaced and thus ``the interceptors will be
removed from their silos.'' Neither GAO nor MDA, has yet to
explain at what cost such repairs will have to be made.
Unfortunately, cost growth, schedule slips, and faulty
parts are not specific to missile defense programs. One can
see that easily in every branch of the Pentagon. Where the
missile defense program differs is in the extent of autonomy
and decision-making freedom given to MDA officials managing
the various pieces of the program. Given the pressure they
were under from President George W. Bush's December 2002
announcement that an initial capability would be in place by
the end of 2004, managers decided that the development and
fielding process required a speedier schedule to meet that
deadline. As a result, the GAO recounts, ``MDA officials told
us that because the agency was directed to field a capability
earlier than planned, it accepted additional risks.''
The agency was able to accelerate fielding because MDA
officials have been given unprecedented liberties with
acquisition planning and scheduling. They are further allowed
to shift around funding from one program element to another
as they see fit, under special rules set up by DOD. According
to the GAO, ``Compared with other DOD programs, MDA has
greater latitude to make changes to the BMDS [Ballistic
Missile Defense Program] program without seeking the approval
of high-level acquisition executives outside the
program.'' Because of this flexibility, while MDA does
inform Congress and DOD of funding rearrangements,
accountability is practically nil; instead, its version of
it has ``thus become broadly applied as to mean delivering
some capability within funding allocations.''
MDA is also free of requirements that all other major DOD
acquisition programs must undertake in regards to
establishing baseline estimates of cost, performance and
schedule. If other programs slip in meeting those
predetermined requirements, Pentagon and/or service managers
must alert Congress. If any program sees cost growth up to a
certain amount in one quarter, it is considered to have
suffered a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, which means DOD
must alert Congress of the problem. If the cost growth is
over 25 percent in a single quarter, DOD then must overhaul
and justify the offending program. The Ballistic Missile
Defense System, however, is exempt from these requirements.
MDA officials have much more flexible baselines for their
programs. MDA can avoid having to report programs' quarterly
cost growth simply by changing cost goals and estimates.
Also, MDA has the responsibility of deciding when it will
alert Congress to schedule slips or cost growths, since
``there are no criteria to identify which variations are
significant enough to report. Instead, MDA's Director, by
statute, has the discretion to determine which variations
will be reported.''
MDA officials do not have to hold themselves accountable to
any particular standard or report if certain achievements
have not been met. And Congress has, up to now, refrained
from complaining about its lack of oversight over the $10
billion dollar a year MDA budget.
Up to now, the only ``achievements'' reported by MDA have
been the flight test failures. The MDA has even stopped
announcing when it has emplaced new interceptors at missile
silos in Alaska and California. Ostensibly, this is because
of operational security needs, but in actuality, it is more
likely a move designed to avoid bad press as testing and
deployment goes forward.

NETWORK SECURITY AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING: FIGMENTS OF MDA'S IMAGINATION

The Pentagon Inspector General's (IG) office came out with
two reports this winter that illustrate how every aspect of
the Ballistic Missile Defense System has seen sloppy work
indicative of low standards of oversight.
The first report reveals that the communications network
linking the various radars, infrastructure, and elements of
the GMD system, is extremely limited. The IG's office noted
that the security documents in place for the system ``did not
properly reflect current operations;'' furthermore, MDA
officials ``had not fully implemented information assurance
controls required to protect the integrity, availability, and
confidentiality of the information in the [GMD]
communications network.''
Because of this, ``MDA officials may not be able to reduce
the risk and extent of harm resulting from misuse or
unauthorized access to or modification of information of the
GCN [GMD Communications Network] and ensure the continuity of
the system in the event of a disruption.'' That is to say,
network security is lacking. So now, in addition to worrying
about whether the rudimentary system now deployed would
launch and target threatening missiles effectively in the
event of an emergency, planners have to head off the
possibility that some bored teenager could hack into the
system and disrupt it at a key moment.
A draft version of this report recommended, ``MDA and
contractor officials should immediately cease operation of
the system.''
The security procedures for the GMD Communications Network
were completely bungled, as the IG report indicates. For one,
``[C]ontingency plans and system rules of behavior had not
been prepared to assist users.'' Group passwords were used to
access the unencrypted communications system, even though
individual passwords were required. Documentation for the
unencrypted system had the encrypted system's security
concept (defined in the document as ``a description of the
GCN security requirements and the resources needed to meet
those requirements''), while the encrypted system's
documentation didn't contain any security concepts. Explains
the IG's office, ``This oversight occurred because the
encrypted equipment and the unencrypted equipment were
developed by two separate contractors [respectively, Boeing
and Northrop Grumman], who were not following a common set of
procedures for preparing documentation.''
The few information assurance controls that were built for
the network were sadly out of date. The network was created
by program officials to conform to ``Department of Defense
Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria,'' a document
that is dated Dec. 26, 1985. This old set of criteria was
used instead of a more recent set of required criteria, found
in: ``Missile Assurance Categories (MAC) Levels for Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) Systems and Networks,'' dated Aug. 20,
2004.
It would appear that network security was a low priority
for MDA, as the Communication Network's first information
assurance officer wasn't brought on board until June 2005,
long after the system had been in development--indeed, after
GMD had been declared to have reached an initial defensive
capability. No one was in charge of making sure the
contractors working on system had appropriate levels of
security clearance or were fully aware of their
responsibilities regarding network security.
The IG's office was so alarmed at the absence of network
security practices that a draft version of its report
recommended that until fixes were in place, ``MDA and
contractor officials should immediately cease operation of
the system.'' While this recommendation did not make it into
the final draft, it signifies the gravity of MDA's lack of
planning.
An interesting coda to this report was how the Pentagon
reacted once news of it hit the press. Federal Computer
Weekly ran a story on it March 16, 2006. By the following
Monday, the IG's office had taken the relevant report off of
its website, with only this as explanation: ``The Missile
Defense Agency requested that we remove this report from our
web site pending a security review.'' The report is now
marked ``For Official Use Only.''
Another report by the Pentagon's IG office raised concerns
about another aspect of how the overall BMDS system's various
components would function together. According to it, ``The
Missile Defense Agency had not completed a systems
engineering plan or planned fully for system sustainment.
Therefore, the Missile Defense Agency is at risk of not
successfully developing an integrated ballistic missile
defense system.'' Systems engineering, the process of making
sure a developing weapon system meets the capabilities
required of it and ensuring it becomes operational, is a key
in making certain that ideas on the drawing board end up in
the final product. In a complicated architecture such as
missile defense that has interceptors and control stations on
the ground, in the air, and on the sea, involves numerous
radar and satellite networks, and dips in and out of various
Pentagon services and commands, systems engineering would be
imperative to guarantee that the various elements would
smoothly work together as planned.
Its failure to provide a systems engineering plan is
partially due to the fact that MDA didn't follow
instructions. But, as seems to be often the case, the problem
also can be traced to the order speeding up initial
deployment. According to the IG office's report, ``Another
cause was that MDA was tasked with designing a single
integrated system from a group of preexisting acquisition
programs and fielding a missile defense capability quickly.
As a result, the BMDS ability to develop and integrate the
elements into a system that meets U.S. requirements is at
risk.'' Furthermore, ``because MDA was rushing to field an
initial BMDS capability, it had not fully planned for system
sustainment.'' System sustainment is described in the
document as ``a support program that meets operational
support performance requirements and sustains the system in
the most cost-effective manner.'' This conclusion is not
surprising, as ``cost-effective'' and ``missile defense'' are
rarely used in the same sentence.
``Missile Defense Agency is at risk of not successfully
developing an integrated ballistic missile defense system.''
MDA also ducked creating a comprehensive Logistics Support
Plan, as it should have and was legally obligated to do.
According to the IG office's report, instead, ``each element
is responsible for planning the following eight logistics-
support-related areas: supply; equipment; packing, handling,
storing, and transportation; facilities; computer resources;
technical data; maintenance planning; and manpower and
personnel. Sounds like a recipe for overlaps, gaps, and
confusion.

FLAT LEARNING CURVE

While missile defense's spiral development is a phenomenon
of the Bush administration, the United States has been
working for decades on the capabilities being sought. A
recent CRS report pointed out that the kinetic energy kill
vehicle for the GMD system has predecessors dating back to
the administration of Ronald Reagan. While CRS typically
strives not to come down on one side or another of the issue,
the report does make some revealing statements. It sums,
``The

[[Page H2535]]

data on the U.S. flight test effort to develop a national
missile defense (NMD) system is mixed and ambiguous. There is
no recognizable pattern to explain this record nor is there
conclusive evidence of a learning curve over more than two
decades of developmental testing.''
With four long-range kinetic energy intercept efforts
attempted since Reagan's 1983 ``Star Wars'' speech--Homing
Overlay Experiment (HOE), Exoatmospheric Reentry Interceptor
Subsystem (ERIS), NMD, and GMD--there should be some sort of
body of knowledge being built about how these systems work
that could be drawn upon as needed. The CRS report
acknowledges that the systems under development at various
times were different, but it reasons, ``[T]hey were built on
the limited successes of their predecessors.''
``The data on the U.S. flight test effort to develop a
national missile defense (NMD) system is mixed and ambiguous.
There is no recognizable pattern to explain this record nor
is there conclusive evidence of a learning curve over more
than two decades of developmental testing.''
Examining flight test intercept attempts since the 1980s
for these long-range systems, the CRS dryly notes ``the
mostly unsuccessfully history of the effort.'' Additionally,
it highlights the absence of ``conclusive evidence of a
learning curve, such as increased success over time relative
to the first tests of the concept 20 years ago.'' Given that
in the near past, flight testing has slowed down and suffered
from a rash of quality control problems, it would seem that
MDA definitely has not learned which processes would help aid
the development of the GMD system. This is not to say that
progress has not been made. However, with this
administration's insistence on reinventing the wheel when it
comes to major weapons acquisition strategies, there seems to
be quite a lot of institutional knowledge regarding
development that is being ignored.
CRS is unable to answer the two major questions about GMD.
It terms the possibility of eventually developing a workable
version of anything with that sort of capability as
``ambiguous at this juncture.'' And it stoutly refuses to
speculate as to whether GMD would work in an emergency,
equivocating, ``Currently, there is insufficient empirical
data to support a clear answer.''

