[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5266-H5282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 403 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. 1585.
{time} 2033
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. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Pastor (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 110-151 by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Woolsey.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119,
noes 303, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 366]
AYES--119
Ackerman
Baldwin
Becerra
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Castle
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kind
Kucinich
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--303
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor
Chabot
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Baird
Bishop (UT)
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Shays
Shuster
Wynn
{time} 2042
Mr. FARR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Without objection,
the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Ortiz) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for your help to bring clarity to a
disagreement in principle between the Department of Defense and the
military depots over the definition of parts supply functions as they
pertain to depot-level maintenance.
The 2005 BRAC Commission transferred supply, storage and distribution
management functions to the Defense Logistics Agency without fully
understanding the critical difference between parts supply from storage
and in-process parts supply.
{time} 2045
Without this clarification, military depots could lose control of
parts movement during hands-on depot maintenance. Depot maintenance of
war-related equipment is a critical piece of the services' reset
program, and this clarification would ensure reset continues without
disruption.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue,
and I assure the gentleman from
[[Page H5267]]
Texas that I will assist him in achieving clarification of what appears
to be an inherent depot maintenance function that affects the Army's
and Marine Corps' ongoing equipment reset efforts.
Mr. ORTIZ. I also want to thank the chairman for joining me today in
requesting the GAO investigate the impact on military equipment
readiness that this ill-advised transfer of supply function could have.
We are asking the GAO to look at the distinctions between supply from
storage and in-process parts supply, whether the business plan
developed by DOD could ensure a timely transferring without depot
disruption, the impact on depot hourly rates, and the depots' ability
to meet surge requirements if they lose this critical function.
Mr. SKELTON. These are all important questions, and I fully support
the gentleman's efforts to review whether it is appropriate to transfer
what appears to be an inherent depot function.
Mr. ORTIZ. I thank the gentleman for his support.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Tierney
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Tierney:
Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the following:
SEC. 2__. MISSILE DEFENSE FUNDING REDUCTIONS AND PROGRAM
TERMINATIONS.
The amount in section 201(4) for research, development,
test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby reduced by
$1,084,400,000, to be derived from amounts for the Missile
Defense Agency as follows:
(1) $298,800,000 from the termination of the Airborne Laser
program.
(2) $177,500,000 from the termination of the Kinetic Energy
Interceptor (KEI) program.
(3) $229,100,000 from the termination of the Multiple Kill
Vehicle (MKV) program.
(4) $170,000,000 from the termination of the Third
Interceptor Field at Ft. Greeley, Alaska.
(5) $150,000,000 from the termination of the Third Ground-
Based Midcourse Defense site in Europe.
(6) $59,000,000 from the Space Tracking and Surveillance
System (STSS) Block 2008 work and ``follow on''
constellation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chair, the amendment I and my colleague, Rush
Holt, are offering this evening is really quite simple. It reduces the
$8.1 billion specified by the Missile Defense Agency by approximately
$1 billion and takes a modest but necessary step in refocusing on
missile defense policy.
I think we should make no mistake about it, we have spent $107
billion since the days of the Reagan administration on missile defense.
We have had years of unanticipated cost growth, unacceptable schedule
delays, and unaccountable management by the Pentagon.
It is time for a change in that policy. It is time for a change in
how we address ballistic missile defense. We have plenty of other
priority national security matters and more pressing homeland security
needs to address.
How much longer can Congress continue to acquiesce and authorize
billions of dollars in funds for this deeply flawed system?
The Pentagon continues to build before testing; it is a recipe for
waste. We can tell my colleagues that if the status quo continues, the
Congressional Budget Office projects the total cost for missile defense
will peak in the year 2016 at about $15 billion per year, excluding
cost risk.
If you add in cost risk, the CBO knows that the Pentagon's projected
investment needs for missile defense might go to $18 billion. We are
going to hear from others here that North Korea, Iran, and China have
the potential for proliferation of missile technology, and all of that
is not sufficient reason for opposing this amendment. The fact of the
matter is that argument would rest on the false assumption that the
current system could actually defend this country against those risks.
It can't because it doesn't work. It continues to not be able to work
because it lacks operational testing that is realistic. That hasn't
occurred, and it does not look like it is likely to occur any time
soon.
We know and understand the threats confronting this country, and a $1
billion cut in the Missile Defense Agency, the way it is done here,
will certainly not compromise our national security. And, in fact, by
forcing the Pentagon to test before it builds, it will actually make
sure that we don't have false securities.
This Congress should not continue to acquiesce in the authorization
on this deeply flawed system. We have to come to terms with certain
stubborn realities and have the courage to change course.
We are not alone in thinking this way. There were seven reports
issued last year from nonpartisan groups, the Government Accountability
Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Congressional
Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon's
Director of Operational, Test and Evaluation, all arrived at the same
conclusion: ``Change in this program is imperative.''
Our amendment will focus on high-risk, longer-term research programs
and target those initiatives that simply do not warrant immediate
congressional support. It reflects the views of the conferees to last
year's defense authorization bill who wrote that they ``believe that
the emphasis of our missile defense efforts should be on the current
generation of missile defense capabilities.''
I would now like yield to my colleague, Mr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank my friend, Mr. Tierney, for his
leadership on this issue. I have worked on nuclear proliferation and
weapon defense issues for decades. I can assure my colleagues in this
House that with our present or even projected technologies, the
administration's ``neo-Star Wars'' proposal has poor odds of defeating
a ballistic missile strike on the United States. Our missile defense
system does not work and wishing will not overcome physics. It can be
confused by decoys, it faces numerous testing problems. To put it
bluntly, it is a faith-based military program, not one grounded in
science.
Furthermore, it is destabilizing and it is a wasteful program that
robs us of funds that we need for truly important real-world crises
facing our communities and our Nation and our national security.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I simply close by saying this is a
system which has not been realistically tested in the operational
sense. The moneys that are being cut here are not necessary for near-
term programs. They are high risk, down the road.
It is appropriate for us to redirect those spendings on issues that
are more immediate in terms of our national security defense at this
point in time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I find myself in
opposition to this amendment.
A $764 million reduction has already been made in the Missile Defense
Agency programs. An additional billion dollars would terminate or
cancel long-term missile defense programs which I think would not be in
the correct mode for the United States. This amendment simply goes too
far.
This amendment would effectively terminate most, if not all, of the
Missile Defense Agency's longer term research and development programs.
Given the dynamic security environment we find ourselves in today, I
don't believe it is prudent to do this.
I oppose this amendment because, quite frankly, the committee strikes
the right balance in cutting the amount of $764 million, and it should
stay as the committee recommended.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, this amendment, is perhaps well intended
[[Page H5268]]
but goes much too far. This together with the $764 million that has
already been cut from the bill provides us with a 20 percent cut in the
missile defense program.
Since 2001, contrary to what the proponents of this amendment just
said, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted 27 successful hit-to-
kill intercepts. That is 27 out of 36 attempts. I am very proud of
these results.
Let me just highlight some of them. On September 1, 2006, we
successfully employed an operational ground-based mid-course defense
interceptor.
In November 2005 and in June 2006, and again in April 2007, less than
a month ago, the SM-3 successfully intercepted both separating and
unitary targets.
In July 2006, January 2007, and April 6, 2007, the Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, System, successfully intercepted unitary
targets.
Finally, during this past March, we saw a successful hit in-flight
test of the Airborne Laser Targeting System; all successes, not
failures.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman
of the Strategic Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to thank my colleagues very much for bringing this issue up,
although I cannot support their amendment. I appreciate not only their
frustration, but their energy that they bring to the debate because,
frankly, as the Chair of the subcommittee, that is the reason we did
cut $764 million from this program.
For a long time I think many of us have been concerned that this has
been an agency that has been obviated from all of the normal
conventions of responsibility and testing regimen and accountability. I
think what we see now is that we do have components of missile defense
that are successful. Certainly PAC-3 is successful, certainly Aegis BMD
is successful, and many of us have very high hopes for THAAD.
The ground-based system has not had as successful testing as many
would like. As frustrated as my colleagues may be, as severe a cut as
they are proposing is too detrimental to our ability to do what we try
to do in this bill, which is to deliver in the near term the kind of
protections that we need to have for not only the American people here
at home, but for our warfighters deployed down range.
These medium and short-range missile threats are real. It is
important that we keep this funding going so we can deliver on these
good opportunities while we restructure the program and while we hold
the Missile Defense Agency accountable for the first time.
I have to reluctantly oppose this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of
the Strategic Subcommittee, Mr. Everett.
Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chair, you know, you can attack this a number of
ways. Basically what the proponents of this amendment say is that they
simply don't like missile defense. I would like to go to where the
gentleman from New Jersey and the chairman of the committee went.
There have been 27 successful kills; ground-based missile defense, 5
of 8; Aegis, 8 of 10; THAAD, 3 of 4; Predator, PAC-3, 11 of 14.
A key theme of our bill is we should not proceed with some missile
defense programs without robust testing, but testing and systems
engineering are always the first to go when cuts are levied on
programs. How can you test without money?
I think that is a point of their amendment. They know you can't test
without money, and they are against testing and against the missile
defense system.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, very simply, testimony by General Bell, who
is commander of U.S. Forces Korea, before the HASC on March 7 said:
``I've got 800 of these missiles pointed at U.S. troops right now in
South Korea. So I would support vigorously a robust approach to theater
ballistic missile defense, layered defense, intercontinental ballistic.
It's a very important part of the total approach to this very serious
problem.''
I would very strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
{time} 2100
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Notice to Alter Order of Consideration of Amendments
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, pursuant to section 3 and 4 of House
Resolution 403, and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R.
1585 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of
amendment No. 43, the following amendments be considered in the
following order: amendment No. 7, amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the following:
SEC. 2__. INCREASED FUNDS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE.
(a) Increase.--The amount in section 201(4), research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby
increased by $764,000,000, to be available for ballistic
missile defense.
(b) Offset.--The amounts in title I and title II are hereby
reduced by an aggregate of $764,000,000, to be derived from
amounts other than amounts for ballistic missile defense, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, we currently only have a
limited missile defense capability against limited threats. China is
utilizing space for weapons testing, Iran is expected to have missiles
capable of reaching the U.S. in less than 8 years, and now nuclear
North Korea continues to defiantly test long-range missiles.
Proliferation throughout the Middle East is rampant, and Osama bin
Laden has stated, ``It is our religious duty to gain nuclear weapons.''
Madam Chair, the first job of Congress is to protect this Nation, and
because of the day in which we live, that includes an obligation on our
part to ensure that the Department of Defense develops and deploys
defensive capabilities that protect the American people and our
warfighters against nuclear missiles, which remain the most dangerous
weapons humanity has ever faced.
This bill cuts almost $800 million in funding that would help close
the critical gaps in our missile defense system.
