[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 85 (Thursday, May 22, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4779-H4821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H4779]]
House of Representatives
DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 53
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 53 offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa:
At the end of subtitle B of title XII, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 12__. REPORT ON LONG-TERM COSTS OF OPERATION IRAQI
FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States has been engaged in military
operations in Afghanistan since October 2001 and in military
operations in Iraq since March 2003.
(2) According to the Congressional Research Service, to
date, Congress has appropriated $700,000,000,000 from fiscal
year 2001 through fiscal year 2008 for the Department of
Defense, the State Department, and for medical costs paid by
the Department of Veterans Affairs. This amount includes
$526,000,000,000 for Iraq and $140,000,000,000 for
Afghanistan and other counterterror operations. Among other
expenditures, this amount includes funding for combat
operations; deploying, transporting, feeding, and housing
troops; deployment of National Guard and Reserve troops; the
equipping and training of Iraqi and Afghani forces;
purchasing, upgrading, and repairing weapons, munitions and
other equipment; supplemental combat pay and benefits;
providing medical care to troops on active duty and returning
veterans; reconstruction and foreign aid; and payments to
other countries for logistical assistance.
(3) Over 90 percent of Department of Defense funds for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been provided as
emergency funds in supplemental or additional appropriations.
(4) The Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional
Research Service have stated that future war costs are
difficult to estimate because the Department of Defense has
provided little detailed information on costs incurred to
date, does not report outlays or actual expenditures for war
because war and baseline funds are mixed in the same
accounts, and does not provide information on many key
factors which determine costs, including personnel levels or
the pace of operations.
(5) To date, the administration has not provided any long-
term estimates of war costs, despite a statutory reporting
requirement that the President submit a cost estimate for
fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2011 that was enacted in
2004.
(6) Operating costs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been
increasing steadily since 2003, and war costs in Iraq have
sharply increased from $50,000,000,000 in 2003 to
approximately $134,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, to the
$154,000,000,000 request for fiscal year 2008.
(7) The Iraq Study Group Report states that, ``the United
States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq in
both blood and treasure,'' warns that ``the United States
must expect significant `tail costs' to come'', and predicts
that ``Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will
run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run
as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S.
involvement in Iraq''.
(8) The Iraq Study Group Report also finds that ``This
level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period .
. .''.
(9) The use of government contractors and private military
firms has reached unprecedented levels, with over 100,000
contractors operating in Iraq.
(10) Over 1,600,000 American troops have served in
Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of the conflicts.
(11) Over 4,050 United States troops and Department of
Defense civilian personnel have been killed in Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and over 490 United States troops and
Department of Defense civilian personnel have been killed in
Operation Enduring Freedom.
(12) National Guard and Reserve troops are being deployed
in support of these conflicts at unprecedented levels.
(13) Many troops are serving multiple deployments, and one-
third of those serving in the Iraq war have been deployed two
or more times.
(14) Over 1,100 service members have suffered amputations
as a result of their service in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(15) More than 100,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have
been treated for mental health conditions.
(16) 52,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been
diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
(17) Nearly 37 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan have sought treatment at Department of Veterans
Affairs hospitals and clinics.
(18) Many troops have suffered multiple injuries, with
veterans claiming an average of five separate conditions.
(19) The Independent Review Group on Rehabilitative Care
and Administrative Processes at Walter Reed Army Medical
Center and National Naval Medical Center identified Traumatic
Brain Injury, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, increased
survival of severe burns, and traumatic amputations as the
four signature wounds of the current conflicts, and found
that the ``numbers of servicemembers surviving with . . .
complex injuries have challenged our modern military medical
system and exposed weakness and breakdowns in access to care,
as well as continuity of care management and follow-on
administrative processes''.
(20) The Independent Review Group report also states that
the recovery process ``can take months or years and must
accommodate recurring or delayed manifestations of symptoms,
extended rehabilitation and all the life complications that
emerge over time from such trauma''.
(b) Report Requirement; Scenarios.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President,
with contributions from the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, shall submit a report to Congress
containing an estimate of the long-term costs of Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The report
shall contain estimates for the following scenarios:
(1) The number of personnel deployed in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is
reduced from current levels to 30,000 by the beginning of
fiscal year 2010 and remains at that level through fiscal
year 2017.
(2) The number of personnel deployed in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom is
reduced from
[[Page H4780]]
current levels to 75,000 by the beginning of fiscal year 2013
and remains at that level through 2017.
(3) An alternative scenario, defined by the President and
based on current war plans, which takes into account expected
troop levels and the expected length of time that troops will
be deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom.
(c) Special Considerations.--The estimates required for
each scenario shall make projections through at least fiscal
year 2068, shall be adjusted appropriately for inflation, and
shall take into account and specify the following:
(1) The total number of troops expected to be activated and
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan during the course of
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This
number shall include all troops deployed in the region in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom and activated reservists in the United States who are
training, backfilling for deployed troops, or supporting
other Department of Defense missions directly or indirectly
related to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom. This number shall also break down activations and
deployments of Active Duty, Reservists, and National Guard
troops.
(2) The number of troops, including National Guard and
Reserve troops, who have served and who are expected to serve
multiple deployments.
(3) The number of contractors and private military security
firms that have been utilized and are expected to be utilized
during the course of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(4) The number of veterans currently suffering and expected
to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Traumatic
Brain Injury, or other mental injuries.
(5) The number of veterans currently in need of and
expected to be in need of prosthetic care and treatment
because of amputations incurred during Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
(6) The current number of pending Department of Veterans
Affairs claims from Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and the
total number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans expected to
seek disability compensation benefits from the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
(7) The total number of troops who have been killed and
wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, including noncombat
casualties, the total number of troops expected to suffer
injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the total number of
troops expected to be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including noncombat casualties.
(8) Funding already appropriated for the Department of
Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of
Veterans Affairs for costs related to the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This shall include an account of the amount of
funding from regular Department of Defense, Department of
State, and Department of Veterans Affairs budgets that has
gone and will go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
(9) Current and future operational expenditures, including
funding for combat operations; deploying, transporting,
feeding, and housing troops (including fuel costs);
deployment of National Guard and Reserve troops; the
equipping and training of Iraqi and Afghani forces;
purchasing, upgrading, and repairing weapons, munitions and
other equipment; and payments to other countries for
logistical assistance.
(10) Past, current, and future cost of government
contractors and private military security firms.
(11) Average annual cost for each troop deployed in support
of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom,
including room and board, equipment and body armor,
transportation of troops and equipment (including fuel
costs), and operational costs.
(12) Current and future cost of combat-related special pays
and benefits, including reenlistment bonuses.
(13) Current and future cost of activating National Guard
and Reserve forces and paying them on a full-time basis.
(14) Current and future cost for reconstruction, embassy
operations and construction, and foreign aid programs for
Iraq and Afghanistan.
(15) Current and future cost of bases and other
infrastructure to support United States troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(16) Current and future cost of providing healthcare for
returning veterans. This estimate shall include the cost of
mental health treatment for veterans suffering from Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury, and
other mental problems as a result of their service in
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This
estimate shall also include the cost of lifetime prosthetics
care and treatment for veterans suffering from amputations as
a result of their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom.
(17) Current and future cost of providing Department of
Veterans Affairs disability benefits for lifetime of
veterans.
(18) Current and future cost of providing survivors'
benefits to survivors of service members.
(19) Cost of bringing troops and equipment home at the end
of the wars, including cost of demobilizing troops,
transporting troops home (including fuel costs), providing
transition services from active duty to veteran status,
transporting equipment, weapons, and munitions (including
fuel costs), and an estimate of the value of equipment which
will be left behind.
(20) Cost to restore the military and military equipment,
including the National Guard and National Guard equipment, to
full strength after the wars.
(21) Cost of the administration's plan to permanently
increase the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 over the next
six years.
(22) Amount of money borrowed to pay for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and the sources of that money.
(23) Interest on borrowed money, including interest for
money already borrowed and anticipated interest payments on
future borrowing for the war in Iraq and the war in
Afghanistan.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Braley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a simple,
commonsense amendment that requires the President to submit a report to
Congress on the long-term costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On June 28 of this year, Chairman Murtha sent a Dear Colleague letter
out talking about this very problem and the need to make sure that we
are being given accurate information. We have now been engaged in the
war in Afghanistan for almost 7 years and the war in Iraq for over 5
years, and the Bush administration has yet to submit a long-term
estimate for the costs of the war. The administration has not submitted
a cost estimate, despite a statutory reporting requirement for fiscal
years 2006 through 2011 that was required in the fiscal year 2005
defense appropriation budget.
As someone who took great interest in the Iraq Study Group report and
the massive commitment to the future of Iraq in both blood and
treasure, I looked forward to the publication of the Independent Review
Group report that was issued in the wake of the Walter Reed Building 18
fiasco.