another guarded assessment

Another report which is subtly skeptical about the reported
initial defensive capability of the GMD system is the January
2006 DOT&E report. This most recent version of the annual
assessment of the previous fiscal year's activities and
achievements for various Pentagon weapon systems came out
studiously cautious about the program.
Highlighting GMD's flight test failures, when the
interceptor rocket failed to leave the launch pad in both
cases, the DOT&E report still inexplicably claims,
``Developmental testing to date indicates that the GMD system
may have some inherent defensive capability against a limited
missile attack.'' But this is a downgrade from the previous
year's assessment of GMD, which had said it ``should have
some limited capability.''
``Flight tests still lack operational realism. This will
remain the case over the next year.''
At any rate, the DOT&E report does support other critiques
of GMD. It explains the flight test failures as a result of
``Quality, workmanship, and inadequate ground testing.''
Across the board, GMD quality control has been appalling, a
turn of events that is surprising given the political
spotlight shining on the system. Whether this deficiency in
quality control is primarily the result of the insufficient
oversight or a natural by-product of fast-forwarded fielding
is hard to determine. Either way, it is an area that should
require the immediate attention of MDA leadership and program
managers.
The DOT&E report echoes claims made by many critics in
warning, ``Flight tests still lack operational realism. This
will remain the case over the next year.'' Moreover, ``Robust
testing is limited by the immaturity of some components.''
This can all be interpreted as dubiousness about GMD's flight
test program and assertions that the interceptors'
effectiveness in defending the United States against missile
attack can be extrapolated from the meager successes it has
achieved to date. As the DOT&E report comments, ``The lack of
flight test validation data for the simulations that support
the ground testing limits confidence in assessments of
defensive capabilities.'' Modeling and simulation can only do
so much; after a certain point, actual flight tests must be
held to determine the reliability of the GMD system. Such
tests also must include scenarios that mimic the real-world
situations in which the GMD system could conceivably be used.
Otherwise, it will continue to be impossible to judge the
potential effectiveness of GMD as it is now being developed.
The consistent delays of scheduled tests (or cancellation
of them, as was the case when MDA was rushing to meet the
2004 initial deployment deadline) means that chances to learn
about the GMD system are being missed. Each $100 million
flight test truly is a valuable learning experience for all
involved. The DOT&E report observes, ``[O]ptimistic estimates
for the development and integration of a GMD capability
result in frequent `fact-of-life' changes to the test
schedules.'' Wishing for a capability cannot create one.
Missile defense has long been distanced from reality and this
would be a prime example of the result.

doubling in seven years

Looking to the future, expenditure on missile defense will
double in seven years if the current rate is maintained. A
recent CBO report examined spending on major weapon systems
and offered transformational and evolutionary alternatives.
The former would be options that ``place more emphasis on
acquiring the advanced weapons and capabilities that DOD
associates with military transformation,'' while the latter
would be a chance to ``forgo those advanced systems and
instead pursue upgrades to current capabilities.''
``[I]f, however, costs grow as they have historically,
pursuing the programs included in CBO's missile defense
projection will cost an additional $3 billion a year, on
average, peaking at about $19 billion in 2013.''
Missile defense, given the tremendous size of its budget
(over $11 billion for missile defense-related programs in the
FY 07 budget request), was one of the programs chosen for
further scrutiny. The CBO had to guess as to the makeup of
missile defense's eventual architecture, as missile defense
has been excused from the normal Pentagon routine of having
to establish clearly defined cost, growth, and performance
parameters.
Even with this limitation, CBO prognosticates that missile
defense expenditure will reach its crest of $15 billion by
2013, after which it would slowly decline once the programs
enter their operational stages. Yet the CBO admits it could
be higher: ``[I]f, however, costs grow as they have
historically, pursuing the programs included in CBO's missile
defense projection will cost an additional $3 billion a year,
on average, peaking at about $19 billion in 2013.''
This is not the only possibility for missile defense
spending. The CBO's evolutionary alternative consists of,
``DOD would deploy no additional ground-, sea-, air-, or
space-based missile defenses beyond those already in place.
Continuing efforts would be confined solely to research and
testing of missile defense concepts.''
With all that objective government agencies have written
about missile defense's frailties and weaknesses, redirecting
the MDA's emphasis toward working with the technology that it
has and ensuring that it works properly makes a dangerous
amount of sense. But with the politicization of the program
and the prominence given to showing some sort of capability
in the field, it seems unlikely that this administration
would take this sensible tack. However, it remains as a
potent option that the next administration should keep in
mind.

taking off the rose-colored glasses

Throughout these reports, several common themes emerge.
Unrealistic assumptions were made about the pace of missile
defense development. In fact, the overarching policy of using
spiral development seems to have backfired on MDA, as it
slowed progress instead of quickening the pace of
development.
The decision by the president to rush the GMD program's
fielding created ripple effects that are still being
discovered. It inculcated a rushed attitude, where
contractors felt that quality control could be ignored just
as long as the 2004 deadline was met. Accordingly, GMD has
suffered a rush to failure that has put what would be a
laughable system in the field . . . if there weren't policy-
makers who falsely believe that it can be depended upon to
provide defense of the United States.
Another consequence of the heavy White House pressure is
that MDA has been exempted of most reporting obligations. In
theory, this was done to give MDA the freedom to explore
every technological approach possible in the hopes that it
would soon be able to whittle down choices to a manageable
few. It has done the opposite. Programs fail to produce
results, run over budget, and delay interminably--but are not
killed. Yet because there was no baseline that MDA had to
create for the programs, there is a great deal of difficulty
in trying to measure what could be termed progress.
MDA's flexibility in accounting requirements has spilled
over into how it holds itself accountable. Last year's flight
test failures should have been a wake-up call to the agency.
After the second test failure in a row, MDA halted GMD's
flight test program while it held investigations. An
independent review team was created to determine the cause of
the failures and what practices would allow for a successful
launch. It had five key recommendations for the GMD flight
test program. According to the presentation given to Obering
in March 2005, MDA should: ``Establish a More Rigorous Flight
Readiness Certification Process [with the subcategory of Make
`Test as you fly, fly as you test' the standard]; Strengthen
Systems Engineering; ``Perform additional ground-based
qualification testing as a requirement for flight testing;
``Hold contractor functional organizations accountable for
supporting prime contract management; Assure that the GMD
program is executable.'' While these are solid
recommendations, the primary cause of the flight test
failures--the rush to deploy--is played down.
A Mission Readiness Task Force was also created to review
the preparation leading up to the GMD flight tests, and a
Director of Mission Readiness was established. The first
director was Adm. Kathleen Paige, who had been program
director of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. She
retired in November 2005 and it is unclear as to whether she
was replaced.

[[Page H2536]]

At any rate, MDA's operating mode, despite having created
these task forces, has not in any real way changed.
What becomes apparent from reading these seven reports is
that changes are imperative. If MDA continues in the same
vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled
with a missile defense system that costs tens of billions,
possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars, yet provides no
actual defense. What's more, by diverting that money to an
unfeasible system, the United States will miss out on the
protection it could be getting from weapon systems that
actually work. An honest assessment of the overall
architecture is required before more time and funding is
lost.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because it would
have a great negative impact on national security by severely
curtailing or terminating programs that protect our country against
rogue nations.
Simply put, now is not the time to gut our missile defense programs
by slashing the Missile Defense Agency's budget in half, given the
threats posed by such countries as North Korea and Iran.
This amendment would freeze in place both ground-based and the Aegis
midcourse defense capabilities prior to finishing what we started with
the Fort Greeley, Alaska, GMD installation. We have had tremendous
success with the Aegis program. Six of the seven last intercept tests
have been hits. Why in the world would you stop this now?
In addition, this amendment would kill the Airborne Laser and Kinetic
Energy Interceptor boost phase defense programs, just when both
promises are approaching significant milestones in 2008.
General Cartwright, Commander of STRATCOM, has repeatedly told me how
important it is to stay the course with the Airborne Laser Programs,
whose directed energy capability is of a critical importance to the
Department of Defense. This amendment would kill the ABL program after
more than $3 billion has been invested. It would be a tremendous waste
of taxpayers' money not to go ahead and follow through with the ABL
program to see how well it works.
The amendment cites the Congressional Budget Office report on long-
term implications of current defense plans and alternatives. Let me
repeat, ``and alternatives.'' The evolutionary alternative in this CBO
report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement by CBO of cutting
MDA programs. This report simply looked at the impact of future defense
budgets, of alternative options to meet hypothetical, hypothetical
spending targets. The CBO, and this was confirmed this today by my
staff, does not endorse or support this proposal. It was merely another
option as part of funding a ``what if'' drill, an academic situation,
if you will.
This amendment could drastically cut the budget of our missile
defense. While we all understand the missile defense architecture is
complicated and costly, long term, it is crucial in today's world if we
will continue our primary national defense into the future.
There will never be a time to cut investments in our Nation's
protection. That is what this does. I strongly encourage my colleagues
to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the Missile Defense Agency has before it
really an impossible task. Our current missile system programs have not
worked, and wishing will not help it to overcome the physics. The tests
have failed repeatedly. It has been confused by decoys, faced numerous
testing troubles, and despite spending over $100 billion over the
years, we have failed to develop a working system.
Mr. Tierney referred to the seven separate reports that are critical
of various aspects of this program. Our amendment is not just pulled
out of a hat, it focuses this program down to allow the Missile Defense
Agency to work in those areas where it can make progress. The programs
have gotten so far out in front of the basic facts that it is time to
focus this down.
You know, our colleagues say they do not want to shortchange our
national defense, but I can assure you that cutting wasteful programs
does not shortchange our national defense. Seven separate reports by
independent agencies here say that aspects of this program are
wasteful. They simply are not working. It is time to focus it down.
You know, one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard is that we
should deploy this missile defense system as a way to test it. I cannot
think of any aspect of your life, any aspect of military preparedness,
any aspect of business or industry where you work that way. It should
be thoroughly tested before it is deployed. And to deploy something
like this is worse than a waste.
To deploy a flawed system, well, simple strategic analysis tells us
that a provocative yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens
the security of all Americans.
The idea that we have sunk lots of cost is the argument that keeps
coming back. That is one of the worst fallacies in human reasoning. We
need to stop throwing good money after bad and focus this program down.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friends on the other
side, let me say that the gentleman is probably not aware of a missile
which was deployed before it was finally finished, which the Israelis
used.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes) who is on the Intel Committee and also on the Strategic Forces
Committee that handles missile defense.
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in support of
the committee's efforts to obtain effective and fully tested missile
defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.
Today is not a time to be cutting funds from this critical program. I
am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment would
impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems, because just
this morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a
simulated target.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to slow down this important theater
defense program. I urge my colleagues to support this committee's
bipartisan approach and to defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of
the Committee's efforts to obtain effective, fully-tested missile
defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.
H.R. 5122 redirects missile defense funding from longer range
programs--such as the multiple kill vehicle--to near term needs, such
as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can
protect our service members and allies today. It also places
restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based midcourse
defense system until after it successfully intercepts two operationally
realistic warheads, and it prevents any development of space-based
interceptors.
While we might disagree about whether further adjustments or
reductions are possible, I commend the subcommittee chairman for this
good-faith effort to develop a bipartisan approach to missile defense.
The amendment before us today goes too far in radically restructuring
missile defense programs. It would essentially freeze our missile
defense capabilities at their current level and it would terminate
numerous programs before we obtain useful information about whether
they can improve our defenses against missiles launched by a rogue
nation.
I am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment
would impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems. Just this
morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a
simulated target. We cannot afford to slow down this important theatre
defense program.
I urge my colleagues to support the Committee's bipartisan approach
and to defeat this amendment.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, let me now yield any time remaining to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who is also very knowledgable about
missile defense and also on the Intel Committee and the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank my colleague from Alabama and also my colleague
from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tierney-Holt
Amendment. I do so reluctantly, because I respect the two gentlemen,
and we serve on the House Intelligence Committee together as well.