One of the programs the majority believes is not worthy of the
investment is the Airborne Laser. Madam Chair, the Airborne Laser is
our primary and most mature boost-phase missile defense system. ABL is
a speed-of-light technology that defends against enemy missiles in
their earliest phase of flight, before they can initiate sophisticated
countermeasures, before they can release multiple warheads, and while
they are still on enemy territory.
The bill also takes $160 million from the Missile Defense Agency's
$310 million request for the European site, which would defend United
States homeland and our European allies and deployed warfighters
against ballistic missile attacks from Iran.
Madam Chair, they completely eliminate even the small $10 million
budget for conceptual studies of a space test
[[Page H5269]]
bed, which would give the United States the technology to defend space
assets and defend against enemy missiles in their critical boost phase
of flight.
We must, Madam Chairman, have access to space, and we must be able to
defend our space assets. It is astonishing to me that this has become a
partisan issue.
Madam Chair, if we build a truly robust, layered missile defense
system in this country, the day may come when we will have to apologize
to the American people for building a defensive system that proved to
be unnecessary. But God save us from the day, Madam Chair, when we have
to apologize to the American people for failing to build a system that
could have protected them from the unspeakable nightmare of missiles
turning American cities into nuclear flames.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the majority's proposal to cut
$764 million from missile defense just as a genocidal Iran kicks into
high gear its missile buildup and sprints toward the nuclear finish
line. The incongruity of this proposal is perplexing. These proposed
cuts don't make any sense.
Iran has made its intentions clear: the liquidation of the state of
Israel and the United States of America. Add to the mix Iran's historic
cooperation with terror groups and we have the perfect storm on our
hands.
Iran, before long, will have the missiles to reach all of Europe and
the United States. We must do all we can to ensure that we cannot be
hit or held hostage. We must invest in a robust, layered missile
defense that can defend America and her allies against immediate, near-
term, and long-term threats posed by Iran and other rogue regimes.
Madam Chair, amid the dangers, how can we decrease our investment in
missile defense? Gambling our national security on the illusion that
our enemies won't have the resources, technology and wherewithal to
launch that first missile into an American school, shopping mall or
sports arena is a risk that we should not take. Failing to prepare for
this reality could lead to catastrophe, the consequences unfathomable.
I support the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, could I inquire as to the
remaining time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) has 5\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
his leadership.
I was struck by something that the subcommittee chairman said during
the debate on the last amendment regarding missile defense, which is
the concession that the threat from attacks by missile is real. I would
submit that it is real, it is significant, and it is growing; and the
notion that we would scale back this Nation's preparedness from rogue
nations such as North Korea and Iran and the ever-mounting potential
threat coming from China, all three of whom have tested ballistic
missiles in the last year, is folly, it is reckless, and it puts U.S.
interests and U.S. allies gravely at risk.
It is inarguable that the risk from a missile attack is not greater
today than it has ever been from the most dangerous and least reliable
sources, those who are willing to trade in the terrorist black market
of technology and weapons of mass destruction, those who have declared
Israel's need to be wiped off the face of the Earth and those who have
declared death to America.
We cannot lose sight of this important, over-the-horizon danger by
cutting back on funds, researching and developing an adequate missile
defense for our country and our allies.
Madam Chairman, I submit to you that there is a vital difference
between the direction that the majority and the minority would take
U.S. defense policy in this environment. We cannot cut back on our
missile defenses in this country and in this environment.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
I rise in opposition to this. A similar amendment was offered in
committee and was defeated by a 34-24 vote. With the cuts that were
correct, well thought out, on the committee level, our bill still
authorizes $9.5 billion for missile defense programs.
This committee's reallocation is just over 8 percent of the Missile
Defense Agency's budget or $764 million to such programs as are
necessary.
For too long, the missile defense program's been focused on
developing futuristic technologies rather than near-term capabilities.
Our bill fully funds, or actually increases, funding for key near-term
missile defense systems, and for this reason, I do oppose this
amendment.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, specifically
because of some of the language that my colleagues have been using.
What I find to be absolutely amazing is my colleagues on this side of
the aisle who, for the last 6 years, have operated under a theory that
there's never been too much money for missile defense without any
accountability and without any reasonable sense that they had to have
tests and that they had to produce for the American people. So it's not
surprising to me that my colleagues rise and try to add back the money,
the 8 cents on the dollar that my subcommittee, in a bipartisan way,
trimmed from this program, as we did what the Republican bill last year
suggested, that we redirect the focus of missile defense to near-term
capabilities for the warfighter, for the American people and for our
allies.
Now, the never-too-much money for MDA crowd will try to gin up all
kinds of threats, and I will say it again. We here on this side of the
aisle are not confused about the threats. We believe these are real
threats, and that is why we have diligently restructured the MDA budget
to deal with the near-term threats so that we can actually protect the
warfighter, the American people and make sure that we have these
capabilities now for current threats.
So the idea that we are doing massive cuts and that this is
irresponsible probably makes sense to people that think that there's no
such thing as not enough money for MDA, but from my point of view and
for my constituents, I believe they need accountability, they need a
testing regime operated by somebody other than themselves, and we need
to have the modest cuts in this budget and need to oppose this
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
If you listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle talk
about ballistic missile defense, you'd never know that we have spent in
today's money at least $125 billion since the days of Spartan and
Sprint in the 1970s. This bill continues spending, continues that trend
at a very robust level.
Sure, it does provide for cuts of $764 million, but it leaves in the
bill $9.5 billion, and I would challenge the gentleman to find any
other system in this bill which is funded at a level more robust than
$9.5 billion. I don't think he will find it.
This bill provides, with the $9.5 billion, for the Patriot system, a
PAC-3 system, a theater system, a tactical system, vitally important,
provides $1.4 billion. That's $500 million more than the current year.
It will buy Patriot PAC-3s for two additional battalions.
Aegis BMD, the Aegis cruiser, the adoption of the Aegis BMD by the
Aegis cruiser, $1.1 million. That's an increase of $78 million over the
current year over the budget request.
The ground-based midcourse interceptor, which shows the most near-
term promise for becoming a truly ballistic missile defense intercept
system,
[[Page H5270]]
$2.3 billion for the GMD. It will buy 10 GMD interceptors to be placed
either at Ft. Greeley, Vandenberg or maybe in Europe.
The THAAD is finally achieving its promise. It's our best tactical
theater system. The THAAD is funded at $858.2 million. That's enough to
buy two additional THAAD firing units.
The kinetic energy interceptor, our boost phase system, is funded at
$177 million. It's in its earliest phases, but it looks like the most
promising technology for boost-phase intercept.
Multiple kill vehicles, yet they're cut by $42 million, but that
leaves $223 million for a new technology.
Space tracking and surveillance, they're cut, cut by $75 million, but
that's because we are going to launch two satellites and then see what
they can do. And if they do what they're supposed to do, if they meet
their specifications, we will launch about seven more, but we're not
going to buy and launch those seven more until we know what the two
demonstrate what they can achieve.
{time} 2115
That's a sensible cut, as are all of these cuts. They are very
discriminating cuts. The airborne laser is a good example. This system
has been cut by $250 million to $300 million. That's enough money to
maintain the system as a technology demonstrator, which is the likely
course that this system is going to run anyway.
It has missed numerous milestones for development purposes. They are
not throwing the system away. They are going to convert it from
something that's likely to be put in the force in the near term to
something that we can extract the technology from and then decide
whether we want to go further with it.
But you have to ask yourself if this system, which is missing its
milestones and looks like it cannot attain the promises that were
initially made for it, is costing $500 million a year, shouldn't we
consider some small cut in it in order to place the money elsewhere?
These are discriminating cuts. They leave the program robustly
funded. This amendment should be defeated.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
My friend from Florida a few minutes ago talked about a threat over
the horizon. He is right, it is a threat, and it's over the horizon.
This bill takes, to deal with that threat, for every $100 the President
asks for, we give them $91.50 to deal with that threat.
We allocate that money in this way. We say for the technologies that
are robust and mature and working, let's do more of it to protect us
better and sooner. But for the technologies that are untested, let's
test them and see if they work.
Now, what do we do with the $8.50 per $100 that we do not put into
these untested technologies? We find what the 9/11 Commission has
called the grave immediate threat to the country. A grapefruit-sized
quantity of loose nuclear material, if made into a bomb by a terrorist
group, could create a Hiroshima-type explosion in Times Square in New
York City, or at the Washington Mall here in this city.
The administration is on a path to convert reactors that have that
loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union to get them all done
in the next 14 years. We don't think that's good enough. So we take the
money and speed it up so those reactors will be converted and shut down
sooner. That threat is not over the horizon. It is here today.
That is where we should be spending our money, and that is why this
amendment should be defeated.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, let me just make this clear. This is a net cut in
missile defense. This is not a matter of taking money from something
that we don't need and moving it to something we urgently need. This is
a net cut of $764 million.
Now, my great friend from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) made the point
we spent well over $100 billion on missile defense since Ronald Reagan
reminded us that we live in the age of missiles. On the other hand, the
strike on 9/11 probably cost us, in terms of economic destruction, $500
billion plus.
We can't afford not to have robust missile defense. That means you
take down incoming missiles at all phases, in boost phase, in
midcourse, and, lastly, in terminal phase. We need robust missile
defense. We need to defend this country. We need to restore this money,
and the Franks amendment is right on target.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, I rise in opposition to this
amendment because we, I believe, have cuts in this bill that not only
preserve the ability to have robust investments in missile defense,
but, for the first time, create accountability for the Missile Defense
Agency to deliver in the near term the kinds of capabilities necessary
to protect our warfighters in the near term for real threats they face
today, the American people, for real threats they face today and our
allies and access abroad.
That is what we decided to do last year in the defense bill. That is
our most important priority. These are minor cuts that redirect our
agency to do what they never did under our colleagues when they were in
the majority, which is to have operational testing that is real, that
has countermeasures, that deals with the real kinds of circumstances
that we would face if we were attacked. There is great doubt out there
about the capabilities of this system because it has never been held to
the rigor and the robust testing necessary to make it a credible
deterrent.
We believe these cuts are marginal cuts. We plus up many things in
this bill to make sure that we deliver in the near term to the
warfighter the capabilities they need, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the
remainder of the time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Madam Chairman, I serve as the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. What this
underlying bill cuts is the funding for European missile defense that
would be situated in Poland, which would catch an attack from Iran in
the boost phase.
Now, the reason this is important, why are we worried about Iran in
this, the IAEA inspectors, if you recall, this last weekend were
shocked to find that Iran had made very fast progress on enrichment of
uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb. They said this made it clear
that technological advances in Iran are coming on very, very fast.