One of the things that was recognized in that report was the fact
that the Nation must recognize that there is a moral, human and
budgetary cost of the war. When we engage in armed conflict, we must
recognize those costs and be prepared to execute on those obligations.
The Independent Review Group's report, chaired by General Togo West,
also identified the four signature wounds of this war: Traumatic brain
injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, increased survival of severe
burns, and traumatic amputations.
Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the Bush administration has not
provided the required cost reporting, Nobel Prize winning economist
Joseph Stiglitz has published a study talking about these exact costs,
not just the long-term medical costs, but the cost of rebuilding our
military in the book ``The $3 Trillion War.''
One of the things we know is that young men who are severely injured,
many of them age 19 or 20, are going to have permanent injuries from
these signature wounds, many of them over a life expectancy that may
stretch out 55 or 60 years. We also know that there are life-care plans
used by medical economists and prosthetic needs analysis that are used
to determine what those long-term costs are. The American people, the
American taxpayers, deserve to know what these costs will be.
We have already spent $700 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
people of this country deserve to know from the Department of Defense
what these long-term costs are going to be over the lifetime of these
wounded warriors.
{time} 1700
For that reason I have asked that this amendment be included as part
of the defense authorization bill to address the long-term and hidden
costs of the war. And those are reflected in the testimony of
Lieutenant General Chip Rodman at the Independent Review Group hearing
that we held in oversight who said, we recognize the cost is immense,
and it is our moral obligation to address those issues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we are in the middle of a war in which the
battlefield situation changes on a daily
[[Page H4781]]
basis. The idea that the gentleman has given us a requirement for the
administration to project until 2068, for 50, 60 years as to what is
going to happen on the battlefield and what the casualties are going to
be; and I believe he has laid out 23 considerations.
When you get out that far, Mr. Chairman, this becomes basically an
editorial against the war, and I think there are other ways you can put
that if you want to frame that particular position. But the idea that
we are asking as we sit here and try to figure out what gas prices are
going to be in 2 weeks, the idea that we are going to figure out how
Iraq is going to be situated half a century from now, I think that is
simply something that trivializes our debate on this very critical
issue.
And let me tell you, 23 factors if we actually put this thing in law,
the idea that we are supposed to have our people in uniform devoted to
figuring out how to succeed in their mission, how to take care of our
people, to have them out there trying to be seers of the future for
half a century with respect to a war that is changing on a weekly basis
is an enormous burden on people who wear the uniform.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all vote a resounding ``no'' on
this, and let's do analyses that are relevant, that can be utilized.
But the idea of sending our people down the pike for a 50-year look at
the future I think is not going to be good for this committee and I
think it is not going to be productive for the security of the United
States.
I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman.
This war is the first time in American history when we have had tax
cuts during a war. And if ever there is a moment in time when our
country should be called upon to share a sacrifice, it is when we are
sending our sons and daughters to war.
This amendment calls the question, it says the obvious: We can't keep
paying for this on a credit card. There are costs that are going to be
paid not only by this generation, but by future generations. The
President has put this war on the credit card, and the irony of that is
that it is the sons and the daughters of the men and women who are
fighting this war who are going to pay for this. It is time to be
candid and honest with the American people.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my friend
and colleague from California, and I would just like to point out that
this is already a subject that has been considered by the Department of
Defense.
When we had the hearings in association with Walter Reed and the
independent review group, top medical Army officers admitted that they
have the capacity using the numbers that are available to make the
types of projections that are being considered by this bill.
The two scenarios that we are talking about are based upon
illustrative scenarios that the CBO has already used and estimated the
long-term costs of this war.
The third estimate allows the administration to base their cost
estimates on their own parameters, including the operational costs, the
reconstruction costs, the costs to government contractors, private
military security firms, and providing lifetime health care and
disability benefits for veterans. We know this is done on a daily basis
in the private sector, because these types of projections are made for
people suffering these very same signature wounds who are injured in
automobile collisions and then taken care of by Federal dollars.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).
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 Iowa will be
postponed.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Skelton
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 1218, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 5, 10, 11, 14,
19, 20, 24, 28, 30, 40, 42, 45, 46, and 43 printed in House Report 110-
666 offered by Mr. Skelton:
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title X, add the following new section:
SEC. 1071. COMPREHENSIVE INTERAGENCY STRATEGY FOR STRATEGIC
COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ACTIVITIES
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(a) Comprehensive Strategy.--
(1) Strategy.--The President shall develop a comprehensive
interagency strategy for public diplomacy and strategic
communication that updates and builds upon the strategy
outlined by the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy
Policy Coordinating Committee in the publication titled
``U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic
Communication'' (June, 2007).
(2) Contents.--The strategy required by this subsection
shall contain overall objectives, goals, actions to be
performed, and benchmarks and timetables for the achievement
of such goals and objectives.
(3) Components.--The strategy shall include the following
components:
(A) Prioritizing the mission of supporting specific foreign
policy objectives, such as counterterrorism and efforts to
combat extremist ideology, in parallel and in complement
with, as appropriate, the broad mission of communicating the
policies and values of the United States to foreign
audiences.
(B) Consolidating and elevating Federal Government
leadership to prioritize, manage, and implement the strategy
required by this subsection, including the consideration of
establishing strategic communication and public diplomacy
positions at the National Security Council and establishing a
single office to coordinate strategic communication and
public diplomacy efforts.
(C) Improving coordination across departments and agencies
of the Federal Government on--
(i) strategic planning;
(ii) research activities, such as research into the
attitudes and behaviors of foreign audiences; and
(iii) the development of editorial content, including
content for Internet websites and print publications.
(D) Developing a more rigorous, research-based, targeted
approach to strategic communication and public diplomacy
efforts, with efforts differentiated for specific target
audiences in various countries and regions.
(E) Developing more rigorous monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms.
(F) Making greater use of innovative tools in strategic
communication and public diplomacy research and operations,
including new media platforms and social research
technologies.
(G) Making greater use of participation from private sector
entities, academic institutions, not-for-profit
organizations, and other non-governmental organizations in
supporting strategic communication and public diplomacy
efforts, including the consideration of establishing an
independent, not-for-profit organization described in
subsection (b).
(H) Increasing resources devoted to strategic communication
and public diplomacy efforts.
(4) Reports.--
(A) Initial report.--Not later than December 31, 2009, the
President shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report that describes the strategy required by
this subsection.
(B) Subsequent reports.--Not less than once every two years
after the submission of the initial report under subparagraph
(A), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees
of Congress a report on--
(i) the status of the implementation of the strategy;
(ii) progress toward achievement of benchmarks; and
(iii) any changes to the strategy since the submission of
the previous report.
(b) Study of Independent Organization.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense shall jointly conduct a study assessing the
recommendation from the Defense Science Board's Task Force on
Strategic Communication to establish an independent, not-for-
profit organization responsible for providing independent
assessment and strategic guidance to the Federal Government
on strategic communication and public diplomacy.
(2) Scope.--The study shall include--
(A) an assessment of the benefits gained by establishing
such an organization; and
(B) an outline of the potential framework of such an
organization, including its organization, mission,
capabilities, and operations.
(c) Report on Roles of Departments or Agencies of the
Federal Government.--
(1) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2009, the President
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report--
[[Page H4782]]
(A) describing the roles of the Department of State and the
Department of Defense regarding strategic communication and
public diplomacy; and
(B) assessing proposals to establish an independent center
to support government-wide strategic communication and public
diplomacy efforts, including the study described in
subsection (b).
(2) Report elements.--The report shall contain the
following:
(A) A description of activities performed by the Department
of Defense as part of strategic communication, including--
(i) efforts to disseminate directly to foreign audiences
messages intended to shape the security environment of a
combatant command;
(ii) psychological operations, including those in direct
support of contingency operations other than Operation
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, that are
intended to counter extremist and hostile propaganda or
promote stability and security; and
(iii) public affairs programs to shape the opinions of
foreign audiences.
(B) A current description of activities conducted by the
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at
the Department of State, including--
(i) outreach to mass audiences and strategic audiences,
such as opinion makers, youth, and other targeted groups,
using media, lectures, information centers, and cultural
events;
(ii) use of interactive media technologies, such as
Internet blogs and social networking websites, to build
relationships and to counter extremist groups using similar
media;
(iii) education and exchange programs;
(iv) book translation; and
(v) work with non-governmental organizations and private-
sector partners.
(C) A definition of the roles of the offices within the
Department of State and the Department of Defense that are
engaged in message outreach to audiences abroad.
(D) A detailed explanation of how the Department of State
and the Department of Defense perform unique strategic
communication activities and public diplomacy activities.