[[Page H2537]]

This amendment would reduce the Missile Defense Agency's $9.38
billion roughly by half. And now is not the time to do that, to say the
least. We have been involved in sensitive briefings lately on the
Appropriations Committee and the House Intelligence Committee that talk
about the threats that we have got to invest our technology in.
In 2005, there were 60 launches that involved short-range ballistic
missiles, 10 involved medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and
about 10 involved long-range ballistic missiles. We have already
invested heavily in several key programs to defend against this threat,
and the programs are just now providing the kind of technology that has
got to be refined in order to defend us.
We have got sensitive intelligence issues, sensitive defense issues
against this country. The negative impacts that this amendment now
would have on the budget cuts would be drastic.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. 10 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. Hostettler:
At the end of subtitle C of title V (page 126, after line
12), insert the following new section:

SEC. __. SPECIAL OPERATIONS FELLOWSHIPS.

(a) Fellowships.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations under which the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict may award a
fellowship to an eligible person, as described in subsection
(b), in a discipline determined by the Assistant Secretary.
The authority to award any amount of funds to any person as a
fellowship under this section is subject to the availability
of funds for that purpose.
(b) Eligible Person.--A person eligible for a fellowship
under this section is a citizen or national of the United
States who is enrolled in or is eligible to enroll in a
program of education leading toward the completion of a
masters degree or a doctoral degree.
(c) Fellowship Requirements.--
(1) Doctoral degree students.--The recipient of a
fellowship who is a student enrolled in a program of
education leading toward the completion of a doctoral degree
shall agree to prepare a doctoral dissertation in a subject
area with military relevance that is approved by the
Assistant Secretary.
(2) Masters degree students.--The recipient of a fellowship
who is a student enrolled in a program of education leading
toward the completion of a masters degree shall agree to
concentrate the masters degree on a subject area with
military relevance that is approved by the Assistant
Secretary.
(d) Regulations.--The regulations required to be prescribed
under this section shall include each of the following:
(1) The criteria for the award of fellowships under this
section.
(2) The procedure for selecting recipients of such
fellowships.
(3) The basis for determining the amount a fellowship
recipient will receive.
(4) The total amount that may be used to award fellowships
during an academic year.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana, the Chair would ask anyone with a cell phone in the Chamber to
turn it off.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlemen from Indiana.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, Special Operations Forces have played
an increasingly important role in our wars against nonstate actors.
Therefore, I believe we need to encourage our Nation's best and
brightest military scholars to focus on the scholarly research needs of
our special operators.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this new fellowship program will nurture and
cultivate the kind of academic scholarship that will help our special
operators gain an even greater upper hand against our Nation's
adversaries. We supply them with the best weapons in the world. We
must, as well, see to it that they benefit from the research of some of
our Nation's best scholars.
If enacted into law, my amendment would authorize the Secretary of
Defense to prescribe regulations under which the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict will award a
fellowship to an eligible person, as described in the legislation, in a
discipline determined by the Assistant Secretary.
The authority to award any amount of funds to any person as a
fellowship under this section is subject to the availability of funds
for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that we give our men and
women in uniform all of the tools necessary to fight and win our
Nation's wars overwhelmingly. And one way to do that is to give them
access to the best scholarship available in their respective fields.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I will not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. In fact, I rise to support the amendment. The asymmetric
threats that are based by our country today require a complex set of
skills to successfully address those threats. Certainly the men and
women of our Special Forces possess many of those skills. They do a
fabulous job.
And it is our job to try to assist them and facilitate them in their
work. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment, I think, gives these
American heroes one more tool, one more opportunity to excel.
Asymmetric warfare certainly involves the use of force and the use of
strategy on the battlefield. But it also solves intimate knowledge of
sociology, language, history, physics, and perhaps other disciplines
that go well beyond that.

{time} 1445

Our ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Skelton, has been a
leading voice for military education throughout his time here. We think
this amendment is consistent with Mr. Skelton's devotion to that
principle.
We want our Special Forces men and women not simply to be physically
prepared, technologically armed and equipped but to have the
intellectual tools necessary to do their job and defend the country. We
believe this amendment serves those values well. We are pleased to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House
Report 109-461 consisting of amendment No. 18; amendment No.
11; amendment No. 12; and amendment No. 14.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title VIII (page 295, after
line 20), add the following new section:

SEC. 815. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CONTRACTOR
PERSONNEL.

(a) Report and Requirements Relating to Contracts To Be
Performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.--
(1) Inspector general report.--Not later than March 1,
2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on overcharges discovered
by the Inspector General under contracts entered into by the
Department for work to be performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(2) Assignment of sufficient contracting officers.--The
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology shall ensure that sufficient contracting officers
are assigned to oversee and monitor contracts entered into by
the Department of Defense for work to be performed in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
(b) Requirements Relating to Employees of Defense
Contractors Operating Outside the United States.--

[[Page H2538]]

(1) Background checks.--The Secretary of Defense shall
implement a policy for conducting comprehensive background
checks on foreign nationals hired by contractors (and
subcontractors at any tier) of the Department of Defense
operating outside the United States. The type of background
check included in such policy shall be suitable for
employment screening and shall, at a minimum, include a
determination of whether the potential employee is on a
terrorist watch list or has a criminal record. The policy
shall provide for completing such background checks as
quickly as possible.
(2) Prohibition on hiring certain employees.--A contractor
(or subcontractor at any tier) of the Department of Defense
operating outside the United States may not hire any person--
(A) who has been convicted of a violent felony; or
(B) who is determined by the Secretary of Defense to have
committed acts inconsistent with the policy of the Department
of Defense on human rights.
(c) Report and Applicability of Defense Instruction
Relating to Contractor Personnel Authorized To Accompany the
Armed Forces.--
(1) Report on implementation of instruction.--The Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
Department of Defense instruction described in paragraph (3).
The report shall include information on the status of the
implementation of the instruction, how the instruction is
being enforced, and the effectiveness of the instruction.
(2) Requirement to apply to contracts.--The Department of
Defense instruction described in paragraph (3) shall apply
to--
(A) contracts entered into by the Department of Defense
after the date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) task orders issued after the date of the enactment of
this Act under contracts in existence on the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(C) contracts in existence on the date of the enactment of
this Act with respect to which an option to extend the
contract is exercised after such date.
(3) Instruction described.--The instruction referred to in
this subsection is Department of Defense Instruction Number
3020.14, titled ``Contractor Personnel Authorized to
Accompany the United States Armed Forces''.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Jindal

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), add the
following new section:

SEC. 1041. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR ARMED
FORCES SUPPORT FOR CIVIL AUTHORITIES.

The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and State governments, shall
develop detailed operational plans regarding the use of the
Armed Forces to support activities of civil authorities,
known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities missions. These
plans shall specifically address response options to
hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, pandemic, and other
natural disasters.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Kentucky

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VI (page 237, after line 8), add the
following new section:

SEC. 664. PHASED RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF PAY MADE TO
MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

(a) Phase Recovery Required; Maximum Monthly Installment.--
Subsection (c) of section 1007 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) If the indebtedness of a member of the uniformed
services to the United States is due to the overpayment of
pay or allowances to the member through no fault of the
member, the amount of the overpayment shall be recovered in
monthly installments. The amount deducted from the pay of the
member for a month to recover the overpayment amount may not
exceed 20 percent of the member's pay for that month.''.
(b) Recovery Delay for Injured Members.--Such subsection is
further amended by inserting after paragraph (3), as added by
subsection (a), the following new paragraph:
``(4) If a member of the uniformed services is injured or
wounded under the circumstances described in section
310(a)(2)(C) of this title or, while in the line of duty,
incurs a wound, injury, or illness in a combat operation or
combat zone designated by the Secretary of Defense, any
overpayment of pay or allowances made to the member while the
member recovers from the wound, injury, or illness may not be
deducted from the member's pay until after the end of the 90-
day period beginning on the date on which the member is
notified of the overpayment.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such subsection is further
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Under regulations'';
(2) by striking ``his pay'' both places it appears and
inserting ``the member's pay'';
(3) by striking ``However, after'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) After''; and
(4) by inserting ``by a member of the uniformed services''
after ``actually received''.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Mica

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VI (page 237, after line 8), insert the
following new section:

SEC. 6__. SENSE OF CONGRESS CALLING FOR PAYMENT TO WORLD WAR
II VETERANS WHO SURVIVED BATAAN DEATH MARCH.

(a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) there should be paid to each living Battan Death March
survivor an amount that is $4 for each day of captivity
during World War II, compounded annually at a 3 percent
annual rate of interest; and
(2) in the case of a Battan Death March survivor who is
deceased and who has an unremarried surviving spouse, such a
payment should be made to that surviving spouse.
(b) Bataan Death March Survivor.--In this section, the term
``Bataan Death March survivor'' means an individual who as a
member of the Armed Forces during World War II was captured
on the peninsula of Bataan or island of Corregidor in the
territory of the Philippines by Japanese forces and
participated in and survived the Bataan Death March.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the Schakowsky amendment, the gentlewoman from
Illinois provides for additional oversight and accountability of
Department of Defense contractors deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It
would make retroactive DOD regulations for contractors issued in
October 2005 on previously issued contracts upon any extension brought
about by an option.
It would implement a policy for conducting comprehensive background
checks on foreign nationals hired by contractors operating outside of
the U.S. and would also require a DOD Inspector General report on
contractor overcharges and require that there are sufficient
contracting officers assigned to oversee and monitor contracts in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The amendment offered by Mr. Jindal would require the Secretary of
Defense in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and
State governments to develop detailed operational plans regarding the
use of the Armed Forces to support activities of civil authorities
known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities Missions.
The amendment that is offered by Mr. Lewis of Kentucky would provide
that no more than 20 percent of a uniformed servicemember's paycheck
can be garnished in a single pay period to recover overpayments that
have occurred through no fault of the servicemember. That was always my
contention.
It would also provide a 90-day grace period before overpayment
recovery can begin from servicemembers who are wounded or injured or
who incur an illness in a combat operation or combat zone.
Finally, the Mica amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should
provide compensation to American veterans who are captured while in
service to the United States Armed Forces on the peninsula of Bataan or
the island of Corregidor, survived the Bataan Death March during World
War II and have not received previous compensation provided to other
prisoners of war.
I might just say about that amendment, Mr. Chairman, these great
Americans came back and met with many of us over the last several
years, these great survivors of the Bataan Death March. And many of
them, according to their testimony, were taken by ship after the death
march in which many of them were killed, bayoneted, decapitated,
otherwise killed; they were taken to Japan and in many cases were
turned over to Japanese industry, including companies that are
corporate giants today like Matsui and Mitsubishi. And these Japanese
corporations took the Americans as slaves from the Japanese Government.
They turned them over to them as POWs. And they put them in slave labor
operations, in many cases involving mines, for example, that were
considered to be unsafe for Japanese workers. They would push the
Americans into those mines.