The proposed missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech
Republic that this amendment supports would thus help the United States
and Europe. It's supported by Poland, the Czech Republic, the U.K., and
frankly to cut it right now makes no sense.
Sixteen of the last 17 tests have been successful. This Congress,
again, should not weaken our missile defense, especially at a time when
we found North Korea transferring this missile technology to Iran. We
can see this coming. Pass this amendment.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for
two very important reasons. First, there is a growing threat. Today's
Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The New York Times, says that
North Korea is developing new, long-range missiles capable of hitting
Guam, an article from the Herald Tribune.
The second set of reasons that I support this amendment is that while
there is a growing threat there is a rapidly emerging U.S. missile
defense system. Since 2001, our successes have
[[Page H5271]]
been many. We have conducted 27 successful hit-to-kill intercepts.
That's 27 out of 36 attempts.
Therefore, let me just highlight some of the most recent successes.
On September 1, 2006, we successfully employed an operational ground-
based midcourse defense interceptor.
In November of 2005, June 2006 and, again, in April of 2007, less
than a month ago, we successfully deployed an SM-3 interceptor, both
separating and unitary targets.
In July 2006, January 2007 and April 2007, the Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense, THAAD, System successfully intercepted unitary targets.
Finally, during the past March, we saw successful in-flight tests of
the Airborne Laser Targeting System used for boost-phase intercept.
Each of the near-term capabilities of PATRIOT, Aegis BMD, and GMD are
only successful today because we provided them funding to test and
develop them.
Cutting the Missile Defense Agency by $764 million will have the
exact opposite effect. Therefore, knowing that our warfighters are
asking for additional missile defense capabilities as soon as possible
and that we have a missile defense system that actually works, Congress
should not reduce defense spending on missile defense in light of the
growing and clearly demonstrated threat by our adversaries.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I urge my colleagues for this and future
generations' sake to pass this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Sessions:
In section 222, add at the end the following:
(e) Clarification.--Subsection (a)(2) does not prohibit the
use of such funds to place developmental missile defense
systems on operational alert to respond to an immediate
threat posed by ballistic missiles.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, between November 2006 and January 2007,
Iran tested its long-range ballistic missile capacities twice.
In July 2006, North Korea also tested a number of its ballistic
missiles, including one that has a range of 9,000 miles and could hit
parts of the United States of America.
In response to North Korea's test, the United States' Northern
Command made nearly a dozen of our anti-ballistic missiles operational,
or ready to use, to defend the United States against an imminent danger
posed by ballistic missiles.
North Korea's long-range missiles were detected by United States
satellites within seconds, and, thankfully, the missile failed after 42
seconds and after only several hundred miles of flight but North Korea
and many of our strategic rivals and enemies continue to develop their
missile capacities.
Now, it is the time for America's adversaries to understand that
America must not have an unwillingness to put its missile defense
system on operational alert in the face of imminent threat.
Section 222 of this legislation that we are debating tonight would
prevent the missile defense funds authorized by this legislation from
being used for operational and support activities.
Specifically, the language in this bill states that the funds
provided only be used for the research, development, test and
evaluation of our Nation's missile defense system, and it specifically
prevents these funds from being used for operational and support
activities.
My amendment would clarify that nothing in this legislation would
prevent the United States of America from placing our missile defense
system on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat to our
security posed by enemy ballistic missiles.
If this bill is adopted without my amendment, it would mean that we
are telling countries like North Korea that they can take a free shot
at the United States of America because we would be unwilling to stand
up our current missile defense capacities, exactly the wrong message to
send to our enemies.
This makes no strategic sense, and the position of every Member of
this body also should be on record saying that. If you want to tie the
President's hands in defeating and defending America from ballistic
missiles and declare to our enemies our lack of will to defend
ourselves against ballistic missile attack, you should oppose this
amendment.
But if you believe that Congress should make clear that this
legislation should not and would not prevent our defenses from being
placed on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat posed by
ballistic missiles, you must support this amendment.
I encourage all of my colleagues to provide our military with the
clearly stated flexibility that they need to defend our country.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition,
although I don't oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, let's just be clear. There is nothing
in the bill that says that MDA cannot put the system on operational
alert using RDT&E funds. They are not prohibited from doing it. In
fact, they have done it in the past.
What section 222 does say that if you are going to operate it, you
should use operating and maintenance funds. That's all it says.
{time} 2130
So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, because in fact
there is nothing in the bill that prohibits the system from being
flicked on, and there is nothing about what we say that is contrary to
what the gentleman is asserting. However, we do believe that it is
important that when you are operating a system, you should use
operation and maintenance funds.
Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentlelady yield?
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I am happy to yield to the ranking member.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I appreciate her
courtesy. And let me just say why I think you may want to consider
supporting this amendment.
We had a discussion and we had some confusion a couple years ago with
respect to missile defense, the systems that we were placing in Fort
Greely, Alaska. The question was whether money that was R&D money could
be used for construction, basically for pouring concrete, and we had a
tremendous tug-of-war over that. So there is some ambiguity here.
We have got 14 missiles that could be used to intercept a couple of
rogue incoming missiles even out of the test bed. So we could use these
test missiles to protect our country in extreme circumstances.
I don't think it is a bad thing to clearly lay that out and clarify
it in light of the fact that we did have confusion over the color of
money in the missile defense programs between R&D and MILCON.
So would the gentlelady consider that in supporting the gentleman's
amendment?
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Reclaiming my time, I said that very easily I would be
happy to accept the amendment.
Frankly, we have had a markup in the subcommittee and a markup in the
full committee over the last 3 weeks, and any time, if the gentleman
had come to me and said that he needed clarification for what these
funds could be used for, I would have been happy to clarify for him.
And I hope he now feels it has been clarified.
[[Page H5272]]
It has always been operationally possible for the RDT&E money to be
used for operational alerts. That is what they have been used for
before.
So I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman from
California, and the gentleman from California also, speaking about this
very important issue. And I do appreciate the gentlewoman accepting
this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time with the knowledge
that will be done.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I am happy to take the amendment. And
any time that the gentleman wants to work together on these issues, we
are happy to do it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
In section 1222 of the bill, strike ``Section 1519'' and
insert ``(a) Continuation of Prohibition.--Section 1519''.
In section 1222 of the bill, add at the end the following
new subsection:
(b) Rule of Construction.--Congress recognizes that the
United States has not established any permanent military
installations inside or outside the United States. Nothing in
this Act or any other provision of law shall be construed to
prevent the Government of the United States from establishing
temporary military installations or bases by entering into a
basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to Resolution 403, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I am offering this amendment to add
language to section 1222 of the bill. This language will clarify that
the prohibition on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq will
not prevent the United States and Iraq from entering into military
basing rights agreements for the establishment of temporary bases in
Iraq.
After I offered a similar amendment in the fiscal year 2007 Defense
appropriations bill in the last Congress, I wrote a letter to Chairman
Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and in that letter, I
asked General Pace for his thoughts on the need for the U.S. to enter
into and retain the ability to enter into military basing rights
agreements in Iraq and with Iraq. In his response, General Pace stated
that it is the intention of the United States military to ``work
closely with Iraq's sovereign government to decide the terms and what
foreign military forces and bases (if any) will remain in Iraq.''
As this statement makes clear, we must ensure that the United States
has the ability to work with the sovereign Government of Iraq to
determine the kind of military support that will be necessary to ensure
the stability and security of Iraq. My amendment will reaffirm that the
United States' ability to exercise an important diplomatic
responsibility in dealing with a new ally in the global war on terror.
That ally is the Government of Iraq.
Historically, basing rights agreements have been a necessary part of
diplomatic relations with foreign governments. These agreements outline
guidelines and conditions for operating American military bases
worldwide. It is both common and responsible for the United States to
enter into basing rights agreements with countries hosting American
troops. This is being done in every country hosting U.S. troops. The
representative Government of Iraq should be no exception. In this way,
my amendment ensures Iraq's sovereignty will be respected.
My amendment will simply highlight the fact that the prohibition on
the establishment of permanent bases does not prohibit the United
States from entering into a sensible diplomatic dialogue regarding the
establishment of temporary military installations in Iraq. So, not to
enter into these agreements would be to neglect the United States'
diplomatic duties, and our security duties as well, with our partners.
One of the things that has poisoned this debate has been the use of
the term ``permanent base.'' It is no secret that this is a loaded
term. However, the BRAC process has clearly demonstrated that there is
no such thing as a permanent U.S. military base. As a reflection of
this, military basing rights agreements can be negotiated for any
length of time and can be renegotiated at any point in time.
I am not proposing the terms and conditions for these discussions or
agreements, nor am I proposing the installation of permanent bases in
Iraq with this amendment. I am not interfering or engaging in that, I
am simply clarifying the intent of Congress and the hope and the policy
that the Pentagon has advocated through General Pace's letter. I am
simply asking that we ensure the United States be allowed to pursue our
historic necessary avenue of responsible foreign relations.
Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, August 16, 2006.
Hon. Steve King,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. King: Thank you for your letter concerning long-
term basing in Iraq. U.S. military personnel in Iraq are part
of the multinational force helping the Iraqi people develop
and strengthen their own political, economic, and security
institutions. We are working with the new Iraqi government to
establish a future security relationship that is consistent
with our regional strategy and national interests. We will
also work closely with Iraq's sovereign government to decide
the terms and what foreign military forces and bases (if any)
will remain in Iraq.
Currently, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) is efficiently
consolidating the basing footprint in Iraq to progressively
reduce basing requirements to only those necessary to support
Coalition operations. MNF-I uses a ``conditions-based''
process to synchronize basing requirements. MNF-I seeks to
minimize our presence in Iraq, including Coalition partners,
provincial reconstruction teams, transition teams, Department
of State activities, and other supporting units and entities.
This process will culminate with a transition to an
operational and strategic overwatch posture, leveraging and
maximizing support from a minimum number of strategically
located forward operating bases and convoy support centers.
Foreign military presence irritates some segments of the
population and motivates portions to support the insurgents.
However, some segments of the population are thankful for our
presence and do not desire our withdrawal until the security
situation has improved. Further, our interactions with Iraqis
and others build understanding and trust and reduce the myths
our adversaries are propagating. It is a difficult balance
and one that must be adjusted frequently. Our discussions and
decisions with regard to Iraq and the War on Terrorism will
balance our security needs, the needs of Iraq, and of our
allies while remaining attuned to the cultural sensitivities
of the people in the region.
Your continued support of the men and women of our Armed
Forces is appreciated.
Very respectfully,
Peter Pace,
General, U.S. Marine Corps.
Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I support his
amendment.