(E) An explanation of how the Department of State and the
Department of Defense coordinate strategic communication and
public diplomacy activities in--
(i) using polls, focus groups, and other measures to learn
the attitudes and behavior of foreign audiences;
(ii) publishing editorial content on Internet websites and
in print media;
(iii) organizing field support for military information
support teams, civil affairs, and other shared activities;
(iv) using foreign-directed education and training
resources; and
(v) training personnel in both departments by exchanging
faculty and students of the Foreign Service Institute, the
Army War College, the Naval War College, and other similar
institutions.
(d) Form and Availability of Reports.--
(1) Form.--The reports required by this section may be
submitted in a classified form.
(2) Availability.--Any unclassified portions of the reports
required by this section shall be made available to the
public.
(e) Appropriate Committees.--For the purposes of this
section, the appropriate committees of Congress are the
following:
(1) The Committees on Foreign Relations, Armed Services,
and Appropriations of the Senate.
(2) The Committees on Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sestak
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 282, insert after line 2 the following:
(a) Minimum Cost Share Per Month.--The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that autistic children of members of the Armed
Forces enrolled in the Extended Care Health Option program
shall be eligible to receive a minimum of $5,000 per month of
autistic therapy services.
Page 282, line 3, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Page 282, line 8, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 282, line 23, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 282, insert after line 3 the following:
(3) Extended care health option.--The term ``Extended Care
Health Option'' means the program of extended benefits
provided pursuant to subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section
1079 of title 10, United States Code.
(e) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 1511(a), $29,000,000 is authorized to be used to
carry out this section.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Sestak
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II, insert the following new section:
SEC. 239. VISITING NIH SENIOR NEUROSCIENCE FELLOWSHIP
PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement to Establish.--The Secretary of Defense may
establish a program to be known as the Visiting NIH Senior
Neuroscience Fellowship Program (in this section referred to
as the ``Program'') at the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) and the Defense Center of Excellence for
Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (DCoE).
(b) Activities of the Program.--The Program may--
(1) provide a partnership between the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) and DARPA that will enable identification and
funding of the broadest range of innovative, highest quality
clinical and experimental neuroscience studies for the
benefit of men and women in the Armed Forces;
(2) provide a partnership between the NIH and the DCoE that
will enable identification and funding of clinical and
experimental neuroscience studies for the benefit of men and
women in the Armed Forces;
(3) provide a technology transfer mechanism whereby the
results of such studies can, where appropriate, be used to
enhance the health mission of the NIH for the benefit of the
public; and
(4) provide a military/civilian collaborative environment
for neuroscience-based medical problem-solving in critical
areas impacting both military and civilian life, particularly
post-traumatic stress disorder.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Castle
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of subtitle E of title V, the following new
section:
SEC. 5__. ENHANCING EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS TO IMPROVE
ACCESSIBILITY AND FLEXIBILITY FOR MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of a military department may
enter into one or more education partnership agreements with
educational institutions in the United States for the purpose
of--
(1) developing plans to improve the accessibility and
flexibility of college courses available to eligible members
of the Armed Forces;
(2) improving the application process for the Armed Forces
tuition assistance programs and raising awareness regarding
educational opportunities available to such members;
(3) developing curriculum, distance education programs, and
career counseling designed to meet the professional,
financial, academic, and social needs of such members; and
(4) assessing how resources may be applied more effectively
to meet the educational needs of such members.
(b) Cost.--Except as provided in this section, execution of
an education partnership agreement with an educational
institution shall be at no cost to the Government.
(c) Educational Institution Defined.--In this section, the
term ``educational institution'' means an accredited college,
university, or technical school in the United States.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Porter
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 283, after line 3, add the following new section:
SEC. 734. SUICIDE RISK BY MILITARY OCCUPATION.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
to identify the mental health risks associated with the
performance of military duties.
(b) Elements.--The study shall include the following
elements:
(1) An assessment of suicide incidence by military
occupation.
(2) An identification of military occupations with a high
incidence of suicide.
(3) An evaluation of current suicide prevention programs
for those military occupations with a high incidence of
suicide.
(4) An assessment of the need for additional suicide
prevention programs specific to military occupations with a
high incidence of suicide.
(c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the Congressional Defense Committees a report on the
findings of the study. The report shall include any
recommendations for improving suicide prevention programs for
military occupations with a high incidence of suicide.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Capito
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title V, add the following new section:
SEC. 5__. ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO CARRY OUT FUNERAL HONOR
FUNCTIONS AT FUNERALS FOR VETERANS.
(a) Additional Funds.--The amount made available in section
421 is hereby increased by $3,000,000, of which $1,000,000
shall be available to the Secretary of the Army, $1,000,000
shall be available to the Secretary of the Navy, and
$1,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of the Air
Force to comply with the requirements of section 1491 of
title 10, United States Code.
(b) Corresponding Offset.--The amount provided in section
201(1) for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army,
is hereby reduced by $3,000,000, to be derived from the basic
research under the University Research Initiatives.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H4783]]
Page 406, after line 18, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1005. MANAGEMENT OF PURCHASE CARDS.
(a) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--Section
2784 of title 10, United States Code, is amended in
subsection (b)--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (10) as
paragraphs (4) through (11), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) That expenditures charged to the purchase card are
independently received, accepted, or verified by an official
with authority to authorize expenditures.'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through paragraph (11)
(as previously redesignated by paragraph (1)) as paragraphs
(10) through (12), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as previously
redesignated by paragraph (1)) the following new paragraph:
``(9) That appropriate inventory and property systems are
updated promptly in response to expenditures charged to a
purchase card related to pilferable property.''.
(b) Penalties for Violations.--Section 2784(c)(1) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``provide
for'' and inserting ``provide for the reimbursement of
charges for unauthorized or erroneous purchases and for''.
Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Inslee
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of subtitle D of title III the following:
SEC. 335. STUDY OF CONSIDERATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
IN ACQUISITION PROCESSES.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
to develop procedures and methods to measure and consider
greenhouse gas emissions in the acquisition process, and
shall include in the study an examination of the following:
(1) The processes and methods which would need to be
developed and adopted to allow the Department of Defense to
consider greenhouse gas emissions in the planning,
requirements development, and acquisition processes.
(2) The internal and external data necessary to allow the
Department of Defense to consider greenhouse gas emissions in
the planning, requirements development, and acquisition
processes.
(3) A timetable for the implementation of such procedures
and methods in the acquisition process, as well as an
estimate of the costs associated with such implementation.
(4) Such other factors as the Secretary considers
appropriate with respect to the development and
implementation of such procedures and methods.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congressional defense committees a report on the results of
the study conducted under subsection (a).
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end of subtitle G of title V, the following new
section:
SEC. 5__. RETROACTIVE AWARD OF ARMY COMBAT ACTION BADGE.
(a) Authority To Award.--The Secretary of the Army may
award the Army Combat Action Badge (established by order of
the Secretary of the Army through Headquarters, Department of
the Army Letter 600-05-1, dated June 3, 2005) to a person
who, while a member of the Army, participated in combat
during which the person personally engaged, or was personally
engaged by, the enemy at any time during the period beginning
on December 7, 1941, and ending on September 18, 2001 (the
date of the otherwise applicable limitation on retroactivity
for the award of such decoration), if the Secretary
determines that the person has not been previously recognized
in an appropriate manner for such participation.
(b) Procurement of Badge.--The Secretary of the Army may
make arrangements with suppliers of the Army Combat Action
Badge so that eligible recipients of the Army Combat Action
Badge pursuant to subsection (a) may procure the badge
directly from suppliers, thereby eliminating or at least
substantially reducing administrative costs for the Army to
carry out this section.
Amendment No. 40 Offered by Ms. DeLauro
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 726. POST-DEPLOYMENT MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Demonstration Project Required.--The Secretary of
Defense shall conduct a demonstration project to assess the
feasibility and efficacy of providing a face to face post-
deployment mental health screening between a member of the
Armed Forces and a mental health provider.
(b) Elements.--The demonstration project shall include, at
a minimum, the following elements:
(1) A combat stress evaluation conducted in person by a
qualified mental health professional within 120 to 180 days
after the date on which the member returns from combat
theater.
(2) Phone follow-ups by a case manager, not necessarily
stationed at the military installation, at the following
intervals after the initial post-deployment screening:
(A) Six months.
(B) 12 months.
(C) 18 months.
(D) 24 months.
(c) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
the demonstration project in consultation with the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. The Secretary of Defense may also coordinate the
program with any accredited college, university, hospital-
based or community-based mental health center the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(d) Selection of Military Installation.--The demonstration
project shall be conducted at two military installations, one
active duty and one reserve component demobilization station,
selected by the Secretary of Defense. The installations
selected shall have members of the Armed Forces on active
duty and members of the reserve components that use the
installation as a training and operating base, with members
routinely deploying in support of operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other assignments related to the global war
on terrorism.
(e) Personnel Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure an adequate number of the following personnel in the
program:
(1) Qualified mental health professionals that are licensed
psychologists, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, or clinical
social workers.