[[Page H2539]]

I can recall some of the Americans testifying when they came back and
met with us on the Hill about the brutality that took place. The time
one of our great survivors of the Bataan Death March from California
had a rock fall on him in a cave-in in this unsafe mine that they were
working in as slaves to these corporations, and his leg was crushed by
a rock. And an American doctor who was also a POW operated on that
Bataan Death March survivor with a single rusty razor blade and the
anesthetic was to have the biggest guy in the POW camp knock him out
before they did the operation, and then they used maggots to clean the
wound. And that great American was back here testifying a couple of
years ago to the U.S. Congress.
Those POWs sought redress from the corporations which had used them
as slaves in their operations saying we want to be paid for this work
that we performed as slave labor. The corporations resisted this
mightily in a series of lawsuits. And I thought it was sad that the
U.S. Government intervened on the opposite side, on the other side from
the American POWs, claiming that the treaty that was signed after the
war essentially eliminated any rights on behalf of the POWs other than
the one dollar a day that they received as compensation for their POW
status.
So those great Americans did not win. They ultimately faced summary
judgments in American courts and received no compensation from these
massive corporations. In fact, some of the biggest corporations in the
world which when they enslaved these Americans were not nationalized by
the Japanese Government, but in fact remain private corporations and
developed a lot of their operations or carried on a lot of their
operations using American slave labor.
So the lawsuits were quashed and these Americans, those that still
survive, never got any redress. So I would just say that Mr. Mica's
amendment particularly struck a cord with this member of the Armed
Services Committee, and I would recommend that all these amendments be
supported.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member
Skelton and their Armed Service Committee staffs for working with me to
bring this amendment dealing with private military contractors to the
floor. I really appreciate your help and that of your staff.
My amendment would provide for additional oversight and
accountability of the Defense Department contractors deployed in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Contractors compose the second largest force in Iraq
after the U.S. military. This amendment does not attempt to make any
statement on the decision to use contractors or about the wars in Iraq
or Afghanistan.
Now that we are more than 3 years into the war in Iraq, this
amendment is intended to give Members of Congress new tools so that we
can exercise our oversight responsibilities on what has become a major
component of our military and to clarify the role of contractors. We
can all acknowledge that military contractors should require the same
stringent accountability and oversight standards as the U.S. military.
After all, private contractors often served side by side with our brave
troops, and these same United States troops are often tasked to protect
our contractors who are paid with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
This amendment would help to provide increased accountability and
oversight for our Defense Department contractors by, first,
implementing a policy for conducting comprehensive background checks on
foreign nationals hired by our contractors. We want to know who these
individuals are and what their backgrounds are and if they are suitable
for that role. It also prohibits the hiring of any person that has been
convicted of a violent crime or a human rights violation.
Second, this amendment makes retroactive new Department of Defense
rules for contractors on contracts that are already in existence or on
any contract extension. For example, it makes perfectly clear that
combatant commanders are in charge. It outlines carefully that
relationship between combatant commanders and contractors so that there
is a structure of command or part of the chain of command. The
combatant commander decides whether or not they carry a gun, what
uniform they would wear and that they have to respond to the combatant
commander.
It also would say that anyone that is a contractor or an employee of
a contractor must obey the laws of the host country, of international
law and U.S. law.
Third, it requires a Department of Defense Inspector General report
on contractor overcharges, requires that there are sufficient
contracting officers assigned to monitor contracts in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
I hope that in the future I can continue to work with Chairman Hunter
and Ranking Member Skelton to address additional oversight issues
regarding the use of military contractors. I also hope we will continue
to consider the impact that utilizing contractors has on our military.
And I would also like to consider additional means to make it easier
for Members of Congress to see Defense Department contracts so we can
better monitor them for signs of waste, fraud and abuse.
Again, I thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton. I
appreciate your support and attention to this important issue.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hunter
for his leadership in bringing this legislation before us today.
I am proud to support the bill which reflects the superior commitment
to all of those defending the freedom of our Nation. I am certainly
appreciative of being able to offer this amendment.
It is a little known fact in the civilian world that when a soldier
is accidentally overpaid as a result of a military pay system error,
the sum can be recouped in the form of a zero sum paycheck also known
as ``no pay due.''
This is a problem long acknowledged by America's military community
and service organizations and has been documented by numerous news
organizations including ABC News, Army Times, and service organization
publications.
Overpayments occur when the military's pay and personnel systems
which are currently neither automated nor integrated with one another,
do not accurately reflect a soldier's current status and are
distressingly common when pay grade assignment or geographical changes
are involved. Furthermore, while overcompensation can occur in small
amounts over time, the full amount can be recouped by garnishing large
portions of entire paychecks when over payment is detected.
The immediate and often unexpected financial burden this places on
military families is in many cases overwhelming. Perhaps most
disturbing is the common occurrence of ``no pay due'' for wounded
soldiers. System failure to recognize cessation of combat pay or other
allowances often results in continued compensation which then results
in garnishment when the system catches up, all at a time when a wounded
soldier's family is most vulnerable.
My amendment simply requires that no more than 20 percent of a
soldier's paycheck can be garnished in one pay period to recover
overpayment resulting from system error. It would also institute a 90-
day grace period before recovery of overpayments can begin for wounded
soldiers. This will ensure that families are not blind-sided by
recovery of debt incurred as no fault of their own and often with no
knowledge.
I ask for my colleagues to support this amendment which carries no
cost and which does not seek to absolve debt, but merely to ease its
recovery for our military families already serving so selflessly in
defense of this Nation. I hope you will join me in lifting the burden
of no pay due. Thank you. Our soldiers and their families deserve
better.

{time} 1500

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is
it

[[Page H2540]]

in order to ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes beyond
what has been allotted?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The Chair may entertain such
request on terms congruent with the order of the House; that is, with
the time divided equally between the sides.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
enlarge the debate for both sides by 4 minutes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank Chairman Hunter, the
staff and members of the committee for their very good work on this
bill.
I rise to offer an amendment. The National Guard and active duty
military troops and assets deployed since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
constituted one of the Nation's largest domestic deployments of
military assets since the Civil War. The National Guard and active duty
military response saved lives, provided urgent food, water, shelter and
medical care to many hurricane victims.
The deployment of National Guard forces before active duty troops is
consistent with current U.S. Department of Defense strategy for
homeland defense and civil support, which relies on the National Guard
in the first instance for civil support.
However, in the wake of these particular hurricanes, Federal and
State officials lacked coordination and consideration of requests for
National Guard and active duty troop deployments. Local, State and
Federal offices had differing perceptions of the number of Federal
troops that would be arriving and the appropriate command structure for
all troops, causing confusion and diverting attention from response
activities.
This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretary of Homeland Security and State governments, to
develop detailed operational plans regarding the use of Armed Forces to
support activities of civil authorities in response to a catastrophic
disaster.
The amendment works to significantly strengthen the response options
to hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, pandemic, and other natural
disasters.
My amendment is consistent with the findings and recommendations from
both the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for
Response to Hurricane Katrina and the report from the Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and it builds upon
provisions in the base bill, which require DOD to maintain real-time
capability assessments of responsibilities under the National Response
Plan.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
The defense authorization bill is one of the most important measures
we take before the Congress because it sets the policy for the
Department of Defense.
The purpose of the amendment that I have offered and has graciously
been included in this en bloc amendment is to recognize the service and
sacrifice and make that part of our policy to again realize what took
place with the victims of the Bataan Death March during World War II.
This amendment also expresses the sense of Congress that the Department
of Defense should seek to provide compensation to the remaining
survivors.
Those captured in the Bataan Death March spent an average of 3.5
years in captivity in Japanese prison camps and forced labor factories.
Chairman Hunter described some of the torture and forced labor.
In order to compensate for the torture, malnutrition and forced labor
they endured, the survivors should be provided at least what was then
set forth, which is $4 a day for the time spent in captivity, and the
bill provides for some compounded annual interest. Even private
contractors who were captured and imprisoned received $60 per day. They
were, indeed, victims of torture and injustice and unfairness.
This amendment is important for Congress to recognize the
unbelievable sacrifices of our soldiers who defended our Nation and
fought in the Philippines.
Very few survivors of the Bataan Death March are still alive today.
In fact, one reason I got involved in this is because of a local
veteran by the name of Sam Moody, and Sam passed away since I undertook
his request. There are only about 900 survivors and widows. So it is
not really the money. It is also the policy that we set here today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. 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. 23 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
At the end of title XII (page 419, after line 7), insert the
following new section:

SEC. 12_. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING COOPERATION WITH
RUSSIA ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO MISSILE DEFENSE.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) cooperation between the United States and Russia with
regard to missile defense is in the interest of the United
States;
(2) there does not exist strong enough engagement between
the United States and Russia with respect to missile defense
cooperating;
(3) the United States should explore innovative and
nontraditional means of cooperation with Russia on issues
pertaining to missile defense; and
(4) as part of such an effort, the Secretary of Defense
should consider the possibilities for United States-Russian
cooperation with respect to missile defense through--
(A) the testing of specific elements of the detection and
tracking equipment of the Missile Defense Agency of the
United States Department of Defense through the use of
Russian target missiles; and
(B) the provision of early warning radar to the Missile
Defense Agency by the use of Russian radar data.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment out of a sense of frustration. I
was the prime author of the missile defense legislation in 1998, with
our friend John Spratt, that passed the House with a veto-proof margin
calling for a moving forward on missile defense. At the time of that
debate and leading the debate, I said to our colleagues, as I committed
to the Russians, that we would do joint missile defense in cooperation
so as not to create any feeling that we were trying to achieve a
strategic advantage over them.
In fact, the weekend before the vote, I took Don Rumsfeld, Jim
Woolsey and Bill Schneider to Moscow, along with several of my
colleagues from the other side of the aisle, to reassure the Russians
that this was not about scoring a strategic advantage.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, this administration
cancelled the only remaining program with the Russians on missile
defense. That program, entitled RAMOS, had been attempted to be
cancelled back in the 1990s, and Senator Levin joined with us in
blocking that cancellation. By canceling the RAMOS program, we have
sent a terrible signal to the Russian military and to their government
at a time when we need to reinforce strategic cooperation with Russia.
I would argue that there is no country that could assist us in
dealing with both North Korea and Iran more than Russia at this point
in time, but continuing to send mixed signals like the cancellation of
our cooperation on missile defense is entirely taking us in the wrong
direction.
Now, General Obering, who is in charge of our Missile Defense Agency,

[[Page H2541]]

agrees with me. In fact, he had negotiated a contract over a year ago
with the Russian General Balyuevsky to gain joint cooperation on
missile defense. It was the policy office of the Secretary of Defense
that cancelled that contract that had been negotiated by General
Obering. To me, that was absolutely outrageous and wrong, but yet, it
has still not been corrected.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply designed to lay down a marker
to this administration that we do have a need to work together with our
Russian counterparts. They have assets that we can use. They have
large, phased radar systems that can assist us in areas of the world
that we cannot cover. They have the ability to provide targeting
opportunities for us. They also have very sophisticated theater
systems, including the S-400, the S-500 and the S-600, that we can work
on jointly with them to learn the technologies and the techniques that
the Russians have employed with their missile defense systems.
So, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as a signal from the
Congress, hopefully with bipartisan support, to the Pentagon and to the
White House to get back on track, to do what the Congress mandated when
we passed the Missile Defense Act back in 1998, and to begin and renew
our cooperation, as General Obering has called for, with the Russians
on missile defense cooperation, both at the theater level and at the
strategic level.
I would ask that our colleagues on the other side would see fit to
join with us in having this amendment be included as a part of our
defense authorization bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time on this and I would add that
I support it. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I
certainly think it is an excellent amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. 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. 21 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by
Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), insert the
following new section:

SEC. 10__. REQUIREMENT THAT ALL MILITARY WHEELED VEHICLES
USED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN OUTSIDE OF
MILITARY COMPOUNDS BE EQUIPPED WITH EFFECTIVE
IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) JAMMERS.