As many of us on the Armed Services Committee have traveled to Iraq a
number of times, and we utilize right now bases throughout Iraq, like
the Balad Air Base, which was previously a fighter air base for Saddam
Hussein's tactical aircraft, we use those bases, it makes absolute
sense that we shouldn't somehow put Iraq in a different category than
every other ally of the world which allows us to have a basing in their
country. So designating that we may have temporary basing in Iraq is
absolutely normal relations with Iraq, something that we have with
dozens and dozens of other nations; and that will allow us in times of
exigency to be able to use runways for resupply, for tactical air
operations, for other
[[Page H5273]]
operations that extend important American foreign policy in that region
of the world.
And so I think the gentleman has a very commonsense amendment, and I
would support it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman from
California, especially for his leadership on our national defense
issues in a lot of ways. And I would just clarify the simplicity of
this amendment.
It simply states that the United States has not established any
permanent military installations inside or outside the United States.
And nothing in this act that is before us or any other provision of law
shall be construed to prevent the Government of the United States from
establishing temporary military installations or bases.
That is the essence of this amendment. It is a clarifying amendment,
because we had confusion last year and a misunderstanding last year
that required a scramble to go to the Pentagon, to get a response from
General Pace, to go to the conference committee, and to come back with
language that was acceptable that secured the people of the United
States and also protected our military that are out in the field
protecting us. That is the essence of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Some things are hard to understand. I think this is a
very bad idea. By adopting this amendment, we are sending a message to
the Iraqi people that we are there forever. We are sending a message to
the American people we are going to be in Iraq forever. And what we are
doing there is, at the end of the day, trying to create trust among the
Iraqi people, and this is a major step backwards.
The President has not affirmed one way or the other on this, and I
think we in Congress should strongly say that we are not there
permanently, that we are there to bring stability, that we are there to
encourage the representative government that is struggling along; but
we are not there as a permanent resident either on a base or otherwise.
And this is a message amendment that is to the Iraqi people and to the
American people, and it is just a downright unclear and bad idea.
I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I oppose this amendment because I believe its provisions subvert the
best hope for stabilizing Iraq and ending the Iraqi civil war. I
believe that if the responsible Sunni and Shia leadership in that
country believe that it will become their responsibility to reach a
political settlement to the end of the civil war, they will do so. I
believe they will never accept that responsibility if they believe that
the presence of the United States is permanent and indefinite.
I think, as the base bill does, that making a statement that we do
not wish to have permanent bases in Iraq supports this theory, and will
bring about a greater probability of stabilization of Iraq and an end
to the Iraqi civil war.
So I believe the amendment sends precisely the wrong message and I
oppose it.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I very much thank the Chair of the Armed
Services Committee.
I also rise in opposition to this amendment. The United States are
liberators, we are not occupiers. And yet, our enemy is propagandizing
to the people that they are trying to convert to their cause that we
are there permanently to take their oil, to control their government,
to control their actions. And if we pass this amendment, we are
confirming what our enemy is trying to suggest in generating more
support against the American cause.
As I say, we have always gone in to liberate, not to occupy. And to
suggest, which is what this amendment would do if it passed, that we
are there permanently, with permanent bases, is exactly the opposite of
the message that we need to send. And our military commanders have made
it clear, we will not achieve a military victory. If we are going to be
victorious, it has to be a political victory. And this is a key aspect
of that political victory. So I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I stand here and listen to this
debate, and I am wondering what kind of message the Iraqi people are
getting. I suspect they might have read this amendment. They might know
that this amendment clearly says, and that is what is already in the
record, that the United States has not established permanent military
installations anywhere, and that nothing in this act or provision shall
be construed to prevent us from establishing temporary military
installations or bases in those agreements in the United States or Iraq
or anywhere.
This amendment addresses temporary basing rights, not permanent
basing rights. It is a clarification amendment, because we have had so
much confusion and miscommunication. Now we have more confusion and
miscommunication; and I would direct the attention, if I could, of the
Members of this body back to the language that started this, which was
the language that was amended out of the bill last year that says that
none of the funds made available in this act may be used by the
Government of the United States to enter into a basing rights agreement
between the United States and Iraq.
{time} 2145
That reference prohibited any basing rights agreement, temporary and
permanent. We had to go to the Pentagon to get support, which the
administration is the voice of, in order to clarify this language last
year, this amendment's clarifying language this year. It's a simple
thing. It says we can enter into temporary basing rights agreements
wherever it's prudent for us to do so, not permanent basing rights
agreement in Iraq or anywhere else.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I only want to ask the author of the
amendment, because I'm not sure I heard him correctly. Did he suggest
that he thinks that the Iraqis have read this amendment?
I'm not entirely sure you would agree that all of our colleagues have
read this amendment. But do you really think the Iraqis have read this
amendment?
Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I suspect the Iraqis will read this amendment if it
becomes law. I suspect that my critics haven't all read this amendment.
I hope they have, because I don't think we really disagree on the
policy.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time. My only point is that this
is so much about the message we send, and I think the message that we
want permanent bases is the wrong message.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, what this amendment says is this: Excuse
me, Mr. And Mrs. Iraqi. Hey, we're here permanently. That's the message
that this amendment sends. And I doubt if there are many households in
Baghdad or Tikrit or anywhere else that will read this amendment. But
they'll get the message, should this amendment pass. The message is,
Mr. And Mrs. Iraqi, we're here forever.
We can't do that. I oppose this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, first I'd say that perhaps I'm here
endeavoring on the impossible dream, and that would be if we could just
simply use this great communication skill that we all have and use it
to communicate, so that we could exchange ideas and be able to agree
when we agree and disagree when we disagree on the fundamental
philosophy that's there, not because we came to the floor to disagree,
because we don't. We're not advocating here for permanent bases. And
[[Page H5274]]
there's nothing in the language of this amendment that advocates for
permanent bases. This is a clarification that says we're not going to
foreclose our responsibility to be able to negotiate temporary bases in
Iraq or anywhere else. We've never had our United States military
anywhere in the world where we didn't have some kind of temporary
basing rights agreement. We have never had a permanent basing rights
agreement anywhere. And we have closed many bases across Germany and
Europe. We've done that. We'll do so, and we're doing so in Iraq. We've
happened over a number of different bases. The last number I heard was
33. It's probably many more than that into the hands of the Iraqis for
their control. And so the message that needs to come from here, if
we're concerned about the message that we're sending, we should stand
up and say we agree. We don't intend to stay in Iraq permanently. We do
agree that it'll require some temporary bases for us to carry out our
operations there to protect our American troops that are there with the
coalition and the Iraqi people. It's a prudent and a wise thing to do.
Having a misunderstanding and a misconception is not a good thing to
do. I think we agree on the policy. We should come together on the
message.
Support this amendment, Madam Chair. And if we do that that will
better, I believe, for the people in this country, for our military,
for the Iraqi people. And as this unfolds, where the surge tactics are,
they'll have the confidence that we stand with our military here in a
prudent approach.
Madam Chair, I'd urge support for my amendment, and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, 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 Iowa will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam 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 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 1055. A REPORT ON TRANSFERRING INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT
NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report that
contains a plan for the transfer of each individual presently
detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under the
control of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, who is or has
ever been classified as an ``enemy combatant'' (referred to
in this section as a ``detainee'').
(b) Contents of Report.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
(1) An identification of the number of detainees who, as of
December 31, 2007, the Department estimates--
(A) will have been charged with one or more crimes and may,
therefore, be tried before a military commission;
(B) will be subject of an order calling for the release or
transfer of the detainee from the Guantanamo Bay facility; or
(C) will not have been charged with any crimes and will not
be subject to an order calling for the release or transfer of
the detainee from the Guantanamo Bay facility, but whom the
Department wishes to continue to detain.
(2) A description of the actions required to be undertaken,
by the Secretary of Defense, possibly the heads of other
Federal agencies, and Congress, to ensure that detainees who
are subject to an order calling for their release or transfer
from the Guantanamo Bay facility have, in fact, been
released.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I first want to thank the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee and his superb staff for
helping redraft portions of this language so that it might be
considered. The final language represents a common-sense agreement that
I think we should all reach consensus on.
The amendment's purpose is to shed some light on what has become an
increasingly invisible world down at Guantanamo Bay.
The first detainees were brought to Guantanamo in 2002 to bypass the
U.S. legal system and avoid international conventions and public
scrutiny. Since that time the detainment facility has become a blight
on American ideals and principles.
We have captured, tortured and interminably held men that we call
enemy combatants, some of whom are guilty of crimes against our Nation
and should be punished. Others, however, are only guilty of being in
the wrong place at the wrong time.
We have created closed military tribunals that offer the false
impression of justice, but they fall woefully short of what we should
expect from our American system of justice.
Like Abu Ghraib, we've created an unnecessary rallying cry and
recruitment tool for al Qaeda and militant Islamists throughout the
world. I strongly believe that the continued operation of Guantanamo
Bay puts Americans in harm's way and threatens the safety of any of our
captured military and civilians abroad.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Rice have
agreed that Guantanamo Bay represents a serious problem if we are to
prevail in the global war on terror. They both advocated shuttering
Guantanamo Bay's detention facilities. Even President Bush expressed a
desire to see Guantanamo Bay closed.
This amendment offers a first step in giving the President, the
Congress and the Department of Defense policy alternatives to
Guantanamo Bay. This amendment will require the Department to develop a
plan to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
The report must estimate how many detainees the Department will
charge with a crime, how many will be subject to release or transfer,
or how many will be held without being charged with a crime, but whom
the Department feels that it must detain.
Lastly, the report would include a description of actions required by
the Secretary and Congress to ensure that detainees who are scheduled
for release are, in fact, released.
This last piece is particularly important, as the Department of
Defense has scheduled release of 82 detainees. DOD and the State
Department, however, face obstacles releasing these men to their home
countries, and in some instances their home nations won't accept their
return. In other instances, the State Department won't return detainees
to their home nations for appropriate reasons. But we need to know what
policy tools Congress can provide to expedite the release of innocent
detainees.
All of this information is absolutely necessary for Congress and the
administration to make informed decisions about what to do about
Guantanamo Bay.
Whether you like it or not, whether you believe that Guantanamo Bay
is a blight on our international standing, or whether or not you
believe that these detainees should be held and tried in the United
States, we should all agree that the policy options before the
President and Congress should not be limited by a lack of information.
To opponents of shutting down Guantanamo Bay and my colleagues who
believe its closure is a sign of weakness, I suggest that upholding our
American principles of justice are not incongruent with our war against
terror.
And in a speech before the Republican National Convention in 1992, I
would remind my colleagues President Reagan emphasized that our
greatest strength as a Nation comes not from our wealth or our power,
but from our ideals.
I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
common-sense amendment, to move forward in our battle against anti-
American sentiment, and to provide the President and Congress with real
policy options for shutting down Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H5275]]
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. SKELTON. I think that the gentleman should be commended and
complimented on working with us to finally get the language that was
the real intent of the amendment, and that what it does is requires a
report to Congress on specific items. It does not specify detainees to
be transferred or any change such as that.