(2) Suicide prevention counselors.
(f) Timeline.--
(1) The demonstration project required by this subsection
shall be implemented not later than September 30, 2009.
(2) Authority for this demonstration project shall expire
on September 30, 2011.
(g) Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees--
(1) a plan to implement the demonstration project,
including site selection and criteria for choosing the site,
not later than June 1, 2009,
(2) an interim report every 180 days thereafter; and
(3) a final report detailing the results not later than
January 1, 2012.
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C, add the following new section:
SEC. 824. PERFORMANCE BY PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS OF
INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IN AN AREA OF
COMBAT OPERATIONS.
(a) Modification of Regulations.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section
862(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 254; 10 U.S.C. 2302
note) shall be modified to ensure that private security
contractors are not authorized to perform inherently
governmental functions in an area of combat operations.
(b) Guidance.--After the issuance of regulations to
implement the actions required by section 322 of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense shall issue supplementary guidance
to describe functions that should not be performed by private
security contractors because they constitute inherently
governmental functions.
(c) Periodic Review of Performance of Functions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the heads of other appropriate agencies,
periodically review the performance of private security
functions in areas of combat operations to ensure that such
functions are authorized and performed in a manner consistent
with the requirements of this section.
(2) Reports.--Not later than June 1 of each of 2009, 2010,
and 2011, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the results of the most recent
review conducted under paragraph (1).
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Ms. Bordallo
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, insert the
following new section:
SEC. 2829. PORT OF GUAM IMPROVEMENT ENTERPRISE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation, acting
through the Administrator of the Maritime Administration (in
this section referred to as the ``Administrator''), may
establish a Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program (in
this section referred to as the ``Program'') to provide for
the planning, design, and construction of projects for the
Port of Guam to improve facilities, relieve port congestion,
and provide greater access to port facilities.
(b) Authorities of the Administrator.--In carrying out the
Program, the Administrator may--
(1) receive funds provided for the Program from non-Federal
entities, including private entities;
(2) provide for coordination among appropriate governmental
agencies to expedite the review process under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for
projects carried out under the Program;
[[Page H4784]]
(3) provide for coordination among appropriate governmental
agencies in connection with other reviews and requirements
applicable to projects carried out under the Program; and
(4) provide technical assistance to the Port Authority of
Guam (and its agents) as needed for projects carried out
under the Program.
(c) Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a separate account to be known as the
``Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Fund'' (in this section
referred to as the ``Fund'').
(2) Deposits.--There shall be deposited into the Fund--
(A) amounts received by the Administrator from non-Federal
sources under subsection (b)(1);
(B) amounts transferred to the Administrator under
subsection (d); and
(C) amounts appropriated to carry out this section under
subsection (f).
(3) Use of amounts.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available
to the Administrator to carry out the Program.
(4) Administrative expenses.--Not to exceed 3 percent of
the amounts appropriated to the Fund for a fiscal year may be
used for administrative expenses of the Administrator.
(5) Availability of amounts.--Amounts in the Fund shall
remain available until expended.
(d) Transfers of Amounts.--Amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available for any fiscal year for an
intermodal or marine facility comprising a component of the
Program shall be transferred to and administered by the
Administrator.
(e) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to authorize amounts made available under section 215 of
title 23, United States Code, or any other amounts made
available for the construction of highways or amounts
otherwise not eligible for making port improvements to be
deposited into the Fund.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund such sums as may be necessary
to carry out this section.
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title VII, add the following new section:
SEC. 7__. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a review of the implementation by the
Department of Defense of recommendations made by the
Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health (in this
section referred to as the ``Task Force'') developed pursuant
to section 723 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3348) to
ensure a full continuum of psychological health services and
care for members of the Armed Forces and their families.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on the results of the review required by this section. The
report shall include such recommendations as the Comptroller
General considers appropriate.
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Schiff
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 438, after line 6, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
SEC. 1048. STUDY ON METHODS TO VERIFIABLY REDUCE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR LAUNCH.
(a) Study Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry
out a study to evaluate procedural and physical options for
introducing into the nuclear weapons launch procedures of the
United States, Russia, China, and any other strategically
appropriate nations determined by the Secretary, a time-delay
before a launch command can be executed that would be
transparent to and verifiable by the other nations. The
options studied shall encompass a wide range of possible
time-delays and shall include, for each option, an analysis
of--
(1) the increased time, over current procedures, before a
launch command can be executed;
(2) the strategic risk to United States national security,
including the survivability of the United States arsenal
under a range of verification failures;
(3) the range of possible inspection regimes, including the
degree of verifiability that each would afford; and
(4) the availability of parallel options in the other
nations included in such study.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the results of
the study. If a report under this subsection is submitted in
classified form, the Secretary shall concurrently submit to
the congressional defense committees an unclassified version
of such report.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, 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 urge the committee to adopt the
amendments en bloc that have just been offered, all of which have been
examined by both the majority and the minority.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Castle, the gentleman from
Delaware, 2 minutes.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this group of en bloc amendments includes
an amendment I have offered.
Although often overlooked, each military service offers active duty
personnel and eligible members of the Guard and Reserve tuition
assistance to take college courses during off-duty hours. For example,
the Armed Forces Tuition Assistance Program offers active duty
personnel up to $4,500 each year to take college courses. These
important programs help active duty soldiers to plan ahead by getting
an education and setting goals that match their career aspirations.
However, with the demands of deployments and training, many active
duty soldiers have difficulty finding time to use these education
benefits and face obstacles in attending the institution of their
choice. In response, Congressman Hinojosa and I have introduced this
straightforward amendment which gives military installations the
ability to enter into partnership with educational institutions for the
purpose of making course schedules and curriculum more accessible and
flexible for active duty troops. Such partnerships have proven
effective in certain areas of the country, and our amendment makes
clear the importance of working with local institutions to assist
servicemembers in taking better advantage of their educational
benefits.
I thank the ranking member for yielding and I thank the chairman for
their work on this legislation and their cooperation on this issue.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and
Capabilities.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en
bloc amendment and want to point particular attention to the amendment
that was offered by me and Mr. Thornberry on strategic communications.
Put simply, this is our effort to convey our message in the battle
against violent extremism. And what we have discovered on our
subcommittee is there are a lot of different pieces at the DOD and
Department of State and elsewhere who are working on strategic
communications issues, but none of it is coordinated. So our amendment
asks for DOD and the administration to bring together and give us a
coordinated plan for how to do strategic communications to make sure
that our message, our counter-radicalization message, is coordinated
and at its most effective.
I think this is an important amendment, and I thank the chairman for
including it in the en bloc and urge the support of the body.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) 2 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member
for yielding to me; I would like to thank the Rules Committee for
making my amendment in order; and I would like to thank the chairman of
the House Armed Services Committee and the ranking member for making
this an en bloc amendment.
Each of our veterans who have served this country deserves to be
honored by a grateful Nation. I come to the floor today to offer an
amendment that provides funding for the Authorized Provider Partnership
Program, otherwise known as AP3.
Before the 2000 national defense authorization, veterans who had
fully retired from the military were normally not afforded a
traditional military funeral. The 2000 National Defense Authorization
Act then established the AP3 program, which required the Department of
Defense to provide at least the folding and presentation of a flag,
[[Page H4785]]
the playing of taps, and to assist with any transportation or
miscellaneous expenses.
The original provisions of this bill allow the Department of Defense
to waive the obligation, which has resulted now in their funding being
cut from this program. My amendment will reinstate the funding
specifically for AP3 to $3 million, $1 million for the three branches
of the military, to continue funeral honor services.
Our veterans have served our country bravely and were prepared to
take the ultimate sacrifice. We owe it to them to give them a proper
and fitting sendoff in the recognition that they have served this
country with honor. Their love of country will not go unrecognized.
I would like to say, each of us members have attended funerals of our
veterans as they passed away, and there is very compelling and very
stirring of patriotism to see our older veterans pay tribute to them by
honor guard or folding or presentation of the flag. It is critical we
continue this, and I hope that this amendment will be passed.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), a member of the
House Armed Services Committee and the Readiness Subcommittee.
Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.
I rise in strong support of this en bloc amendment package and of the
underlying bill. One of the amendments in this en bloc package enables
the Maritime Administration to perform necessary improvements at the
Port of Guam. A $13 billion investment is planned for military
construction and civilian infrastructure on Guam.
The Port will be handling substantial amounts of cargo in a very
condensed timeline. The Maritime Administration has a solid track
record of assisting governments. They have done work in Alaska and
Hawaii, and that is why we need them for the Port of Guam.
My amendment, which is included in this en bloc package, will enable
the Maritime Administration and the government of Guam to execute a
port improvement program under the terms of an MOU. Support for this
amendment will help eliminate a potential chokepoint to the ultimate
success of the build-up.