(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall take such
steps as necessary to ensure that by the end of fiscal year
2007 all United States military wheeled vehicles used in Iraq
and Afghanistan outside of military compounds are equipped
with effective Improvised Explosive Device (IED) jammers.
(b) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)
using funds provided pursuant to authorizations of
appropriations in title XV.
(c) Report.--Not later than December 15, 2006, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the cost and timeline to
complete compliance with the requirement in subsection (a)
that by the end of fiscal year 2007 each vehicle described in
that subsection be equipped with an effective Improvised
Explosive Device jammer.

Modification to Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 21 printed in House Report
109-461 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
At the end of the amendment, add the following:
Strike section 1 (page 2, lines 1 through 3) and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``G. V. `Sonny' Montgomery
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed
to.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the modification, that the
majority was so kind to agree to, would name this year's defense bill
after one of the finest gentlemen to ever serve in this body, a former
soldier, a statesman from the State of Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery,
and the author of the Montgomery GI bill.
The bill does a lot of things this year that I think Sonny would be
very proud of, particularly extending the TRICARE privileges to
guardsmen and reservists, and since we are told that former Congressman
Montgomery is under the weather, we hope that he is aware of what we
are doing today because, again, I cannot think of anyone in our Nation
who has done more to advance the Guard and Reserve than Sonny
Montgomery.
He caught a heck of a lot of heat from people when he used his
friendship with then-President Bush to have the Guard and Reserve
called up for the first Gulf War. The decision he made then, the
decision President Bush made then, was absolutely the right decision,
and it has led to the one-force policy that our Nation enjoys today.
So, again, I want to thank the majority for working with me on that.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud your addition to your
amendment. Sonny Montgomery was such a good friend when I first came to
the House of Representatives. He, of course, was a senior member of the
Armed Services Committee, gave guidance and advice; and I had the
opportunity to be on the Personnel Subcommittee when his bill, later
known as the Sonny Montgomery GI bill, came through, and I had the
opportunity to work on an amendment at the subcommittee level, as a
matter of fact.
He was a true gentleman's gentleman, a real inspiration to those of
us that worked with him, a credit to the House, a credit to the
military, a credit to the National Guard, most of all a credit to our
Nation. So it is certainly fitting and proper that you should name this
measure after G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
will be brief.
But I just want to say about Sonny Montgomery, I miss Sonny
Montgomery. I can still see him in the House Chamber, and I can see him
in the Armed Services Committee where he sat with us, and I can see him
walking into the prayer breakfast.
I am not a regular, but I happened to be there that morning, and he
walked in when Floyd Spence was having a double lung operation. Sonny
would read the casualty roll, just like a soldier, and he said I have
got news about Floyd and a hush fell over the breakfast. There were
about 30 Members there, Democrat and Republicans, and we thought he
would tell us that Floyd Spence had passed away.
Sonny did kind of a double-take at his notes, and he said Floyd just
got married. Apparently, he had gotten married coming out of this
double lung transplant operation a few minutes afterwards, and lived
many happy years after that.
But Sonny Montgomery was a spark of life in this Chamber. He was a
great representative for the tradition of the military, Mr. National
Guard. There is no question in the world you could posit to Sonny
Montgomery and no statement you could make as a witness before the
Armed Services Committee that it would not evoke from Sonny Montgomery,
what would this mean for the National Guard? I do not care what the
issue was, he managed to turn it into a Guard question.
What a great, great American. He served in World War II and had that
great feeling for our military, and he is in tough shape right now.
But I have seen the gentleman's amendment to make this the Sonny
Montgomery bill. How fitting and appropriate that we do that. Sonny is

[[Page H2542]]

still alive, and I know that we usually do this for Members that have
passed on; but Sonny is still alive and I say, good, and let us do
this. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing this up.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I want to thank our colleagues and particularly Mr.
Taylor and the chairman and ranking member for this tribute to our good
friend, Sonny Montgomery.
When I first came to Congress as a junior Member, it was Sonny
Montgomery who kind of took the freshman Members under his wing from
both parties and kind of taught us the ropes of how to work on the
committee in a bipartisan manner.
Sonny Montgomery is, in fact, a statesman. He was the kind of leader
on defense and security issues that everyone followed and rallied
around.
Time and again, we had bills where leadership, under both Democrat
administrations and Republican administrations, would want clean bills
with no significant amendments. It was always Sonny Montgomery with his
Guard and Reserve package that would ensure at least one amendment, and
usually it was strong bipartisan votes because of his commitment, as
Chairman Hunter has outlined, to our Guard and Reserve.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor) has expired.

{time} 1515

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) seek 5 minutes in opposition?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, Sonny Montgomery also was
the individual who authored the Montgomery GI bill and is responsible
for the education of our young people.
So many have used that bill to go on to school, and it has had such a
positive impact on the men and women that have served this country that
Sonny's name is known by people far and wide in this Nation, not just
because of his commitment to the Guard and Reserve, but to the
continuing educational needs of our young people.
I had the pleasure of accompanying Sonny on my first codel to North
Korea. He led the delegation into South Korea. We drove up to the DMZ.
Sonny led the official delegation to bring back the first remains of
Americans from the Korean War. He handled that responsibility with a
great deal of pride and responsibility, as Sonny Montgomery did on a
continuing and frequent basis in representing this Nation and our
President, in receiving the first remains of American prisoners that
had been found by the North Korean Government.
I would just add my name to the list of all our colleagues who have
such high regard for Sonny Montgomery. He is a statesman, and the
gentleman has done a great job in making sure that this bill is a
lasting legacy to Sonny Montgomery's leadership.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my
colleagues for their kind words about Sonny Montgomery. I would also
like to remind my colleagues that the underlying amendment calls for
telling the Department of Defense that by the end of fiscal year 2007,
the Secretary of Defense will develop a plan to equip every wheeled
vehicle that leaves a compound in Iraq or Afghanistan with an IED
jammer.
Mr. Chairman, I voted for the use of force in Iraq and therefore I
share in the responsibility for the death of every young person and
every not-so-young person who has been maimed over there. It is a very
unfortunate tactic by our enemies to use improvised explosive devices
that are remote detonated, which have resulted in over half of the
casualties and injuries of Americans over there.
Technology exists to jam the signal that triggers that charge. Many
of our vehicles in Iraq have these jammers, but not all. Just as we
would never dream of sending a helicopter out that does not have
protection from missiles, or dream of sending a C-130 to land at
Baghdad or Balad that did not have an antimissile defense, we as a
nation should not dream of sending one Humvee or one truck outside of a
compound that does not have the technology to jam that signal and
protect the troops on board.
I have been to most of the funerals of the south Mississippians who
have died in this war, and I have visited most of the soldiers at
Walter Reed who have been injured. In every instance they were either
killed or injured by an IED, and I regret to say, in every instance the
vehicle they were traveling in did not have a jammer.
We are the world's greatest nation. We are going to spend $10 billion
this year on national missile defense and we have not been attacked by
a missile, and yet every day we are having young Americans killed by
IEDs. I think it is time we tell the Department of Defense that we as a
Congress want to see that every single vehicle in Iraq is protected,
every single soldier, airman, Marine, every single Navy personnel who
is traveling in these vehicles is being protected.
I welcome the comments of the chairman of the committee, and I very
much welcome his support of this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi on two
counts, first for his offering the amendment on behalf of Sonny
Montgomery, and secondly, for this IED amendment.
I just want to tell the gentleman that we have just tested today a
new equipment package that has great potential, that we should be able
to move into theater that hopefully will be able to be used in
dismounted form and mounted form and that could be used on virtually
every vehicle that moves out of base camp or out of forward bases.
I think this is absolutely the number one causation of casualties in
the theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the IED has become the
weapon of choice for insurgents, it is going to be used in other
battlefields around the world. So our ability, our agility to move new
technology through the process quickly and get it fielded is paramount,
and this amendment helps to do that.
I want to thank the gentleman for the value he has added to the bill
by offering this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Goode of Virginia.
Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Goode

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goode) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes 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 252,
noes 171, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page H2543]]

[Roll No. 141]

AYES--252

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--171

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kline
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--9

Cardoza
Evans
Ford
Garrett (NJ)
Johnson (IL)
Kennedy (RI)
Owens
Reichert
Smith (TX)

{time} 1546

Ms. BEAN, Mr. WYNN and Mr. FLAKE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. KIND, RUPPERSBERGER, CONAWAY, and RAHALL changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141 I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Tierney

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124,
noes 301, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 142]

AYES--124

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--301

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston

[[Page H2544]]

Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Cardoza
Cubin
Evans
Ford
Garrett (NJ)
Kennedy (RI)
Smith (TX)

{time} 1557

Messrs. TAYLOR of North Carolina, CAPUANO and PASCRELL changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of
order.)