So seeking information, I think, is basic to what we do as a country
and what we do as a Congress. And I thank the gentleman very much for
working with us to clarify this amendment, and appreciate you yielding.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman. I will reiterate the
comments I made at the beginning. I thank very much the chairman's
leadership and his superb staff for bringing us to this point. And as
you say, this is only a matter of acquiring information.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. My colleagues, I have a lot of respect for my friend from
Virginia, but this amendment is a bad amendment. It's an amendment
which goes to the very core of the Guantanamo facility, the purpose of
the Guantanamo facility, the nature of the people who are imprisoned in
the Guantanamo facility, and the ongoing war against terrorism.
Now, I'm reading my friend's amendment, and it directs DOD to
undertake a plan for the transfer of each individual presently
imprisoned at Guantanamo.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people who are imprisoned in Guantanamo are
largely terrorists. They include people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
who has admitted in court that he planned the attack on 9/11 that
destroyed thousands of American lives.
It includes people like Abu Zubaydah, who helped smuggle now deceased
al Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi and some 70 Arab fighters out of Kandahar,
Afghanistan into Iran, who also tried to organize a terrorist attack in
Israel, who was recruited by Osama Bin Laden.
It includes Ahmed Galeni, who worked for al Qaeda's chief of external
operations and forged or altered passports for many al Qaeda members,
who knew and met many of the operatives involved in the attacks,
including Fahid Masala, who was asked to help the group purchase TNT
for trucks and gas cylinders that would later be used to construct a
car bomb, requests which he fulfilled.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are people who understand how to kill
large numbers of people. The last thing you want to do is to take
people from an extremely secure facility that has been designed to
ensure that they don't escape, that they're not able to spread their
understanding of car bombs and other destructive devices to other
terrorists or prisoners.
Now, the gentleman's initial amendment that was filed on this went a
bit further. It talked about moving the detainees to places in the
United States. And if you think it through, that's where we would
probably have to transfer them. If it orders DOD to put together a
transfer plan, the logical recipients of that transfer plan will be
bases and facilities in the United States.
Now, that means that unless you isolate these terrorists, these
people that know how to make car bombs, you're going to put them in
facilities in the U.S. with American criminals, and they are presumably
going to teach these people how to make things like car bombs and other
destructive devices. In this case, you have to keep them isolated.
And I would say to my colleague, you know, we have had, under the
tribunals that we have put together to determine whether people are
just farmers in the field or whether they really were terrorist
combatants, we've released a number of people who have gone back to
Afghanistan and gone back to their home countries. A few of them have
actually shown up on battlefields around the world fighting us again,
which shows that our standard for releasing them has in some cases been
too liberal, not too conservative.
{time} 2200
But the idea of taking people who know how to kill large numbers of
people with destructive devices and moving them, spreading them around
to other institutions where they may give that knowledge to other
people, other criminals who have hurt Americans, who might be inclined
to hurt more Americans, is not a good idea. We need to keep them
isolated.
And I would say to my colleague I have been down to Guantanamo. I am
sure he has also. We feed those people well. They have a better medical
system than most HMO systems in America. Not one person has been
murdered in Guantanamo. And none of us can say about our State prisons
nobody has ever been murdered in our State prison. Every single Member
of this body has State prisons in their districts or their State in
which more murders have taken place than in Guantanamo. Nobody is
making a suggestion that we close our State prisons because they have a
bad reputation nationally or internationally.
So I would respectfully urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this
amendment. I think it is a bad amendment. I respect the author, but I
think it takes us in the wrong direction.
Let's keep these people collected. Let's keep them isolated. Let's
keep the rest of the world safe.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for
yielding.
First of all, I agree with you the people you described, Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed and the like, appear to be very dangerous people. These
people, however, who were just transferred to Guantanamo, I think when
Secretary Gates and the President spoke about Guantanamo, they were
referring to the 772 that had been there over the period of 4 years
now, rather than new arrivals.
But the point is, this is only a report; this does not mandate any
action. It just presents information to the Congress. If the Congress
was to transfer it, what would be the implication? So it is only a
report, I would again remind the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Altmire). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUNTER. 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. 32 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. HOLT. 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. 32 offered by Mr. Holt:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1055. REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEOTAPING RECORDINGS OF
STRATEGIC INTERROGATIONS AND OTHER PERTINENT
INTERACTIONS AMONG DETAINEES OR PRISONERS IN
THE CUSTODY OF OR UNDER THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL
OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES, INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND CONTRACTORS OF THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the Geneva Conventions
of 1949, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and
prohibitions against any cruel, unusual, and inhuman
treatment or punishment under the Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, the President shall take such actions as are
necessary to ensure that any strategic interrogation or other
pertinent interaction between an individual who is a detainee
or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of
the Armed Forces pursuant to a strategic interrogation, or
other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering
intelligence and a member of the Armed Forces, an
intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor
of the United States, is videotaped.
(b) Commencement of Requirement.--The videotaping
requirement under subsection (a) shall be applicable to any
strategic interrogation of an individual that takes place on
or after the earlier of--
[[Page H5276]]
(1) the day on which the individual is confined in a
facility owned, operated or controlled, in whole or in part,
by the United States, or any of its representatives,
agencies, or agents; or
(2) 7 days after the day on which the individual is taken
into custody by the United States or any of its
representatives, agencies, or agents.
(c) Classification of Information.--The President shall
provide for the appropriate classification to protect United
States national security and the privacy of detainees or
prisoners held by the United States, of video tapes referred
to in subsection (a). Videotapes shall be made available,
under seal if appropriate, to both prosecution and defense to
the extent they are material to any military or civilian
criminal proceeding.
(d) Strategic Interrogation Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``strategic interrogation'' means an
interrogation of a detainee or prisoner at--
(1) a corps or theater-level detention facility, as defined
in the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector
Operations (FM 2-22.3, September 2006); or
(2) a detention facility outside of the area of operations
(AOR) where the detainee or prisoner was initially captured,
including--
(A) a detention facility owned, operated, borrowed, or
leased by the United States Government; and
(B) a detention facility of a foreign government at which
United States Government personnel, including contractors,
are permitted to conduct interrogations by the foreign
government in question.
(e) Access to Prisoners and Detainees of the United States
to Ensure Independent Monitoring and Transparent
Investigations.--Consistent with the obligations of the
United States under international law and related protocols
to which the United States is a party, the President shall
take such actions as are necessary to ensure that
representatives of the following organizations are granted
access to detainees or prisoners in the custody or under the
effective control of the Armed Forces:
(1) The International Federation of the International
Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
(2) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
(3) The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.
(f) Guidelines for Videotape Recordings.--
(1) Development of guidelines.--The Judge Advocates General
(as defined in section 801(1) of title 10, United States
Code, (Article 1 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice))
shall jointly develop uniform guidelines designed to ensure
that the videotaping required under subsection (a) is
sufficiently expansive to prevent any abuse of detainees and
prisoners referred to in subsection (a) and violations of law
binding on the United States, including treaties specified in
subsection (a).
(2) Submittal to congress.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the
guidelines developed under paragraph (1).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Skelton for his consideration in
support of this amendment.
Some time back I was asking U.S. servicemen about interrogation of
some detainees. Suppose you and your translator are not familiar with
the dialect of the detainees, I said, how would you make a tape
available to a good linguist for review?
What tape, they said.
Later in other circumstances I learned about charges of mistreatment
of detainees. But the only record of our treatment of detainees were
the shameful recreational photos of Abu Ghraib. An official recording
would have helped the situation, perhaps even have prevented the
problems.
Hundreds of law enforcement organizations in all 50 States and the
District of Columbia employ recording of interrogations and that is
becoming the standard for interrogations around the United States. It
improves the ability to get the best information, and it protects all
parties involved, the interrogators and the detainees. I believe the
lessons of those law enforcement organizations can be applied to our
current detainee policies.
For years, police officers around the country resisted the idea of
putting video cameras in their cars and interrogation rooms. Now those
cameras, the dashboard camera, for example, is one of the cops' best
friends. Today, such tools are widely used by law enforcement
organizations around the country because of the protections and the
investigative value they provide.
My amendment has three provisions: to require video recording of
interrogations and other pertinent interactions between U.S. military
personnel, or contractors, and detainees arrested and held. The video
records would be kept at the appropriate level of classification and be
available for review by intelligence personnel to help maximize the
intelligence benefits of such interrogations. It would require the
Judge Advocate General, pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, to develop guidelines designated to ensure that the video
recording sufficiently prevents abuses of rights of detainees and
prisoners.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLT. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This is just
downright good law enforcement.
You must understand that so many jurisdictions, so many States have
videotaping of interrogations for the very reasons that you stated, to
make sure that their rights were preserved, to make sure that they said
what was said to have been said, and there is a taping that cannot be
refuted.
And you must remember that everyone is a potential defendant before a
military commission. And what better evidence is there to present
before a military commission, either for the defense or for the
prosecution, than what was actually taped during interrogation? I think
that we are just trying to catch up with other States that do this and
require this. It is just good law enforcement.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the Chair for his
comments.
Indeed, this is becoming the standard of interrogation. The video
recording is inexpensive, easy to use, and it helps.
My amendment would also afford access to prisoners by the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.
The electronic recording of interrogations is a concept that has been
endorsed by multiple domestic and international organizations. In 1998,
the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations strongly recommended
that interrogation of suspects in police custody and substitute prison
be strictly monitored and recorded by electronic means. In 2004, the
American Bar Association urged all law enforcement agencies to
videotape the entirety of custodial interrogations of crime suspects.
Hundreds of DAs and prosecutors use these techniques.
Today, the ACLU noted in their endorsement letter of this amendment
that it would increase the accountability for compliance with the
McCain antitorture amendment. Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch
expressed similar statements in their endorsement letters, and I will
include in the Record these letters of endorsement from Human Rights
First, Human Rights Watch, and the ACLU.
Human Rights First,
New York, May 16, 2007.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: I write to express the support of
Human Rights First for a proposed amendment to the FY2008
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585) introduced by
Representative Rush Holt. The amendment would require the
videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent
interactions between detainees in the custody or under the
effective control of the U.S. Armed Forces and relevant U.S.
officials, consistent with a recommendation made by the Army
Inspector General in July 2004. The amendment would also
require that the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC), the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture are provided
access to detainees in U.S. custody.
These provisions are intended to ensure that the treatment
of detainees in the custody of the United States Armed Forces
is consistent with longstanding U.S. obligations under
domestic and international law, including existing rules
concerning ICRC access to prisoners. These commitments are
contained in binding military regulations and field manuals
and reflect the judgment that upholding the principle of
providing access to captured prisoners is strongly in the
interest of the U.S. military.