I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Chairman Ortiz for their support
of Guam and the provisions in this bill that ensures congressional
oversight and accountability of the military build-up. Provisions
extend the Davis-Bacon Act to all military construction on Guam,
establishes a procurement technical assistance center on Guam,
establishes congressional guidance on improvements to the utility
system, and encourages the development of an MOU between the Government
of Guam and the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Skelton. As he said on a
recent trip to my district, and I quote, ``What is good for Guam, is
good for our Nation.''
I thank the Readiness Subcommittee staff, the full committee policy
staff, Erin, Paul, and Andrew for their help. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on this en bloc package and ``yes'' on the final passage
of H.R. 5658.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a great member of our committee.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc package. It does
include an amendment that I have to the national defense authorization
bill.
In keeping with the spirit of the Warrior Ethos, in 2005 the
Department of Army authorized the creation of the Combat Action Badge.
The Combat Action Badge provides special recognition to soldiers who
personally engage the enemy or the enemy is engaged with during combat
operations. Current Army policy limits eligibility, however, for the
Combat Action Badge to those soldiers who serve after September 18,
2001.
While this is a noble effort, the award overlooks the thousands of
veterans who have made similar sacrifices in previous wars. My
amendment corrects this error by expanding the eligibility to include
these soldiers who served since December 7, 1941. Not only does this
award recognize all veterans who engaged the enemy in combat, it does
so at no cost to the Army.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will properly recognize our veterans for
their sacrifices and service to this great Nation. I urge my colleagues
to support this en bloc package.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlelady from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, Sergeant Jonathan Schulze was an Iraq war
veteran who committed suicide after being denied care to address his
PTSD symptoms. According to the Director of the National Institute of
Mental Health, today, among veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the number of suicides may exceed the number who have been
killed in combat. This is a broken promise, Mr. Chairman. After asking
our soldiers to sacrifice so much, we must ensure they get the care
they deserve.
I was proud to work with Chairman Skelton on the DeLauro-Courtney
amendment to direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a demonstration
project to assess the feasibility and the efficacy of providing face-
to-face postdeployment mental health screening between members of the
Armed Forces and a mental health provider.
{time} 1715
The 2-year project will include a combat stress evaluation conducted
by a qualified mental health professional 120 to 180 days of the date
the soldier returns. And a case manager will follow up by phone over
the course of another 2 years.
We have no excuse for failing the soldiers who have given this Nation
everything.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee.
(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my
colleague from New Jersey yielding this time, and I won't even take
that much time.
I rise today to recognize the fact that there may be an amendment
later this evening that will address the Marine Corps Training Center
at 29 Palms. It's very, very important for the House to know the
significance of that facility, the role it plays in the great work of
the Marine Corps. The design here is to try to improve and help with
that work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise first to congratulate Chairman Ike Skelton and
ranking member and former Chairman Duncan Hunter for working together
in a bipartisan manner to craft an excellent National Defense
Authorization Bill. As you know, this is Duncan Hunter's last
authorization bill and I honor his many years of service on the Armed
Services Committee and his unfailing support of our men and women in
uniform.
Mr Chairman, unfortunately an amendment has been made in order to
strike an important project that would benefit all the marines and
their family members who are stationed or who pass through Twentynine
Palms marine base.
This project is the Lifelong Learning Center.
Phase I of the Life Long Learning Center, LLLC, project at the Marine
Corps base Twentynine Palms provides a facility to help marines and
their families fulfill their educational goals.
The project will replace older, undersized facilities with a 17,000
square foot, three-story building which will include classrooms, office
spaces, a computer room and other supporting infrastructure.
When completed, the LLLC will facilitate more than 40 higher
education classes with an anticipated enrollment exceeding 1500
students per term.
U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training
Command, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms, CA, May 22, 2008.
Subject: Life Long Learning Center--Twentynine Palms
Hon. Mr. Lewis,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Lewis. The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center
(MCAGCC) is a remote, isolated base that is both home for
about one third of the 1st Marine Division and other units
assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force, and is a service
level training installation. The installation has worked hard
over the years on innovation and best practices as evidenced
by our state-of-the-art training capabilities, demonstrated
excellence in energy conservation, improvements in quality of
life for our people, and
[[Page H4786]]
installation management. We are now determined to improve the
educational opportunities for the 12,000 Marines, their
families and the civilians who serve at this remote outpost.
The Life Long Learning Center (LLLC) project is critical to
the success of our education initiatives. MCAGCC's current
educational facilities are single story, 1950 era barracks
scattered throughout the base that have been converted into
classrooms. These facilities do not meet the needs of our
educational programs. The LLLC will provide a modern facility
that will meet all our requirements in one centralized
location. The project, as we have submitted in the Military
Construction program, will be constructed in two phases. The
first phase is a 17,000 square foot, three-story building
which will include classrooms, office spaces, a computer lab
and other supporting infrastructure. When completed, this
facility will provide space for more than 40 higher education
classes with an anticipated enrollment exceeding 1500
students per term. The second phase will provide a library.
We are committed to continuing education for our Marines
and Sailors. Not only do we get better Marines and Sailors,
we also set them up for success as they return to their
civilian communities.
Teaming with local school systems, MCAGCC bas brought the
expertise of the Department of Defense Education Activity
(DoDEA) to assist with local educational challenges. While
focused on military dependent children, there are a number of
programs that will benefit our local community, to include
teacher training and DoDEA provided AP courses. In this
remote and isolated location, employment opportunities are
limited for spouses and dependents. This facility will allow
us to expand education opportunities as an alternative to
employment.
MCAGCC is the single largest employer in the Morongo Basin
and access to a quality workforce is critical to our mission.
We provide multiple workforce development education and
training programs. I am convinced that improved education
programs will benefit the overall workforce, enhance the
quality of life in this region and ensure we are able to
continue to train our Marines for combat as our current
civilian workforce ages and retires.
The state-of the-art educational facility provided by the
LLLC will provide Marines and their families the opportunity
to work on their career goals as well as prepare them for
life after the Marine Corps. It is my highest quality of life
initiative and I truly appreciate your assistance in helping
us support the Marines and Sailors preparing to defend this
great country of ours.
Sincerely,
M. G. Spiese,
Brigadier General.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute at this time to a friend, the
gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I'd like to thank Chairman Skelton for working with
me on my amendment to prohibit private security contractors from
performing inherently governmental functions in combat areas, and for
offering his support.
We've all heard about the violent incidents involving private
security contractors injuring and killing civilians in Iraq and
elsewhere. This is a systemic problem that exists because private
employees are currently being tasked with extremely sensitive jobs like
gathering intelligence and providing armed security.
And it is a systematic problem that private contractors do not wear
the badge of the United States, are clearly not part of the chain of
command, are not subject to the same accountability that those who are
employed with the badge of the United States, and that those
contractors have often damaged the credibility of our military and
harmed our relationship with the Iraqi government.
We want to show the American people and the Iraqis, that there are
inherently governmental functions that will only be performed by people
in the U.S. military or our U.S. Government personnel.
I urge support for this entire bill and for this amendment.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership
on this issue. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member for their work on this committee.
My amendment in this en bloc amendment addresses the issue of
eliminating waste, fraud and abuse within the DOD system by addressing
the issue of government-wide purchase cards. These cards are used to
acquire supplies such as pencils, paper, computers, but also to even
make payments on government contract. And these cards, while they've
proven to be valuable as they reduce administrative costs and increase
flexibility, they can be used or abused and misused, as has been
evident by a recent GAO study. That study showed that, over a 1-year
period of time, 41 percent of the purchase card transactions failed to
meet basic internal standards.
My amendment will ensure that purchases are independently verified
and received by an authorizing official. It asks for an inventory of
property to be updated promptly. Without doing this, property such as
laptops and computers can go missing or even stolen.
And for those personnel who abuse the purchase cards, this amendment
would dictate that DOD will have the option of having them reimburse
the government for unauthorized or erroneous purchases.
I know my colleagues will support this wise amendment to decrease
waste, fraud and abuse. I thank my colleagues for their support.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the
gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding me the
time.
I believe that the prevalence of PTSD, post-traumatic stress
disorder, among our servicemembers is a critically important issue that
we must continue to focus on.
It is distressing that a rising number of our brave service men and
women are coming back from conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq suffering
from the signature injuries of this conflict, PTSD and traumatic brain
injury.
I'm sure that my colleagues are aware of the recent Rand report that
up to 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may currently be suffering
from PTSD or depression. My amendment would ensure that recommendations
have been put forward to close identified gaps in access to care, to
fight stigma and improve treatment are actually implemented.
Unfortunately, an Iraqi veteran in my district lost his battle with
the PTSD, despite his parents' frenetic and futile efforts to get the
desperately needed services.