Legislative Program

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, this series of votes that we are in will
be the last votes of the day and the week. As many of you know, there
was some chance that the budget would come to the floor tonight. We
made a lot of progress today, I am very optimistic that we will get
there, but we are not there today. I just wanted all the Members to
know what the plans were.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 117, after line 6, add the following new subparagraph
(B) (and redesignate existing subparagraphs (B) and (C)
accordingly):
``(B) the frequency of assignments during service
career;''.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 143]

AYES--415

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--9

Bonilla
Buyer
Cannon
DeLay
Hoekstra
Johnson, Sam
Linder
Oxley
Pearce

NOT VOTING--8

Cardoza
Evans
Ford
Garrett (NJ)
Green, Al
Kennedy (RI)
Owens
Smith (TX)

{time} 1608

Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

=========================== NOTE ===========================

May 11, 2006--On page H2544 the following appeared: Mr. PeNCE

The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. PENCE

========================= END NOTE =========================

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that amendment No. 16 will
not be offered.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense
Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122. Only a few months after ruthlessly
slashing $40 billion in health care, education and job training
benefits for working Americans, the Republicans have shamelessly

[[Page H2545]]

brought forth a Defense Authorization bill that wastefully spends
taxpayer dollars and does nothing to make this country any safer.
This bill clearly demonstrates that this Republican Congress has a
habitual problem of fiscal mismanagement. This legislation spends
billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons
systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. In turn, these
defense contractors thank their Republican sugar daddies by filling
their campaign coffers.
H.R. 5122 wastefully authorizes $9.3 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star
Wars missile defense, a $184 million increase over President Bush's
request and $2 billion more than the current level of spending. Rather
than allocate billions for a Cold War weapon system that will never
work, Republicans in Congress should address the real security threat
posed by weapons that can easily be delivered or smuggled into America
in a suitcase or container.
The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has
not requested and does not need. The Republican legislation also
allocates nearly $46 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptors, $1.4 billion more
than President Bush requested and $2.9 billion more than is currently
spent. Yet these planes were initially justified as necessary to
compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters that no longer exists.
Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that
has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as those the U.S.
Air Force currently employs in combat. In Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan,
the Air Force has demonstrated the superiority of existing U.S. planes.
In addition, the GAO recently reported that the costs of the F/A-22
Raptors have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than was budgeted for by
the Air Force. Where does accountability begin?
H.R. 5122 does not require the President to provide an exit strategy
out of Iraq. Even after spending $315 billion on a misguided Iraq War,
the Bush Administration has no clue on how to resolve the situation or
an idea of how to get American soldiers out of the conflict.
It is time to stop giving the President a blank check to fight an
aimless war. The only thing that the $50 billion outlay in this bill
guarantees is that the U.S. will be in Iraq longer than is necessary
and that more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die without
just cause.
I am also very concerned that certain members of Congress have
decided to support chaplains who want to push their own religious
agenda rather than the military's commitment to religious tolerance.
When chaplains join the military, they accept a duty to serve the
military's mission in addition to their mission to God. In providing
spiritual guidance to our soldiers, chaplains should never carry out
their duty in a manner that divides or alienates soldiers of different
faiths. Chaplains who press ahead with their own agenda ahead of the
military's mission threaten the cohesiveness of military units and the
effectiveness of our soldiers in carrying out their duties.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this wasteful and irresponsible
bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means,
stops wasting hard earned tax dollars on useless weapon systems, and
accounts for what is truly required in Iraq.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5122. I
would first like to thank the Chairman for including an important
provision helping to provide access to health care for our Guard and
Reserve members. This provision will, for the first time, allow all
drilling Guard and Reserve members to purchase health coverage through
TRICARE, the military's health care system. The provision will treat
all of our citizen-soldiers equally, regardless of whether or not they
were previously deployed.
This is an issue dear to my heart. Over a year ago, I introduced
legislation in the House that provided the basis for the provision we
find in the bill today. During my visits to Iraq, I had the opportunity
to visit with U.S. soldiers serving there, including many Iowans. When
I asked what I could do to help them, the overwhelming response I
received was, `Don't worry about us, but please do something to help
our families at home, who are dealing with the fact that we are
separated from them every day.' In my conversations with these soldiers
and my constituents in Iowa, it became clear that our Guard and Reserve
soldiers wanted--and needed--access to better health care for them and
their families.
We know that today, 40 percent of our enlisted Guard and Reserve
soldiers and their families are uninsured. For soldiers who are
deployed, family members receive temporary coverage under TRICARE. This
coverage ends some time after they return, depending on the length of
the deployment. Families that had health coverage prior to a deployment
may be subject to waiting periods or exclusions for preexisting
conditions when they try to return to civilian coverage. They are
burdened with switching between TRICARE and private insurance, along
with different hospital and physician networks.
This is an unacceptable situation for our Guard and Reserve soldiers,
who are almost certain to be sent to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, if
they have not done so already. Guard and Reserve soldiers currently
make up almost half of our forces serving in those locations. Yet they
cannot purchase the same health coverage that full time soldiers access
for free. The Federal Employees Benefit Program (FEHBP) covers part
time civilian Federal employees if they agree to pay increased
premiums. At a minimum we owe our citizen-soldiers the same access to
health care with a cost sharing arrangement.
Clearly the role of our Guard and Reserve forces has been transformed
to play a central part in providing for the national defense. The
greater requirements for sacrifice and service placed on the Guard and
Reserve must be matched with greater commitment to them on our part.
We owe it to our citizen-soldiers to provide them with access to
affordable health care. Providing TRICARE access during all phases of
service will provide an important tool to bolster recruitment,
retention, family morale and overall readiness for the Guard and
Reserve.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5122, a
bill 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. This
important legislation was made possible thanks to the leadership of
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter of California and
Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland.
These leaders have taken a long and hard look at how best to fulfill
our national security needs, and they have led the committee into
action. This is nowhere more evident and important than in the House's
shipbuilding budget.
This defense bill is nothing short of historic; it marks a turning
point in Congress' view of the United States Submarine Force and our
undersea fleet's role in the Global War on Terror and beyond. The House
has validated what many of us have long known: that our submarine fleet
is the backbone of our Navy's efforts in the Global War on Terror, and
that it is critical to deterring aggression by potential adversaries.
H.R. 5122 accelerates production of Virginia Class submarines to help
the Navy meet its stated requirement of 48 ships. Without adding
funding for two submarines per year starting in 2009, the U.S.
submarine fleet will eventually drop to 40 or less, presenting our
fighting forces with an unacceptable level of risk. It would be
irresponsible to set a force level requirement and then miss that goal
by some 20 percent. That is why this bill also requires the Department
of Defense to maintain a submarine fleet of 48 ships, consistent with
the Navy's stated needs. Shame on Congress should it ever turn its back
on our Nation's naval requirements, especially in a time of war.
Article one, section eight of the United States Constitution states
that ``Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy.'' Our republic's
charter document does not vest this authority with any other body--not
the President, not the Department of Defense, and not special
interests. Congress must ultimately take responsibility for a hollow
Navy, and it is Congress that must answer to the American people if our
sailors fail for lack of material support. Today, I am proud to say
that this body has acted honorably and ably to execute this charge.
Mr. Chairman, history tells us that we cannot wait for danger to find
us. There is a growing threat across the Pacific that we simply cannot
ignore. 70 years ago, with the leadership of another House chairman,
Congressman Carl Vinson, Congress funded our shipbuilding accounts at a
level that prepared us for the turmoil of World War II. Had this body
not taken action years before the conflict, the Untied States Navy
would not have had the capability to stand up to fascism overseas. In
fact, in the first 18 months after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. had barely
enough carriers to hold the line, let alone project power in the
Pacific. At one point in November 1942, only two carriers were
operational in that vast ocean. We can only imagine the outcome had
Chairman Vinson chose inaction instead of resolve.
Today, we must look forward with the lessons of our past. We must
imagine our future if we let our Navy's submarine force atrophy at a
time when its missions are only growing. We must try to envision what
will come to pass if the U.S. Navy cannot check a near peer in the
Pacific Ocean because it is overstretched and under-equipped. As we
consider the current and future threats to our Nation, I am thankful
that we have Members of the Armed Services Committee willing to act in
the spirit of Chairman Vinson.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 5122 knowing that
this bill represents a

[[Page H2546]]

giant step toward facing the threats of today and tomorrow. We have won
the first battle to supply this great Nation with the Navy it requires.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the
Congressional Record.
House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: On May 5, 2006, the Committee on
Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 5122, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As ordered
reported by the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation
contains a number of provisions that fall within the,
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. These
provisions include the following:
Sec. 312. Munitions Disposal in Ocean Waters
Sec. 313. Reimbursement for Moses Lake
Sec. 314. Funding of Cooperative Agreements
Sec. 2917. [Now Sec 2822]--Restrictive Easements
Sec. 3111. Plan for transformation of National Nuclear
Security Administration nuclear weapons complex
Sec. 3112. Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure
Recapitalization Program
Sec. 3115. Two-year extension of authority for appointment
of certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel
Sec. 3117. Consolidation of counterintelligence programs of
Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security
Administration
Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation
before the House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the
bill. By the being not to seek a sequential referral, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its
jurisdiction over these provisions or any other provisions of
the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. In addition,
the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its right to
seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction
which are considered in the House-Senate conference, and asks
for your support in being accorded such conferees.
I request that you include this letter and your response as
part of the report on H.R. 5122 and as part of the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the
House.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on International
Relations,
Washington, DC, May 5, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill
H.R. 5122, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007. There are certain provisions in the legislation
which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations.
In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,
I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill the Committee on International
Relations does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over
the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within
its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker
to name Members of this Committee to any conference committee
which is named to consider any such provisions.
Please place this letter into the Committee report on H.R.
5122 and into the Congressional Record during consideration
of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the
cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this
matter and others between our respective committees.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters
being considered in H.R. 5122, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.'' I appreciate you
working with me in your development of H.R. 5122,
particularly with respect to Section 911, Designation of
Successor Organizations for the Disestablished Interagency
Global Positioning Executive Board.
The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R.
5122 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over
Section 911 and other provisions of the bill, I agree not to
request a sequential referral. This, of course, is
conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your
response will be included in the Committee report and in the
Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House
Floor.
The Science Committee also expects that you will support
our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we
have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this
legislation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5122 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over
the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral.
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding
that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a
sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the
jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your
response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be
included in the Committee Report and as part of the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the
House.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: H.R. 5122, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' contains provisions
that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Judiciary. However, in recognition of the desire to expedite
consideration of this legislation, the Committee hereby
waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Judiciary takes this action with the
understanding that by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5122,
the Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over subject
matter contained in this or similar legislation. The
Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any
House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your
support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your inclusion of this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 5122, the Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This legislation contains subject
matter within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. However, in order to expedite
floor consideration of this important legislation, the
Committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence takes this
action with the understanding that the Committee's
jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation
are in no way diminished or altered. I also wish to confirm
our mutual agreement that the transfer of the Office of
Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear
Security Administration in no way impairs or affects the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's jurisdiction
over intelligence activities of National Intelligence Program
components of the Department of Energy, including those
carried out by this Office.
The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and
requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I
would appreciate your including this letter in the
Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the
House floor.