Because it advances both the interests of the United States
and its values, we urge you
[[Page H5277]]
to support Representative Holt's amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act.
Sincerely,
Elisa Massimino,
Washington Director.
____
Human Rights Watch,
New York, May 16, 2007.
Hon. Rush Holt,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Holt: Human Rights Watch writes to
express our strong support for your amendment to the
Department of Defense Authorization Bill, to ensure
independent monitoring of detainee treatment and to require
videotaping interrogations of prisoners in the custody of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Revelations about the use of torture from Abu Ghraib and
detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other
locations from around the world have undermined the United
States' moral authority and its ability to defeat terrorism
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As General Petraeus, the
commander of US forces in Iraq, recently wrote to all of the
troops serving there: ``This fight depends on securing the
population, which must understand that we--not our enemies--
occupy the moral high ground.'' Torture and abuse do not
produce reliable intelligence, warned the General, and they
undercut one of the most effective weapons in the fight
against terrorism--the support and cooperation of the local
population.
Last September the Department of Defense issued a new Army
Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector
Operations, which rejects abusive interrogation and specifies
a range of permitted interrogation techniques. Routine
videotaping of interrogations can be one of the simplest and
most effective means of ensuring compliance with these new
rules and preventing abuse. When interrogators and guards
know that their interactions with detainees are being
recorded by their supervisors, they are more likely to play
by the rules, and less likely to treat prisoners inhumanely.
Videotaping also protects law-abiding interrogators and
guards against unfair allegations of abuse. Moreover, your
amendment ensures these videotapes can be classified to
protect against the dissemination of information that could
harm US national security.
Notably, the US Army Inspector General's July 21, 2004
report on Detainee Operations concluded: ``All facilitates
conducting interrogations would benefit from routine use of
video recording equipment.'' The Defense Department has
failed to heed this recommendation, and it now falls to
Congress to require it.
Allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC), the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, and the United National Special Rapporteur for
Torture to visit detainees in Department of Defense custody--
as your amendment would do--would show the world that the
United States no longer has anything to hide in its detention
facilities. It would also allow the United States to insist
credibly that independent monitors such as the ICRC be given
access to any of its soldiers or citizens when they are
detained abroad. As you well know, ICRC access to captured US
soldiers has saved lives and provided perhaps the only source
of relief to loved ones worried about their missing
relatives.
Videotaping interrogations and allowing independent
monitoring of detainees in US custody are two critical steps
for preventing abuse and ensuring that the actions of those
who violate the law do not taint the reputation of America's
armed forces at home and abroad.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Tom Malinowski,
Washington Advocacy Director,
Jennifer Daskal,
Advocacy Director, US Program.
____
ACLU,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2007,
Re The Holt Amendment to the Defense Department authorization
bill will increase accountability for compliance with the
McCain anti-torture amendment.
Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union
strongly urges you to support the amendment that Congressman
Rush Holt will offer this afternoon during consideration of
the Defense Department authorization bill. The bill would
make two important--and extraordinarily practical--changes to
Defense Department interrogation and detention practices. It
would (i) require the videotaping of interrogations of DOD
detainees and (ii) allow access to DOD detainees for top
human rights offices. Both provisions would increase
accountability for compliance with the McCain anti-torture
amendment.
During consideration of the Defense Department
authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2006, an overwhelming
bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to
support the McCain anti-torture amendment. As passed by
Congress and signed by President Bush, the McCain Amendment
requires the Defense Department to comply with the Army Field
Manual on Interrogations, and reinforces the long-standing
ban on the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment across the entire government. The McCain Amendment
was an important step to returning the rule of law to the
federal government's interrogation and detention policies.
The McCain Amendment, combined with an important Supreme
Court case last spring and regulatory changes made by the
Defense Department, has led to an improvement in the Defense
Department's policies on interrogations. The Holt Amendment
builds on these important developments by requiring an
additional layer of accountability.
The Holt Amendment is important for two reasons:
First, it requires videotaping of all interrogations by DOD
personnel and contractors. While these videotapes could be
classified for the protection of national security or
privacy, consistent use of videotaping will be a strong
deterrent against abuse. It will provide an additional reason
for interrogators to ensure that they remain in compliance
with the McCain Amendment, including the Army Field Manual on
Interrogations. Of course, videotaping will also have the
additional benefit to Defense Department personnel of
protecting against any false accusations of misconduct and it
creates an improved record of intelligence for the
government. This very practical provision benefits everyone
during interrogations.
Second, the Holt Amendment requires access to all DOD
detainees for the International Committee of the Red Cross,
the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the U.N.
Special Rapporteur on Torture. This provision largely
codifies current DOD policy on ICRC access, as modified after
the Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainees last
spring. The Defense Department policy now provides access to
International Committee of the Red Cross personnel to DOD
detainees. Providing access to the additional two human
rights offices of the U.N. will help ensure additional
accountability.
We strongly urge you to bolster accountability for
compliance with the McCain anti-torture amendment, including
the Army Field Manual on Interrogations by voting ``YES'' on
the Holt Amendment today. Please do not hesitate to call us
if you have any questions regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson,
Director.
Christopher E. Anders,
Legislative Counsel.
Mr. Chairman, today the House has the opportunity both to strengthen
existing safeguards and to improve our intelligence collection efforts
during interrogations. I ask that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on this
amendment to H.R. 1585.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Interrogations by military personnel are conducted under the Army
Field Manual, which complies with the Detainee Treatment Act passed by
this Congress. And, in essence, this amendment says, we don't trust our
military to follow the law; as a matter of fact, we have to videotape
them because, as a matter of law, we don't ever trust that they will
comply with the law as set forth in the Army Field Manual.
And I would remind my colleagues that the military has chosen for its
own reasons to use closed-circuit monitoring of interrogations at
Guantanamo Bay, in part for the safety of the interrogators, but under
this amendment that is not enough. Whether a military unit at
Guantanamo or elsewhere chooses to use videotaping or closed-circuit
monitoring is not enough under this amendment because we don't trust
the military anywhere to conduct interrogations under the law pursuant
to this amendment.
I would say, secondly, the military has told us that this amendment
would materially interfere with DOD operations, and I heard clearly
what the distinguished chairman of the committee and the gentleman from
New Jersey said; they said, this is good police work. But I would
remind them that our military are not policemen and that our military,
in operations all over the world, facing very dangerous terrorists in
all sorts of conditions, should have to comply with all of the same
standards that a policeman in Missouri or New Jersey or elsewhere ought
to have to comply with. This amendment forces upon them a legalistic,
bureaucratic regulation on the very people we are counting on most to
keep us safe from the most dangerous terrorists.
Mr. Chairman, I would also say that this amendment specifically says
that the videotapes have to be given to the prosecution and defense in
any civilian or military proceedings. Now, we have
[[Page H5278]]
already had trouble in this country in having sensitive information
from interrogations that has been presented to the parties leak out and
get back to people we don't want it to get to. But I would suggest that
this amendment runs an unreasonable risk of having sensitive national
security information get back to the very terrorist networks that we
are fighting, and the military are going to be faced with a choice of
either allowing that to happen or not conducting the interrogations at
all, which means we don't get the information.
Everyone from George Tenet to the current leadership of our national
security organizations say the most valuable information we have gotten
since 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks has come from detainee
interrogations. This amendment makes it harder, if not impossible, to
get that information. This amendment says we don't trust the troops to
follow the law and it will interfere with military operations. I would
suggest that it would be a mistake and increase the dangers to this
country and should be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. THORNBERRY. 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 New Jersey
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 printed in House
Report 110-151.
Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Skelton
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 4, 19,
28, 34, 35, 40 and 42 printed in House Report 110-151 offered
by Mr. Skelton:
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Reyes
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1022. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Subsection (b) of section 1033 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1881), as amended by section 1021 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law
108-136, 117 Stat. 1593) and section 1022 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2382), is further amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(17) The Government of Mexico.
``(18) The Government of the Dominican Republic.''.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Title II, add at the end the following:
SEC. 2__. MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND SIMULATION OF MILITARY AND
NON-MILITARY OPERATIONS IN COMPLEX URBAN
ENVIRONMENTS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Technology has
become an essential component in ensuring that we meet the
defense challenges of the 21st century. It allows us to build
and develop models of complex systems, effectively sharpen
the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address
difficult problems, and determine how certain actions will
effect the end result before implementing the plan in real
life, thereby providing strategic, tactical and financial
benefits. Every effort should be made to include Modeling,
Analysis and Simulation Technology in the training and
planning doctrines of the Department of Defense.
(2) Current and future military operations, and emergency
management of natural and man-made disasters, do and will
continue to involve operations in highly complex, urban
environments. These environments include complex
geographical, communications, transportation, informational,
social, political, and public support subsystems. The
interdependence of these subsystems and the cascading effects
of warfare or disasters imposed upon them should be modeled
in a computer simulation environment. It is important for the
security and safety of the Department of Defense to study and
understand the effects of warfare and disasters on the
resiliency of urban environments and to develop a computer
modeling and simulation decision-making tool for emergency
consequence management of military, natural and man-made
disasters in complex urban environments.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Allen
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following new section (and
conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 713. REPORT AND STUDY ON MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS OF
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report on the Department's
policies for administering and evaluating the vaccination of
members of the Armed Forces.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the Department's policies governing
the administration of multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour
period, including the procedures providing for a full review
of an individual's medical history prior to the
administration of multiple vaccinations, and whether such
policies and procedures differ for members of the Armed
Forces on active duty and members of reserve components.
(2) An assessment of how the Department's policies on
multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period conform to current
regulations of the Food and Drug Administration and research
performed or being performed by the Centers for Disease
Control, other non-military Federal agencies, and non-federal
institutions on multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period.
(3) An assessment of the Department's procedures for
initiating investigations of deaths of members of the Armed
Forces in which vaccinations may have played a role,
including whether such investigations can be requested by
family members of the deceased individuals.
(4) The number of deaths of members of the Armed Forces
since January 1, 2000, that the Department has investigated
for the potential role of vaccine administration, including
both the number of deaths investigated that was alleged to
have involved more than one vaccine administered in a given
24-hour period and the number of deaths investigated that was
determined to have involved more than one vaccine
administered in a given 24-hour period.
(5) An assessment of the procedures for providing the
Adjutants General of the various States and territories with
up-to-date information on the effectiveness and potential
allergic reactions and side effects of vaccines required to
be taken by National Guard members.
(6) An assessment of whether procedures are in place to
provide that the Adjutants General of the various States and
territories retain updated medical records of each National
Guard member called up for active duty.
(c) Study Required.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a
study, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration
and the Centers for Disease Control, examining the safety and
efficacy of administering multiple vaccinations within a 24-
hour period to members of the Armed Forces.