We must never lose sight of the fact that it's our goal not just for
DOD to have a plan, but to actually make the changes and do it in a
timely manner.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers at this time,
and I am prepared to yield back. I do yield back.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including my amendment in
the en bloc package.
My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to explore ways in
which we can reduce the likelihood of an accidental nuclear launch from
arsenals around the world.
Since the end of the Cold War, the procedures required to launch
nuclear weapons have remained virtually unchanged. Both the U.S. and
Russia still maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert that
can be launched at a moment's notice. Though the risk of a deliberate
nuclear war with Russia is now very low, the danger of an accidental
launch has increased.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in January, George Shultz,
William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn said that we must ``take
steps to increase the warning and decision times for the launch of all
nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, thereby reducing risks of accidental
or unauthorized attacks. Reliance on launch procedures that deny
command authorities sufficient time to make careful and prudent
decisions is unnecessary and dangerous in today's environment.''
This amendment to the defense authorization act calls for a study of
the methods by which Chinese, Russian and American weapons can be made
safer in a multilateral framework, and I urge its support.
Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 1 minute to a friend, a member of
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Sestak).
Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Chairman, there are 8,500 autistic children in the
U.S. military. Only 700 get intervention help. Part of the reason is
that they, military families move every 2 to 3 years, and if they try
to apply to their States into the right intervention help, they don't
have enough time to get that.
[[Page H4787]]
The other problem is the TRICARE program has in place what's called
Echo, where they get, after they wait quite some period of time, 1 hour
of help each day. The American Academy of Pediatrics says it should be
5 hours minimum a day, and the National Research Council says 8 hours
minimum a day. This amendment, amendment 10, merely says at this time
let's give them at least 2 hours a day.
And then, because of Mr. Skelton, because of Congresswoman Davis,
because of Congressman Snyder, this amendment is here today. Also in
the bill is a study to see if we can't place them under standardized
TRICARE plans so they can get everything that they need.
I very much appreciate your help, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
The Armed Forces Tuition Assistance program offers active duty
personnel in our Nation's Armed Forces an annual stipend to enroll in
college courses during their off-duty time.
Unfortunately, low awareness of this program and the rigorous and
inflexible schedules of our troops have prevented the full utilization
of these programs. While the education of our veterans deservedly
garners much of our attention, it is important for us to remember that
our servicemembers' educational pursuits should not be suspended while
on active duty.
Our modest amendment will authorize military installations to enter
into partnerships with educational institutions to help provide a
richer and more flexible course schedule for our men and women in the
armed services.
I wish to thank Mr. Castle for joining with me in this effort and
hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield back on this en bloc amendment.
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.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-666 on
which further proceedings were postponed, and in the following order:
Amendment Number 3 by Mr. Akin of Missouri.
Amendment Number 6 by Mr. Franks of Arizona.
Amendment Number 23 by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
Amendment Number 33 by Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.
Amendment Number 26 by Ms. Lee of California.
Amendment Number 53 by Mr. Braley of Iowa.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Akin
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Akin) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128,
noes 287, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 355]
AYES--128
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--287
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Andrews
Bishop (UT)
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Crenshaw
Doyle
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1751
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Messrs. HALL of New York, BERMAN,
CAZAYOUX, JOHNSON of Georgia, BROWN of South Carolina, SOUDER, LATHAM,
GOHMERT, AL GREEN of Texas, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, CHABOT and
ROSKAM changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CALVERT and SHUSTER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
[[Page H4788]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 355, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Franks) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 229, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 356]
AYES--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Cazayoux
Chabot
Childers
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--24
Andrews
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Crenshaw
Doyle
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Lynch
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is less than 1 minute
remaining in the vote.
{time} 1755
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Tierney
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122,
noes 292, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 357]
AYES--122
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Castle
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Costello
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hinchey
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Solis
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--292
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
[[Page H4789]]
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Ortiz
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Andrews
Bachus
Buyer
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Crenshaw
Doyle
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hall (TX)
Hinojosa
Hobson
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wexler
Wynn
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1759
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Pearce
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Pearce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 271, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 358]
AYES--145
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--271
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Andrews
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Crenshaw
Doyle
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Renzi
Rush
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wexler
Wynn
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1804
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4790]]
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. Baldwin). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes 183, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
AYES--234
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--183
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Childers
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Andrews
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Crenshaw
Doyle
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wexler
Wynn
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is less than 1 minute
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1810
Mr. KING of Iowa changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. UPTON and POE and Mrs. EMERSON changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 359, on the
Lee amendment No. 26 to H.R. 5658, I mistakenly recorded my vote as
``no'' when I should have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Braley of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Braley) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 168, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 360]
AYES--245
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
[[Page H4791]]
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--168
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Childers
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--26
Andrews
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Christensen
Crenshaw
Doyle
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
Melancon
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wynn
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute left in this vote.
{time} 1814
Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Flake:
Add at the end of title XXII the following new section:
SEC. 2208. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR LIBRARY/LIFELONG
LEARNING CENTER.
None of the funds appropriated to carry out this Act (or
any amendment made by this Act) may be used for a library/
lifelong learning center at Marine Corps Base Twentynine
Palms, California.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment after
speaking for a few minutes about the process here.
I intended to offer an amendment to strip an earmark in California.
It's not that I've had any epiphany on the earmark where I think it's
good now. I don't. I think it should not be in this committee report.
But I'm not at all happy with the process here.
I submitted a total of five amendments to the Rules Committee. Two
amendments were to target earmarks sponsored by Democrats. Two
amendments were to target earmarks sponsored by Republicans. One was to
uphold the President's executive order with regard to earmarks. When
the rule came back from the Rules Committee, only one of the amendments
was made in order, one amendment targeting a Republican earmark.
Over the past couple of years, as the Members know, I have come to
the floor more than a hundred times to try to strike earmarks. I have
tried never to make it a partisan issue. When Republicans were in
charge of this body, I sponsored more challenges to Republican
earmarks. As the Democrats have taken charge, I've probably sponsored
more challenges to Democrat earmarks. But as soon as this becomes a
partisan issue, then we lose something here. Earmarks are an
institutional issue, an institutional problem here, and we cannot treat
it in a partisan fashion. That's why I will be asking for unanimous
consent to withdraw this amendment.
But the problem here is that we also didn't allow in the rule the
amendment to uphold the President's executive order. The President
wisely has recognized that when you don't have earmarks in the bill
text, when you're allowed to put them in a committee or conference
report, you don't have the scrutiny that you should have on earmarks.
Just take, for example, this bill. This bill has about 500 earmarks.
It went through the committee process. The earmarks were added at the
last minute. In fact, I am told, at least on the Republican side and I
suppose on the Democrat side as well, the rank-and-file members on the
committee didn't even know which earmarks were allowed until the markup
had happened; so it was impossible to challenge the earmarks while the
bill was in committee.
Now, tell me, if we are supposed to be vetting these earmarks, if
we're supposed to be looking at them, where are we supposed to do it?
It's not happening in the committee process. It's certainly not
happening on the floor. So where do we actually look at these?
We have a former Member of this body in jail right now for basically
selling earmarks to defense contractors. He used the defense bill, year
after year after year, I might add, and there was never a point at
which those earmarks were challenged. Nobody looked. In fact, people
looked the other way. There were plenty of warning signs out there that
these earmarks were untoward. But we looked the other way. I would
submit we are doing the same thing today.
When you have a report come to the floor with more than 500 earmarks,
none of which were even known to most members of the committee before
it arrived here on the floor, and then when I offer amendments to the
earmarks, I'm only told I can offer one on the floor, one targeting a
Republican earmark, to try to make it a partisan issue, there's
something wrong with this picture.
I don't know when we are going to wake up and recognize that earmarks
are cheapening this institution, and greatly. In Congress you place
value and priorities by appropriating money and authorizing money, but
when you have earmarks like this that are slipped in at the last minute
out of sight, then you don't get proper debate on these priorities. You
basically close your eyes to other people's earmarks because you want
to protect your own. And when you have more than 500 earmarks, there
are enough to spread around where debate that should be happening on
defense priorities or other priorities in other bills is hushed and we
simply don't have the scrutiny that these bills deserve.
[[Page H4792]]
A lot of these earmarks are, in essence, single-source contracts to
private companies. We get all over the administration, and properly so,
when they give single-source contracts. Halliburton, how many times
have we heard it? We should scrutinize that. We should provide
oversight. Yet when one of our Members does it, we turn our backs and
say we don't want to know because we might want to do it as well.
Madam Chairman, we have to stop this process.
Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I
will not object.
Madam Chairman, I think we should point out the fact that the base
bill to which you just referred voids an executive order where the
President said that any language in a project, in a program, report
language, could not be put into force and effect and that it had to be
in bill language. It sounds good, but in truth, in fact, what happens
if that is the case, whatever is in bill language on a program or
project, whatever the case may be, may not be reprogrammed. You're
stuck with it.