[[Page H2547]]

Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Peter Hoekstra,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 10, 2006.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Duncan On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed
Services ordered reported H.R. 5122, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Thank you for working
closely with the Committee on Government Reform on those
matters within the Committee's jurisdiction. I am writing to
confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the
consideration of H.R. 5122.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 5122, the Committee on Government Reform did not request
a sequential referral of the bill. However, the Committee did
so only with the understanding that this procedural route
would not prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional interest
and prerogatives in this bill or similar legislation.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform
should H.R. 5122 or a similar Senate bill be considered in
conference with the Senate. Finally, I request that you
include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Armed
Services Committee Report on H.R. 5122 and in the
Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the
House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
As a relatively new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am
grateful to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for working with
me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to
Colorado.
The bill includes language that highlights the importance of the High
Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) in Eagle, CO and its need for
enough aircraft to fulfill its mission. HAATS is the primary site for
training military aviators on operations in hostile, high altitude, and
power-limited environments under all seasonal weather conditions, such
as Afghanistan.
As a result of language I had included in the Defense Authorization
bill last year, the Army National Guard pledged to provide two
Blackhawks to HAATS, but I'm told HAATS needs five Blackhawks in order
to sustain training requirements. The language included in this bill
asks for the number and type of helicopters that are needed to provide
the training necessary to sustain our war strategies and asks for an
evaluation of the accident rates for deployed Army helicopter pilots
who received high altitude training and those who did not receive such
training. I think this information will further underscore HAATS'
critical mission and the reason it needs more aircraft.
Second, I worked with committee chairman Representative Duncan Hunter
(R-CA) to include language in the bill to name a housing facility at
Fort Carson in honor of my friend Representative Joel Hefley, who is
retiring at the end of the year. In his 20 years representing
Colorado's 5th Congressional district, Joel has served with integrity
and honor and has been a fair and effective lawmaker. I have learned a
great deal from Joel in my years in Congress, and I will miss his good
company and collegiality.
I also supported an amendment offered by Representative Hefley that
requires the Defense Department to report to Congress that it has made
every effort to acquire property from willing sellers before using
eminent domain to expand Fort Carson's maneuvering site in Pinyon
Canyon. Along with other members of the Colorado delegation, I will be
watching these developments carefully.
Finally, I'm pleased that the bill includes $3.1 million for the Air
Sovereignty Alert Crew Quarters facility at Buckley Air Force Base.
Currently, the crews are housed in modular trailers on the edge of the
alert aircraft-parking apron, which do not comply with prescribed
procedures identified by safety and Air Force Fire Protection
instructions. These funds will enable Colorado's Air National Guard to
build a facility to help aircrew perform their mission--supporting
Homeland Defense capabilities throughout the United States--which was
established in response to post 9/11 national strategy requirements.
I am also pleased with many other provisions in the bill. H.R. 5122
includes a provision I advocated to permanently authorize and fund the
Freedom Salute Campaign and Welcome Home Warriors Program, an awards
and appreciation program for troops returning from duty in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This program is a small but significant way for us to show
our appreciation for the service and sacrifice of our men and women in
uniform and their families, and is also helpful for retaining these
dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces.
There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our
troops. An important one extends Tricare coverage to all Reservists,
something Democrats on the Committee fought for last year with limited
success. So I'm very pleased that the bill expands this benefit and
underscores the importance of providing the same set of services to all
our servicemen and women. The bill also blocks the proposed plan to
raise certain Tricare fees. It raises the end-strength of the Army and
Marine Corps by 30,000 and 5,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease
the strain on our troops, and fully funds end-strength of the Army
National Guard. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to
increase recruiting and retention incentives, provides a 2.7% pay raise
for members of the armed forces, and increases funding for up-armed
Humvees and IED jammers.
Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the
bill's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs,
particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have
relied on immature technology. The bill requires the Army to fully fund
its maintenance, modular conversion and pre-positioned war stocks or
face a cap of $2.85 billion on FCS. Funding in excess of the cap would
be transferred to reset equipment costs and modularity. H.R. 5122 also
redirects missile defense funding from longer range programs to near-
term needs, such as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis
interceptors that can protect our service members and allies today. It
also places restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based
midcourse defense system until after it successfully intercepts two
operationally realistic warheads.
On a less positive note, Rules Committee Republicans denied Members
of the House the opportunity to debate a number of key amendments which
would have improved this bill. Among them was one offered by Ranking
Member Skelton, which would lower the increased retail pharmacy co-
payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by Mr. Andrews
and others to increase funding for nonproliferation programs; and an
amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains demonstrate
``sensitivity, respect, and tolerance'' toward servicemembers of all
faiths.
Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and
Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park
Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement
that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on
Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There
have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is
opposed to it, and the Defense Department has not requested it. The
Republican leadership should have allowed debate on this amendment, and
I will work with my colleagues to see that conferees on the bill strike
this language.
The Rules Committee Republicans also refused to allow debate on an
amendment on energy security that I offered and a similar one that I
offered with my colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon. Even as Americans
struggle to afford near-record high gas prices, Republicans rejected
these amendments to increase funding for alternative fuels programs at
the Department of Defense. America's addiction to oil from any source
means that our security is vulnerable and will continue to be until we
have the vision to look beyond the gas pump. I'm very disappointed that
the Republican leadership doesn't see this as a priority.
I'm also disappointed that the leadership and the Rules Committee did
not provide for any debate on the prosecution of the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
On the whole, however, the bill we are considering today does a good
job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities
with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security.
It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of
today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be
the best trained and equipped force in the world.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. And the process under which
it was debated on the floor was not all that it should have been. But
overall, this is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill,
and I urge its support.
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express regret
for my absence during roll call vote 141. I was on the floor, but was
unable to record a vote on an amendment offered by my colleague Virgil
Goode during consideration of H.R. 5122, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. However I want to make it clear
that I intended to vote `aye' for I am a strong supporter of this
amendment.
Representative Goode's amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to assign members of the armed forces to assist the Department of
Homeland Security in the performance of border protection functions.
Securing our borders against terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal
aliens is of great importance to our national security. I would like to
point out that

[[Page H2548]]

I voted for this exact same amendment last year when Representative
Goode offered it during consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
I am a strong supporter of H.R. 5122, the National Defense
Authorization Ad for Fiscal Year 2007 and I voted for its final
passage. Again, I apologize for being unable to cast my vote on the
Goode amendment and I am pleased this important amendment made it into
the final bill which I supported.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, like many proud parents this
spring, I will be attending with my family the joyous occasion of
watching my oldest daughter graduate high school. Unfortunately, due to
this, I regret to inform you that I will be unable to participate in
afternoon votes on Thursday, May 11, 2006.
I wish to submit the following statement as to my position on the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that I am proud
to support and would have given a strong yeah vote had personal matters
not called my away from our nation's capital.
I commend this body, including the Chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, for their work on crafting this authorization for
our Department of Defense that will protect our troops as they ensure
for the safety and security of Americans and our allies at home and
abroad.
The men and women serving and who have served in our armed forces are
true American heroes. We must do what we can to give them the tools to
win the War on Terrorism and win it safely.
My heart and prayers go out to all who risk so much defending our
liberties and freedoms. I wish all a safe and speedy return home to
their friends and families.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As
my colleagues have stated, this bill includes so many provisions
important to our national security and to the fighting men and women
who serve our great nation in uniform. Many of them are deployed in
combat zones around the world today. I have visited servicemembers in
Iraq seven times now and my commitment, like the commitment of this
Congress, remains to do everything necessary to provide the heroes
sacrificing for our country with the resources they need to fight, to
win, and to survive. We continue our important commitment to their
quality of life including to their families with this bill.
I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member
Skelton for the work that they and their staff members have done to
include within this bill provisions important to the people of Guam and
to servicemembers who serve on Guam.
For many years leaders on Guam have worked to grow the capability and
capacity of the Guam Shipyard, an asset recognized to be of ``vital
strategic importance'' to the Pacific Fleet. We learned over the past
year that twice as many vessels in support of our Navy are repaired in
foreign shipyards in the Pacific, particularly in Singapore, than are
repaired in Guam. We also learned that Apra Harbor in Guam is treated
as a foreign harbor although Guam and its shipyard are properly treated
as a U.S. location. This bill includes important language to remedy
these conflicts. I am deeply grateful to members of the committee staff
who traveled to Guam and Hawaii in January of this year to review this
issue. I am also grateful to the many members of this committee who
have visited Guam, including our colleague from Maryland, Roscoe
Bartlett, and our colleague from Mississippi, Gene Taylor. Both Members
visited the Guam Shipyard in March of this year and learned first-hand
of the value the facility offers to the U.S. Navy.
In rewriting Section 7310 of Title 10, the Committee on Armed
Services has made clear that Guam, including Apra Harbor, is fully and
properly a U.S. location, and has further made clear that foreign ship
repair for reasons of cost alone is unacceptable, particularly when
shipyards like the Guam Shipyard are underutilized. Our first
commitment must be to sustaining and growing the ship repair industry
in America even if such endeavor costs slightly more money. We cannot
depend on foreign yards or harbors in time of war for safety, security,
reliability and availability. We must therefore remain committed to
America's ship repair industry by ensuring stable work, and by
extension, the stability of skilled workforce that is the backbone of
the ship repair industry. On Guam this is especially true given that
the Guam Shipyard represents a particularly important asset because of
its strategic forward location. This bill makes a commitment to the
Guam Shipyard and its skilled workers whom the people of Guam are so
proud. This is a reflection of the great value these workers offer to
the Pacific Fleet and to our national security. It is also a reflection
of this Congress' unwillingness to outsource our national security.
Finally, the language in this bill regarding ship repair is a
reflection of the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review which
indicates the growing strategic importance of the Pacific with
increased Naval activity in the Pacific and therefore the likelihood of
increased demands on facilities like the Guam Shipyard.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note that this bill requires a
comprehensive study on the future of the Guam Shipyard. It is important
that the Navy fully evaluate, during this time of change, how best to
utilize, manage and grow the asset that is the Guam Shipyard. The
report required by this bill is a responsible measure that ensures that
the future of the Guam Shipyard is coordinated with the future of our
Navy's national security needs in the Pacific.
Also included within this bill is an important provision that makes a
commitment to our active duty servicemembers and their families. I
worked closely with the committee and with military advocacy groups to
secure inclusion of a measure to authorize servicemembers assigned to
non-foreign areas outside the continental United States, areas that
include Guam and Alaska, to ship a second personally owned vehicle to
and from these locations upon assignment. This measure has long been
sought by our active duty servicemembers. In an era when we say that we
retain the family not just the servicemember, we have now passed a
provision focused on the family. With military spouses pursuing their
own careers and families venturing off bases for community activities,
school commitments, and so much more, one car families are simply
impractical--they are a thing of the past. Servicemembers assigned to
non-foreign overseas areas, unlike their CONUS counterparts, are
permitted to bring only one vehicle with them to their new duty station
at DOD expense. This created a situation in which many servicemembers
had to hastily sell a car prior to reassignment, usually at a loss,
only to buy a new car on arrival at their new duty location, again at a
loss. This activity as repeated upon assignment back to a CONUS
location. This practice placed an unacceptable burden on military
families. I am pleased that this Congress has made a commitment to end
this inequity. I know this provision is broadly supported by active
duty servicemembers and further has the support of The Military
Coalition. I hope that this provision will be accepted in conference
and remain in the final bill.
Mr. Chairman, a third provision in this bill is important to Guam and
to a recently reached agreement between the United States and Japan.
This bill repeals a measure added in law some years ago to prohibit the
hiring of foreign labor to work on military construction projects on
Guam. Next year $209 million in military construction projects are
authorized by this bill to take place on Guam. Over the next ten years
$10.3 billion in military construction will be undertaken on Guam. The
concern is now whether Guam can deliver the workforce necessary to
accomplish these goals on this short timeline, not whether Guam's
workforce is being supplanted or bypassed by foreign labor. Therefore,
this authorization bill offers the opportunity to repeal this
restrictive provision. Its inclusion will ensure contractors on Guam
will be able to access the labor market needed for them to compete for
and complete government contracts for military construction in the
future. Additionally, without the ability to meet the upcoming
workforce demands, there is some concern that agreements recently made
with the Government of Japan for relocating Marines from Okinawa to
Guam on a set timeline would not be able to be realized according to
the envisioned, desired, and agreed upon schedule. Ensuring the
availability of a workforce necessary to accomplish the construction
required for Marines to move to Guam from Okinawa is an important part
of meeting both the workforce demand on Guam and United States
international commitments.