(2) Deadline.--The study required by paragraph (1) shall be
completed not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall be submitted to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Inslee
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title X, add the following new section (and
conform the table of contents, accordingly):
SEC. 1055. STUDY AND REPORT ON USE OF POWER MANAGEMENT
SOFTWARE.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
on the use of power management software by civilian and
military personnel and facilities of the Department of
Defense to reduce the use of electricity in computer monitors
and personal computers. This study shall include
recommendations for baseline electric power use, for ensuring
robust monitoring and verification of power use requirements
on a continuing basis, and for potential technological
solutions or best practices for achieving these efficiency
objectives.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report containing the results of the study under subsection
(a), including a description of the recommendations developed
under the study.
Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Terry
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the following:
SEC. 2__. INCREASED FUNDS FOR X LAB BATTLESPACE LABORATORY.
(a) Increase.--The amount in section 201(4), research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby
increased by $10,000,000, to be available for the X Lab
battlespace laboratory, program element 0603175C.
(b) Offset.--The amount in section 201(2), research,
development, test, and evaluation,
[[Page H5279]]
Navy, is hereby reduced by $10,000,000, to be derived from
Littoral Combat System Mission Modules.
Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Matheson
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title XXXIV, add the following new section:
SEC. 3402. REMEDIAL ACTION AT MOAB URANIUM MILLING SITE.
Section 3405(i) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261;
10 U.S.C. 7420 note) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Not later than October 1, 2019, the Secretary of
Energy shall complete remediation at the Moab site and
removal of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site in
Utah.''.
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. McCotter
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle D of title X, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 1034. REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROCEDURES TO
CLASSIFY EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE
SERVICES WITH MILITARY TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS.
(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall conduct a
thorough review of the procedures by which the Department of
Defense classifies defense articles and defense services with
military technology components as excess to the needs of the
Department to identify the extent to which, and the manner in
which, existing classification procedures have failed to
prevent the transfer of defense articles and defense services
with military technology components to terrorists, state
sponsors of terrorism, and other unfriendly countries or
groups.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall submit to
Congress a report that contains--
(1) the results of the review of the existing
classification procedures conducted under subsection (a); and
(2) the measures to be implemented by the Department of
Defense to rectify the deficiencies of the existing
classification procedures, including recommendations for any
legislative changes that may be necessary to implement the
measures.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``defense articles and defense services with military
technology components'' means those defense articles and
defense services designated by the President pursuant to
section 38(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2778(a)(1)), commonly known as the United States Munitions
List.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, as part of this group of en bloc
amendments, it includes an amendment I have offered. It has to do with
the uranium tailings pile on the banks of the Colorado River in Moab,
Utah.
Now, that may sound like an interesting issue to have in a Defense
authorization bill. It is not the first time it has been in a Defense
authorization bill. The last time we dealt with this was when Congress
was in session in the year 2000, and at that time Congress directed the
Department urging them to move this uranium tailings pile.
Make no mistake. This is right on the banks of a major river, and the
environmental impact statement that looked at this pile indicated that
it is a near certainty that at some point, if it is not moved, it is
going to be flushed into the river. And there are 25 million users
living downstream of this site.
Now, this mill tailings site was part of our military efforts in the
1950s and 1960s when it came to our nuclear weapons efforts, and quite
frankly, while Congress has voiced in the past on this very bill 7
years ago that it should be moved, the Department of Energy has
exhibited tremendous inaction. They have not provided information for
why there has been a delay. They have completed a longstanding
environmental impact statement that resulted in a record of a decision
saying they wanted to move it. In that, they said it could be done in 7
to 10 years.
{time} 2215
And yet, the Secretary of Energy said just this year it's not going
to be until 2028 when this moves. This is an agency that has
consistently underperformed, underpromised, has not answered questions
about the progress of this project, and that's why I offer this
amendment today, so that once again Congress can make its will known,
as it has done in the past, in indicating that this pile ought to be
moved.
I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Skelton, for his
cooperation on this issue.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield as much time as he
might like to Mr. McCotter.
Mr. McCOTTER. My amendment that I've offered is very simple and
straightforward. It requests that the Secretary of Defense, in
concurrence with the Secretary of State, issue to Congress a review of
declassification procedures that are in place to guarantee that
materiel does not fall into the hands of terrorists, does not fall into
the hands of state sponsors of terrorists, does not fall into the hands
of groups hostile to the United States, or any similar reprobates in
general. By classification procedures I mean Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Service procedures to classify something as excess and also
as eligible for sale. We believe this should not engender any
opposition. We have worked very well with the majority staff of both
the committee in question, and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Missouri for yielding, and I thank him for including my amendment in
the en bloc amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the defense authorization bill is a tremendous
undertaking and I would like to commend Chairman Skelton and his
Committee for their hard work. My amendment would simply insert
findings that Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology is an
important tool that ought to be utilized to the utmost by the
Department of Defense.
Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring
that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st
century. It allows us to build and develop models of complex systems--
whether it be a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a
major city's evacuation plan. By doing this, we can easily and
effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to
address difficult and complex problems. Determining how certain actions
will affect the end result before implementing the plan in real life
provides strategic, tactical and financial benefits. These simulations
help us develop better and practical analogies of real world
situations.
With the growing international challenges of the 21st century, this
technology is vital to the defense of our great Nation. The practical
uses of Modeling, Analysis and Simulation technology as a training tool
are boundless. Military and airline pilots have been using this
technology for decades. Now, simulating battlefield conditions will
sharpen the skills of the brave men and women serving in our armed
forces. And it is my firm belief that Congress should be interested in
using this technology for defense, homeland security, disaster
preparedness, and other ways to benefit the public. Every effort should
be made to include Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology in the
training and planning doctrines of the Department of Defense. This
amendment is a step in that direction.
The power of modeling, analysis and simulation technology can be
particularly useful in urban areas. The fact is that current and future
military operations, and emergency management of natural and manmade
disasters, do and will continue to involve operations in highly
complex, urban environments; we are no longer engaging in traditional
battlefield operations. These urban environments include complex
geographical, communications, transportation, informational, social,
political, and public support subsystems. The interdependence of these
subsystems and the cascading effects of warfare or disasters imposed
upon them should be modeled in a computer simulation environment. This
will help us prepare for emergency consequence management of military,
natural and manmade disasters in complex urban environments.
Using modeling, analysis, and simulation technology in the fields of
national defense, science, homeland security and disaster planning will
better the lives of all Americans, make our Nation safer and save time
and
[[Page H5280]]
money in the process. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Chairman Ortiz for
including my bill providing for reimbursement for superior helmet
liners to protect soldiers with severe head injuries and for adjusting
the testing criteria for helmet pad systems.
Thankfully, this bill calls for another round of testing and
evaluation on all qualified combat helmet pad systems to be conducted
by an independent test laboratory outside the government. I just want
to thank you for doing that, for again protecting our soldiers.
I rise today to ask for your help to expand the reintegration
programs for members of the National Guard included in this year's
National Defense Authorization Act.
In Oregon, our Adjutant General has put together a program that helps
to ease returning Guard members through the transition back to civilian
life. The Yellow Ribbon National Guard Reintegration Program provides
for 5 days of reintegration activities after demobilization. I would
ask that the program be expanded to keep returning servicemembers on
active duty for up to 15 days after demobilization. Not all need or
want the full 15 days, but commanders should have the flexibility to
provide extra time to those who need it.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this important
issue. I assure her that we will make sure that the Reserve Component
Reintegration Working Group as well as the Yellow Ribbon National Guard
Reintegration Program consider all options to include expanding the
current program from 5 to 15 days during their deliberations.
Ms. HOOLEY. I also want to thank the Chair for including report
language that acknowledges the success of the Oregon National Guard
Reintegration Program. I believe that the program can be a model for
other States developing their own programs.
Mr. SKELTON. I certainly agree. And we look forward to the findings
of the Reserve Component Reintegration Working Group and the Yellow
Ribbon National Guard Reintegration Program.
Ms. HOOLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chair, for all that you do for our
soldiers.
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 Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Andrews
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. ANDREWS. 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 offered by Mr. Andrews:
At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 2853. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING USE
OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TO MEET AT LEAST 25 PERCENT
OF DEPARTMENT ELECTRICITY NEEDS.
Subsection (e) of section 2911 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Use of Renewable Energy to Meet Electricity Needs.--
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Department
of Defense--
``(A) produces or procures, from renewable energy sources,
not less than 25 percent of the total quantity of electric
energy it consumes within its facilities and in its
activities during fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year
thereafter; and
``(B) produces or procures electric energy from renewable
energy sources whenever the use of such renewable energy
sources is consistent with the energy performance goals and
energy performance plan for the Department and supported by
the special considerations specified in subsection (c).
``(2) In order to achieve the 25-percent requirement
specified in paragraph (1)(A) by fiscal year 2025, the
Secretary of Defense shall establish annual incremental goals
for the production or procurement of electric energy from
renewable energy sources for the electric energy needs of the
Department. The annual reports on the energy management
implementation plan and the annual energy management report
shall include information regarding the progress made towards
meeting the annual incremental goals and 25-percent
requirement.
``(3) The imposition of the 25-percent requirement
specified in paragraph (1)(A) by fiscal year 2025 and the
requirement to establish annual incremental goals under
paragraph (2) does not authorize the Secretary of a military
department or a Defense agency to use energy saving
performance contracts, enhanced used leases, utility energy
service contracts, utilities revitalization authority, and
related contractual mechanisms to a greater extent than would
be the case in the absence of the 25-percent requirement.
``(4) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements
of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) if the
Secretary--
``(A) determines that the waiver is in the best interests
of the Department of Defense; and
``(B) notifies the congressional defense committees of the
waiver, including the reasons for the waiver.
``(5) In this subsection, the term `renewable energy
sources' has the meaning given that term in section 203(b) of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b)).''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
Modification to Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Andrews
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my amendment at
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered
in accordance with the modification.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Andrews:
The amendment as modified is as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 2853. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING USE
OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TO MEET AT LEAST 25 PERCENT
OF DEPARTMENT ELECTRICITY NEEDS.
Subsection (e) of section 2911 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Use of Renewable Energy to Meet Electricity Needs.--
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Department
of Defense--
``(A) produces or procures, from renewable energy sources,
not less than 25 percent of the total quantity of electric
energy it consumes within its facilities and in its
activities during fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year
thereafter; and
``(B) produces or procures electric energy from renewable
energy sources whenever the use of such renewable energy
sources is consistent with the energy performance goals and
energy performance plan for the Department and supported by
the special considerations specified in subsection (c).