For instance, I signed, together with my friend Duncan Hunter, a
reprogramming on Future Combat Systems within the last 3 or 4 weeks for
well over $100 million, and it should have been. We did the right
thing. And if the executive order were in full force and effect and if
that had been in report language, it would all have been for naught and
Mr. Hunter and I could not have agreed to that very, very important
reprogramming which should have been done.
So you're throwing the cat out with the kittle.
Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. HUNTER. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, I will not
object, except I want to talk to my friend about what he calls
earmarks.
A couple of years ago when our guys started to get hurt with roadside
bombs in Iraq, we realized that there were no jammers to jam those
electronic signals that detonate the 155 rounds that were blowing up
American Marines and soldiers, no portable jammers. That means while we
had the big jammers we carry in the trucks to protect convoys, there
were no jammers to protect that squad of Marines or soldiers working
through a courtyard in Ramadi or Fallujah.
This committee put in $10 million for 10,000, jammers which we
researched and developed, manufactured and deployed in the field in 70
days. Those were earmarks.
Now, if the gentleman's assertation is true, and the whole theme of
his argument here is if the Pentagon doesn't request it, it's not
needed, I disagree with it. This is what the Pentagon had for portable
jammers for our troops: zero.
I can tell the gentleman about the system that we put in that has had
a very salutary effect on the ability of the enemy to hurt our troops
with mortars, also so-called earmarks. I can tell the gentleman about
our surveillance programs that we added to, also so-called earmarks. I
could tell the gentleman that I put in the defense budget a couple of
years ago, along with my good friend Ike Skelton, an increase in U.S.
Marine Corps, taking them up at that point to 180,000. Today nobody
suggests that we should somehow discharge those Marines because we
added them above and beyond the President's budget. In fact, the
President now has come back and said, you know, you guys in the Armed
Services Committee were right, and because of that, they put in a
request this year for 7,000 more Army troops and 5,000 more Marines.
So I would just say to the gentleman it's our job, our responsibility
under the Constitution, to build this defense budget. It's not the
Pentagon's. In fact, the Constitution doesn't mention the Pentagon.
Now, what I do with the initiatives that I put in, I put them on the
Internet. How's that for disclosure? I think at least a couple hundred
people see that. Now, with respect to how many people see these, we put
out the directive report language. Everybody sees that. But you mark up
your subcommittees only a few days, sometimes as much as a week but
rarely longer, before you go to full committee. And so the tables that
have all of the numbers in them, and it's got hundreds and hundreds of
entries, are available to any Member that wants to come by and ask for
them. But we're not going to put those out to the press and cause a
massive circus of contractors and media people swarming the committee
when we're trying to get our job done. We have never done it like that.
But the disparaging way in which the gentleman talks about things
that we put in, some of which are crucial to the survival of your
constituents, the young men and women who joined the Marine Corps and
the Army from your district, I think is misplaced.
The building of the defense budget is a very important thing. It's a
thing that we do often in disagreement with the Pentagon. We have put
in additional aircraft carriers when you had Presidents who didn't want
to put them in because we thought they were important to the survival
of this country, and we turned out to be right. We have increased end
strength in the Army and Marine Corps. We have done most of the work on
UAVs, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. That means you don't get pilots shot
down. That means you're able to disperse many more platforms that can
gather information.
{time} 1830
The things that we put in the defense budget are generally done after
a lot of thought, a lot of analysis and, generally speaking, they have
been very good for our troops.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman has mentioned many projects. I'm sure all of
those mentioned would survive the authorization, appropriation, and
oversight.
Mr. HUNTER. We did authorize them.
Mr. FLAKE. Well, then there's no need to earmark it this way if it's
authorized. There's no reason to put it in committee or conference
report language and not have it in the bill. I think what the President
has rightly recognized is that when it's not in the bill, then there
are limited opportunities for other Members to see it and to scrutinize
it.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me take back my time and explain to the gentleman why
it's important to have report language. You start programs and you also
put policies in place. If you put those in the bill and those are
locked into law and then you get a call from the administration and
they say, You know, we looked at this thing and there's not enough
long-lead materials to build this. You are strait-jacketed. The
administration can't come back and say, We want to reprogram. At that
point, you have to change the law.
If you have a policy, and here you have wars in two theaters, if you
have a policy you have to change, you can't just call up and you can't
work the policy out with the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine
Corps. You now have to go back and change the law. If you have looked
at the reprogramming requests that are made by the Pentagon, they are
usually made with respect to some factor that has changed. You would
have hundreds of changes that now require changes in the law, and in a
very real way, having report language that gives flexibility to the
administration, is for their benefit.
Now we can put all this stuff in the law if that is the requirement
to do it. But it doesn't make sense, either for us or for the
administration. That is why you have it, because you have changing
situations and you have got to have the flexibility for people to call
up and say, You know, we just developed another system that is better
than that one. Let's not continue to fund that in a straitjacket. Let's
go ahead and reprogram and go to the other one. Or maybe we have a
priority. Maybe we need ammunition, maybe we need more ammunition. So
we want you to take money from this program and put it into ammunition.
You can't do that if everything is in statute.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. Be happy to.
Mr. FLAKE. There is nothing in the President's executive order that
binds
[[Page H4793]]
the Pentagon from reprogramming funds. It simply says that the Pentagon
may decide to exclude earmarks that it did not request and that aren't
in the statute language. I understand the importance of report
language.
Mr. HUNTER. If you take the gentleman's argument to its ultimate
conclusion, that means the portable jammers, the ones that only weigh a
couple of pounds that we gave to our marines to save their lives so
they can carry them, because you can't carry the 150-pounders on your
back when you're on a patrol, they would not have gotten those because
they weren't in the Pentagon's budget.
The point that I am making is that the Pentagon often misses things.
They don't have always the best judgment in this world. I point to guys
like the chairman of the Defense Appropriations in the full committee,
Mr. Lewis, who, by many people, is considered one of the fathers of the
Predator. The Predator aircraft has saved lives because it's allowed us
to do recon and striking without having to have a pilot out there who
may be shot down and have to be recovered. That was a program that
required a lot of pushing against the will of the Pentagon.
So I disagree with the gentleman's argument that somehow anything the
Pentagon disagrees with is illegitimate. We've had, in many cases, a
better idea than the Pentagon, and the increases in the Army and Marine
Corps are two of the great examples. This committee said you have to
increase it, and we increased it. You call that an earmark. Today, the
administration calls it the right thing to do.
Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. Be happy to yield.
Mr. SKELTON. From time to time you and I are asked to authorize
reprogramming that the Pentagon asked for; is that not correct?
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just say to my friend, I believe in disclosure.
That is why I put every initiative on the Internet. I think you have
got to disclose things and you have got to be able to be accountable
for those things. I think that's absolutely true.
Mr. SKELTON. Let me ask. If the program were in bill language, the
Pentagon request to reprogram could not be authorized by you and me. Is
that correct?
Mr. HUNTER. That's right.
Mr. SKELTON. Thank you.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. Sure.
Mr. FLAKE. Again, the President's directive doesn't relate to report
language in general, it's simply the earmark. Now I just have to say,
500 earmarks in this bill. There will be more than 2,000 when the
appropriation bill comes to the floor, if tradition holds. If somebody
can make the argument that that is a process worthy of this
institution, for more than 2,000 earmarks to come to the floor, and no
time, no time--it will come to the floor probably the same day that we
vote on it--for this body to appropriately scrutinize it, and for every
Predator or worthy earmark that you can point to, you can probably
point to a dozen where shirts were earmarked that melt on a soldier's
body, but somebody in their district just wanted them.
Mr. HUNTER. Taking back my time, I don't think we are going to be
appropriating any melting shirts, or authorizing any melting shirts. We
do serious stuff. And when you have a defense bill which is over $500
billion and it has thousands and thousands of provisions in it, I would
say that the number of changes we make actually is fairly minimal.
If you look at the massive amount of money that is spent on defense,
the change that we make in scoping the defense bill, which is not only
our prerogative, it's our mandate, it doesn't say: You shall accept and
rubber-stamp what the Pentagon puts out there. And experience has shown
us. And, thankfully, we have followed our mandate because we have put
in systems that have saved lives, that the Pentagon didn't think about,
and we have put in more systems that have made us more effective at
fighting the Nation's war that the Pentagon didn't think about.
We have got members on the committee, I would say to my friend, who
have taken five, six, seven, eight trips to Iraq and Afghanistan. They
see things. They write down notes. We have our professional staff with
us. We were out there looking at the Fourth Division and we saw some of
their trucks whose armor consisted of two layers of plywood, with
sandbags in between. That is why we went back and on an initiative we
put together double-hulled trucks. To my knowledge, none of those
double-hulled trucks has yet been penetrated by any enemy shrapnel from
a roadside bomb. We do things in response to what we think the solders
and sailors and airmen and marines need.