I have also worked to provide relief to military retirees residing on
Guam whom have been disadvantaged by a Department of Defense
interpretation of standing law. Retirees on Guam are only able to
participate in TRICARE Standard due to the unavailability of TRICARE
Prime on Guam. Retirees on Guam were previously reimbursed for travel
they were required to make to Hawaii or elsewhere for specialty medical
care otherwise available on Guam. Now, in light of a change in policy
some 16 months ago and unfavorable DOD interpretation of TRICARE laws,
when a retiree is referred by their TRICARE health provider off-island
to receive specialty care that is unavailable on Guam a retiree must
pay ``out of pocket'' for their travel expenses. Travel from Guam to
Hawaii is costly and this creates a large and unfair burden on Guam's
retirees. Additionally, this situation results in inequitable treatment
for the veteran communities on Guam. A retiree, having served at least
20 years in the military, cannot receive reimbursement for travel
necessary to receive medical care available only off of Guam. However,
a veteran receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs
referred for off-island care is reimbursed for his or her travel
expenses.

[[Page H2549]]

I have raised this issue with the Department of Defense several times
and continue to work with DOD for an equitable solution. Retirees on
Guam deserve some relief. While this bill contains provisions important
to the TRICARE system for members of the military community, it does
not specifically address the outstanding issue for retirees on Guam. I
will continue to work to resolve this issue. I filed an amendment to
this bill with the Committee on Rules that would have provided some
relief to retirees. This amendment was unfortunately not made in order
and cannot be considered on the floor today. This amendment sought to
provide an interim solution. It proposed to give retirees the ability
to travel on military aircraft on a space available basis to and from
the location of their referred healthcare at an increased priority
level. Retirees are currently in the lowest priority category for space
available travel. I will continue to work with the Department of
Defense on this issue.
Finally, the island of Guam has a robust military recruiting program
and many Chamorros and Guam residents join the Armed Services. In fact,
Guam has a higher per capita service rate in the Guard and Reserve than
any other U.S. location. However, for quite some time, these men and
women have had to travel to Hawaii to process their enlistments at a
Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). Included in this bill is
language requiring the USMEPCOM to study the feasibility of
establishing a MEPS station on Guam. The burden of processing each
recruit through Hawaii significantly extends the time period for
processing a recruit and adds additional cost for travel expenses. It
is my hope that this review will lead to the re-establishment of a MEPS
station on Guam responsive to Guam's Guard and Reserve and to U.S.
active duty recruiters. I believe this would also reduce costs of
processing a recruit and expedite enlistment.
I was pleased to work with the committee leadership to amend a
current requirement in this legislation in such a way to require the
Department of Defense to more closely evaluate the transformation it is
undertaking of the National Guard and Reserve. It is important that the
Department of Defense study closely how it will execute and fund Guard
and Reserve transformation, including evaluating budgeting of the costs
for equipment repair, transfer and procurement as well as an evaluation
of the timeline the transformation will prove achievable. I have long
advocated for full parity between active duty and Guard and Reserve
forces. Transformation is an aggressive plan to achieve this parity
although with significant reorganization of brigades and units within
the reserve elements. The task, the cost and the risks must be fully
evaluated to ensure transformation is achieved and that it is done in a
way that makes our Guard and Reserve forces, who have shouldered so
much of the burden in the war on terror, a better force. This
transformation promise cannot be yet another in a long line of
unfulfilled promises by the active duty components to their reserve
counterparts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge adoption of H.R. 5122.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 811, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SALAZAR. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Salazar moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5122 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House promptly with an amendment to the bill
that inserts the text of H.R. 808, to repeal the offset from
surviving spouse annuities under the military Survivor
Benefit Plan for amounts paid by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs as dependency and indemnity compensation, as
introduced in the House on February 15, 2005.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I stand here before you today in support of
our troops and their families. This motion to recommit would send H.R.
5122 back to the Armed Services Committee with instructions to bring
the bill back to the whole House with the addition of H.R. 808.
I commend my friend Mr. Brown from South Carolina for introducing
H.R. 808, a bill which now has 202 cosponsors, including myself. This
bill would end the practice of penalizing surviving spouses of those
who have died as a result of service-connected injuries.
Mr. Speaker, the Military Families Tax affects over 50,000 families
in the country. It is an unjust burden on those whose spouses served
the Nation in defense of our freedom. I commend those families and call
upon this House to vote an end to the unfair tax on survivor
compensation.
Right now, if a soldier dies, their spouse will have the amount of
the Survivor Benefit Plan reduced by the amount they received from the
VA as dependency and indemnity compensation. For the loss of a loved
one, we penalize spouses with a $993 month reduction in their
compensation. Our soldiers families do not deserve to be treated this
way, and all of us should continue to fight until we can right this
wrong.
I offered an amendment last year to the defense authorization bill
that would have eliminated this unjust provision, but we denied a
debate. The other body chose to include SBP relief, but the defense
conferees failed to adopt it, and we were again denied the opportunity
to fix this problem.
In November, my good friend, Mr. Edwards from Texas, started a
discharge petition to bring H.R. 808 to the floor. That petition now
has 168 signatories. Today, I ask my colleagues as fellow Americans to
stand up for military widows.
Let us make a statement here today that the Military Families Tax is
unjust, unfair and un-American.

{time} 1615

Mr. Speaker, we should send this bill back to the committee and
demand that they ease the burden on our military families. America can
do better to provide for the families of our Nation's military heroes.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House passed a tax bill that
will give Lee Raymond, the just-retired CEO of ExxonMobil, a $2 million
dividend tax break, a $2 million tax break for someone who was just
given a $398 million retirement benefit package.
That tax bill will cost $70 billion. $22 billion of that money will
go to benefit those, such as Mr. Raymond, who are making over $1
million a year. Surely if we could give Mr. Raymond a $2 million tax
break yesterday, then today, right now with one vote, we can afford to
give military widows a chance to keep their $933 a month in survivor
benefits from the Veterans Administration
The question is, whose side are we on? Mr. Raymond, a retired,
overpaid executive from ExxonMobil, or some of the 50,000 surviving
beneficiaries and family members, widows, of those who spent a lifetime
serving our country?
Mr. Raymond made more income in 1 week than most military families

[[Page H2550]]

make in an entire lifetime of service to our country. Surely
compassionate conservatism does not mean saying ``yes'' to Mr.
Raymond's tax break yesterday, but ``no'' to treating our military
widows decently today.
I urge the 80 Republican colleagues of mine who cosponsored this
legislation to back up your cosponsorship with your vote on this motion
to recommit.
Let us stand up for the military families of this country.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman, and I want
to talk to the Members here to sadly inform them that our friend, Sonny
Montgomery is struggling in the last moments of his life. And I want to
thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton from Missouri,
for very appropriately and very fittingly naming this the G.V.
``Sonny'' Montgomery Defense Authorization Bill.
As you all know, Sonny Montgomery served in Congress for 30 years.
For 14 years he was chairman of the Veterans Committee. His name and
his legacy and his service are very rich and very deep, as he passed
the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery GI bill.
If you go back home to Mississippi, you see the G.V. ``Sonny''
Montgomery VA Hospital and National Guard complex. He was Mr. Veteran
and he was Mr. National Guard, and he contributed greatly to the force
that we have today and to the men and women who serve; and most
importantly, he was an example to all of us of the best of this
institution of civility, of common ground, of bipartisanship, of
supporting the men and women that serve in our Nation's military.
He has been my friend, and he has been my example. And so, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you for naming this the G.V. ``Sonny''
Montgomery Defense Authorization Bill.
Mr. Speaker, he was also the spiritual leader of the House, always
calling us to prayer and to remember those in need, those that were
sick, and those that were facing challenges. Mr. Speaker, I ask this
body to pray for Sonny Montgomery. May God have mercy on him, his life,
and his legacy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlemen from Mississippi. I am going to
miss Sonny Montgomery, with that great smile that illuminated this
House and all of our lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, this defense bill passed the committee by a
vote of 60-1. It did that because we listened. My great partner on the
committee, Ike Skelton, and I and all of our subcommittee chairmen and
ranking members listened to all of the members, worked all of the
issues that connect your constituents with you, with all of our troops
around the world.
This is our connection, this defense bill, that provides for the
policies that run their lives while they are in the military, that
provide for the quality of life for their families back home, that
provides for the tools that they need to undertake this dangerous
mission in this war against terror.
This is your connection. And let me tell you, the theme of the bill
this year was troop protection. And to those ends, we moved over $100
million into new jammer capability for IEDs, lots of money, lots of
additional money for armored platforms, lots of new technology for body
armor for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our Marines. At the
same time, for our National Guardsmen, we completed this transition,
even when they are not mobilized, for TRICARE, for our health care
program. We did great things.
And for those people who have fallen, I want to remind you that last
year we moved up that benefit, and it should have been done a long time
ago, to half a million dollars in cash for the families of our fallen
heroes so that they could carry on their lives.
This bill is your connection to the troops. We did a good job. And I
would ask you to trust us, to trust the members of this committee. And
with all due respect to the gentlemen who just offered this amendment,
you will notice there was no motion to recommit offered by a member of
the committee, and that is because this is a good bill. It does a good
job. It gives the tools to the troops in this war against terrorism
that they need.
Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 5122, if ordered, and on the motion
to suspend with respect to H. Res. 802.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202,
noes 220, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 144]

AYES--202

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--220

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling

[[Page H2551]]

Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Cardoza
Evans
Garrett (NJ)
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Van Hollen

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1637

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396,
noes 31, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 145]

AYES--396

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--31

Baldwin
Capps
Capuano
Conyers
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDermott
McKinney
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Schakowsky
Serrano
Stark
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--5

Cardoza
Evans
Garrett (NJ)
Kennedy (RI)
Smith (TX)

{time} 1645

Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be present
for the following rollcall vote today due to a death in the family. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 5122 (the National
Defense Authorization Act).

____________________