``(2) In order to achieve the 25-percent requirement
specified in paragraph (1)(A) by fiscal year 2025, the
Secretary of Defense shall establish annual incremental goals
for the production or procurement of electric energy from
renewable energy sources for the electric energy needs of the
Department. The annual reports on the energy management
implementation plan and the annual energy management report
shall include information regarding the progress made towards
meeting the annual incremental goals and 25-percent
requirement.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military
department, or a Defense agency may not use any means of
third-party financing, including energy savings performance
contracts, enhanced use leases, utility energy service
contracts, utility privatization agreements, or other related
contractual mechanisms, to achieve the 25-percent requirement
specified in paragraph (1)(A). Renewable energy produced
through any means of third-party financing will not count
towards the achievement of the 25-percent requirement.
``(4) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements
of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) if the
Secretary--
``(A) determines that the waiver is in the best interests
of the Department of Defense; and
``(B) notifies the congressional defense committees of the
waiver, including the reasons for the waiver.
``(5) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `renewable energy sources' has the meaning
given that term in section 203(b) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b)).
``(B) The term `energy savings performance contract' has
the meaning given that term in section 804(3) of the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c).
``(C) The term `enhanced use lease' means a lease under
section 2667 of this title.
``(D) The term `utility energy service contract' means a
contract under section 2913 of this title.
``(E) The term `utility privatization authority' means the
authority provided under section 2668 of this title.''.
Mr. ANDREWS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
[[Page H5281]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One of the key determinants of the country's economic prosperity in
the future and our ability to become less dependent upon imported fuel
from around the world is our ability to develop alternative renewable
fuels.
One of the most powerful tools at our disposal is the purchasing
power of the Department of Defense. Presently, the Department of
Defense spends in excess of $3 billion a year to buy electricity.
The purpose of this amendment is to codify a practice that the
Secretary of Defense has already initiated, which is to increase the
percentage of electricity purchased by the Department of Defense from
the 9 percent, which it presently is, up to 25 percent by the year
2025. In order to do this, we believe that the Secretary of Defense
should have flexibility. So the amendment provides that if the
Secretary in his or her judgment believes that defense and security
goals of the country would be in some way impaired by meeting this
target, then the Secretary is authorized to waive this target.
We believe that with the adoption of this amendment and of these
goals, we would generate a $15 billion market in the purchase of
electricity generated by renewable fuels. We further believe that the
entrepreneurial capacity of American scientists and entrepreneurs would
generate products that would help fill this need. Once those products
are available, they would then be widely available to the commercial
and nonprofit and public sectors to help us greatly reduce our
dependence upon nonrenewable fuels generally, and imported nonrenewable
fuels specifically.
I would ask that the amendment be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I would like to take
the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. I just want to say to my friend that I certainly share
his goal of renewable energies being used in the Department of Defense.
And I have a colloquy I would like to enter into with the gentleman
because I know he had to go to some lengths to be able to make sure
that his amendment was in order under our rules, particularly our
offset rules.
At this time, I would like to ask my friend from New Jersey to
clarify part of his amendment that I have found troubling. And that is,
Mr. Andrews, if I understand your amendment correctly, the Secretary of
Defense would be prohibited from using third-party financing options,
such as energy saving performance contracts, known as ESPCs, and
enhanced use leases, EULs, in meeting your requirement for them to
purchase 25 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by
2025; is that correct?
Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. HUNTER. I will yield.
Mr. ANDREWS. That is correct. The amendment, as I would have wanted
it drafted, would not have had that restriction in it. However, I was
required to include it to avoid a point of order for direct spending.
Mr. HUNTER. So if I understand you correctly, it is not your intent
to limit the Department's use of third-party financing while they work
to achieve the 25 percent requirement that your amendment lays out.
Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will further yield, that is certainly
correct.
I know just how beneficial these authorities are to the Department,
and I do not want my amendment to prevent the Secretary of Defense from
using these tools to continue to improve energy efficiency and
renewable energy use in the Department of Defense. My intent is simply
to set firm requirements from what I believe is a responsible energy
policy for the Department of Defense.
Mr. HUNTER. With that clarification, would you be willing to work
with us to further refine this as we move to conference?
Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I would gladly work with
the gentleman.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to the gentleman who is going
to make all of this work, and that is the chairman of the committee, my
good friend, Mr. Skelton.
I happily support Mr. Andrews' amendment. And I hope that you will
work with us here as we move down the line toward conference to ensure
that these tools that have been available for increasing efficiency and
energy use will be available under Mr. Andrews' amendment.
I would yield to the chairman of the committee.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank my friend for yielding. And without going into
great detail, I am appreciative of the fact that Mr. Andrews and you,
Mr. Hunter, have worked hard on achieving a balanced solution to this
amendment as it is in final form here this evening. I think it's very
commendable, and I am very much in favor of it. I thank Mr. Andrews for
raising it, and I thank you, Mr. Hunter.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I very strongly support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I want to thank the
ranking member of the committee for his great cooperation on this, and
obviously our chairman for his help, and extraordinarily fine staff
work by the majority staff and the minority staff for which I am very
grateful, and also the men and women at the CBO, and my own office, Mr.
Luke Ballman, for his hard work on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Skelton
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. SKELTON. 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. 1 offered by Mr. Skelton:
In section 122(a), strike ``enter into multiyear contracts,
beginning with the fiscal year 2008 program year'' and insert
``enter into a multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal
year 2009 program year''.
In section 301(10), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$5,847,609,000''.
In section 301(11), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$5,042,565,000''.
In section 576, strike subsection (i) and insert the
following new subsection:
(i) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to section 301(5) for Defense-wide activities,
$3,000,000 shall be available for deposit in the Fund for
fiscal year 2008.
In section 944(b)(2) ( page 444, lines 13 and 14), strike
``Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)'' and insert
``Director of the Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation''.
In title XIII, add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 1307. CLARIFICATION OF AMOUNTS FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT
REDUCTION PROGRAMS.
The amount in section 1302(a)(9), and the corresponding
amounts in section 1302(a) (in the matter preceding paragraph
(1)) and in section 301(19), are hereby increased by $48,000,
all of which is to expand staff capacity, capabilities, and
resources necessary for activities related to new Cooperative
Threat Reduction initiatives.
In section 1508, add at the end the following new
paragraph:
(11) For the Strategic Readiness Fund, $1,000,000,000.
Redesignate section 1517 as section 1518 and insert after
section 1516 the following new section (and conform the table
of contents accordingly):
SEC. 1517. NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2008 to the Department of Energy for the National
Nuclear Security Administration for defense nuclear
nonproliferation in the amount of $50,000,000.
In section 2104(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
strike the dollar amount and insert ``$5,133,817,000''.
In section 2104(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$3,089,400,000''.
[[Page H5282]]
In section 2204(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
strike the dollar amount and insert ``$2,757,249,000''.
In section 2204(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$1,496,532,000''.
In section 2204(a)(2), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$293,858,000''.
In section 2304(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$710,173,000''.
In section 2404(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
strike the dollar amount and insert ``$10,253,464,000''.
In section 2404(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert
``$898,483,000''.
Title XXXI, subtitle A, add at the end the following new
section:
SEC. 3105. OTHER ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2008 for energy security
and assurance programs necessary for national security in the
amount of $6,000,000.
Make the following technical amendments:
(1) Page 302, lines 13 to 20, move the margins 2 ems to the
right.
(2) Page 332, line 20, insert ``in'' before ``subparagraph
(B)''.
(3) Page 478, lines 12 to 15, move the margins 2 ems to the
right.
(4) Page 513, line 22, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(i)''.
(5) Page 514, line 20, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(i)''.
(6) Page 623, line 19, strike the period and insert a
semicolon.
(7) Page 669, line 16, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(i)''.
(8) Page 734, line 10, strike ``redesignation'' and insert
``redesignating''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my manager's amendment which is before us
this moment makes a series of technical and conforming changes, all of
which have been set forth for the Members throughout the day, and I ask
all the Members to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my chairman, Mr.
Skelton, the gentleman from Missouri, for such a wonderful job on this
bill. We are totally in agreement with the manager's amendment and
support it.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
my friend (Mr. Tim Murphy).
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for your help in this colloquy to
identify an alternative that will allow the commissary and exchange
stores to remain open at the Army's Charles E. Kelly support facility
in Oakdale, Pennsylvania.
Although this installation will close as a result of the base
realignment and closure process, there will remain a strong demand for
these stores that are so critical to the vitality and welfare of any
military community.
In the case of the Kelly support facility, the population of activity
duty, reservists and retirees in western Pennsylvania, and the adjacent
areas of Ohio and West Virginia, is estimated to be nearly 70,000, with
another 100,000 family members. I would hope that a way can be found to
project this critical benefit for these great Americans who have
faithfully served our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman for a response.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this very important
issue. I assure the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I will assist him
in pursuing new options for protecting these important benefits at the
Kelly support facility.
{time} 2230
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank
the gentleman for including report language including the development
of a new model for a combined commissary and exchange store. I believe
a new strategy for combining these stores can be a valuable tool in
protecting these benefits.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I agree. A combined commissary and
exchange store may be the key to the future military resale activities
at installations such as at the Kelly Support Facility.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I thank you
for your support. I would also like to thank Chairman Murtha for his
help and commitment and my Pittsburgh colleague and friend, Mike Doyle,
and also Mr. Altmire for help on this project. I am pleased to be
working with all of my colleagues on this important issue and look
forward to continuing our work together.
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. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 110-151.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time, we are nearing the end of
all the debate. We have finished all the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, my heart is filled with gratitude for the other
Members, for our ranking member, Mr. Hunter, and to our amazing staff.
The American people should know what a wonderful staff we have in
putting together this defense bill. So many of them have stayed up late
at night, early in the morning, all night long to write and make sure
that we have the t's crossed and the i's dotted, to make sure that the
young men and young women, as well as those who lead the young men and
young women, have the tools with which to keep our country safe and, of
course, free. We have a great deal of gratitude for all of them, and I
just can't thank them enough.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I just want
to join with our chairman, Ike Skelton, in thanking all of our staff,
who have done a wonderful job in bringing together hundreds of issues
at the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and now on the
House floor, and in these difficult times.
In these partisan times, when we all have to wear our partisan hat at
times, this committee, which I think is the most bipartisan committee
in the House of Representatives, has done a good job. We have provided
good tools, good equipment, good resources for the people that wear the
uniform of the United States, and a lot of that should be credited to
our chairman, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton.
Many thanks, Ike, for your great work on this bill. I am sure we will
have a great vote on it tomorrow, after we present you with an
irresistible motion to recommit. I look forward to closing out the bill
with you tomorrow. I know you will drive it successfully through the
conference.
Thank you for everything that you have done in stitching this thing
together. It is important for our troops, and I think we have done a
pretty effective job today of moving it down the line. Many thanks.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the gentleman's comments
and grateful for his work.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Braley of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, 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.
1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________