So I agree with the gentleman that we should all be accountable for
what we put in a bill, whether it's a defense bill or something else,
and you have got to stand up. If it's a bad one, you take the heat for
it. But just saying anything that doesn't come out of the
administration is, by definition, illegitimate, is absolutely not
accurate.
I can just tell you this. If you end up with an administration that
you don't agree with, like some Republicans who didn't agree with what
President Carter did with defense spending in the last part of his
term, when we put in, along with some pretty discerning Democrats, an
extra aircraft carrier, and if you want to straitjacket this body,
where a President that you don't agree with, who you feel is cutting
defense spending to the bone, and maybe beyond the bone, where, as a
rule, if he or she doesn't agree or doesn't put that out as a defense
budget, you consider it your duty to not add a single cent, then I
think we are putting ourselves in a position where we are disserving
the people that we represent, because our job is to put together a
defense budget.
Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman will yield one more time.
Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely.
Mr. FLAKE. I would simply say that the gentleman mentioned that he
believes in disclosure, and if a person puts an earmark in, he should
be able to withstand the heat that might come from it. The problem with
this process is there's no opportunity for that to happen. I offered
four amendments. I was given one. In an appropriations bill of more
than 2,000 earmarks, how many can you really do? How many can you
challenge.
That is why we have had so many problems over the last couple of
years with bad earmarks, is there's simply no way to adequately vet
them. There were 36,000 earmark requests before the appropriations
committee last year, and no way to vet them.
Mr. HUNTER. Taking my time back, I would just say to the gentleman, I
put my initiatives, and I don't call them earmarks because I don't
think they are illegitimate, I put them on the Internet. As I learned
in my ill-fated national campaign, people aren't paying a lot of
attention to my Internet site. But I had it there for millions of
people to see. And I think that is the appropriate thing to do.
I just want to assure the gentleman of something so that he rests
easy, to some degree. The people of this committee are really
hardworking people. I think we have got one member who's been to
Afghanistan and Iraq something like 13 times. I haven't been there that
much, but I have been there a lot. They spend a ton of time working for
the uniformed people of the United States. They make lots of notes and
they do lots of analysis.
Let me tell you, the way you put together a defense budget is you
have got somebody sitting in the Pentagon, and somebody comes over and
sits next to him and says, You know, here's a system that the company I
am working for would like to have in the defense budget. And they make
a case for it.
None of this stuff is derived through a stainless process. We are all
people. The only thing that really makes this government go is
accountability, and people should be held accountable for the things
that they put in the bill. The vast number of folks that put things in
the defense bill put out press releases with respect to what they put
in. They don't hide that. People put in provisions that have a value to
the military. If you go down the line and analyze them, I think that
you would concur with that.
So I want you to know this is a committee that really does its
homework. It's got a great staff that works very hard, and we have done
a lot of things that have saved soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines on
the battlefield, who
[[Page H4794]]
would not have been saved if we just rubber-stamped the President's
budget. I guess that is my point.
I thank the gentleman.
I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment that I
would like considered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Bishop of Georgia:
At the end of title VII, add the following new section:
SEC. 734. TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES WHO AGREE TO SERVE IN THE SELECTED
RESERVE OF THE READY RESERVE.
(a) Provision of Transitional Health Care.--Section
1145(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) A member who is separated from active duty who agrees
to become a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve of a reserve component.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (E) of section 1145(a)(2)
of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall apply with respect to members of the Armed Forces
separated from active duty after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Offset.--The amount in section 201(4) for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby
reduced by $22,000,000, to be derived from the Missile
Defense Agency.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I rise today to introduce an amendment to the
Defense Authorization Act which, if enacted, will provide 180 days of
transitional health care for servicemembers who leave active duty and
choose to join the National Guard or the Ready Reserves. The text of
this amendment is H.R. 5609, which is a bipartisan measure with 51
cosponsors.
Many of our citizens, Madam Chairman, joined the Armed Forces out of
a sense of duty and desire to serve our Nation. They joined with the
clear understanding that we must have volunteers who are willing to
serve to defend our country's freedoms and our way of life.
Our transitional health care amendment will offer the departing
soldier, sailor, marine, or airman and their family a bridge of comfort
for 180 days after they leave active duty if they join either the
National Guard or one of the Ready Reserves.
This amendment will provide former servicemembers with additional
time to find a job, to enroll in college, or relocate to another city,
with the peace of mind that if a health problem arises, they will not
be left without a place to turn or unmanageable medical bills. At a
time when we ask so much of our all-volunteer force, this small measure
is a benefit which our servicemembers really have earned.
Our veterans are not looking for a handout, they are really looking,
as this amendment will provide, for a lift up. It will keep our best-
trained soldiers and proven leaders in the Guard and Reserves and
enable our military to continue the fight against a determined and
unpredictable enemy.
Since September 11, 2001, we have had over 600,000 members of the
Guard and the Reserves called to active duty. Without the Guard and
Ready Reserves, our ability to defend against enemies both foreign and
domestic would be greatly reduced. With the potential to retain 13,000
additional trained soldiers, sailors, marines or airmen for these
forces, I believe that this amendment will save our Guard and our Ready
Reserves significant cost in retraining new recruits.
This legislation is supported by the National Guard, the Army and the
Air, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the
Air Force Reserve, the Coast Guard Reserve. In addition, it's supported
by the Guard and Reserve professional organizations, as well as the
leading veterans organizations, including the National Guard
Association, the Association of the United States Army, the Reserve
Officers Association, Military Officers Association of America, the
National Association for Uniformed Services, the VFW, and the American
Legion.
{time} 1845
So I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment, which demonstrates that we are serious about helping our
servicemembers while keeping a trained and ready reserve force.
Madam Chairman, 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 Chairman, I would just say to my colleague, I have
great respect for him and I agree with the purpose of this amendment. I
disagree to some degree with the offset, which is from missile defense.
You may have heard a number of us here making the case for the
importance of missile defense.
So I would hope as we move along to conference, we can find another
offset for this. I do support very strongly your purpose. What I would
like to do is find another offset for this.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina:
Add at the end of title X, the following:
SEC. 10__. PROHIBITION ON INTERROGATION OF DETAINEES BY
CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL.
Effective as of the date that is one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Department of Defense manpower
mix criteria and the Department of Defense Supplement to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to provide
that--
(1) the interrogation of enemy prisoners of war, civilian
internees, retained persons, other detainees, terrorists, and
criminals when captured, transferred, confined, or detained
during or in the aftermath of hostilities is an inherently
governmental function and cannot be transferred to private
sector contractors who are beyond the reach of controls
otherwise applicable to government personnel; and
(2) properly trained and cleared contractors may be used as
linguists, interpreters, report writers, and information
technology technicians if their work is properly reviewed by
appropriate government officials.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the chairwoman, and I am pleased
to present a narrowly targeted amendment that would simply prohibit the
defense community from using private contractors to conduct
interrogations.
The interrogation of detainees is clearly an inherently governmental
function. It is work that is by nature extremely sensitive and critical
to our national security. We should all be able to agree that
interrogation should be carried out by individuals who are well-
trained, who fall within a clear chain of command, and who have a sworn
loyalty to the United States, not by corporate, for-profit contractors.
Some of my colleagues may question why we need to pass a law to
address something that ought to be a matter of common sense, but this
amendment is absolutely necessary. The defense intelligence community
has often utilized contractors for performing interrogations, and
continues to do so.
For example, L-3 and its subsidiary, Titan, one of the largest
contracting groups working in Iraq, has contracts with the U.S. Army in
Iraq under which it performs interrogations. A recent report on the L-3
Titan contract
[[Page H4795]]
gets to the heart of the pitfalls of using contractors for
interrogations. It concludes, ``There are significant problems with
these contracts, notably with the hiring and vetting practices of both
interrogators and translators, many of whom are unqualified or poorly
qualified for the work. This failure has the potential to seriously
compromise national security.''
Another example comes from the Department of Justice's Inspector
General, who recently issued a report on the FBI's role in
interrogations. He noted instances of contractors ordering abusive
practices against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
My amendment would put an end to these practices. It is not intended
to punish contractors, who are often simply responding to available
business opportunities. Rather, it is intended to clarify that the
practice of interrogation is an inherently governmental function and
that our national security depends on preserving the integrity of this
boundary.
Let me also note that the amendment withholds judgment on a number of
ancillary functions, such as interpretation or IT technicians and
report writers, allowing an exemption for contractors to fill these
roles. It only prohibits contractors from directly performing
interrogations.
Madam Chairman, this is a carefully drafted amendment, and I urge its
adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who has been a member of the committee and also
the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits under all
circumstances a contractor from interrogating a detainee.
Now, it is often the case that the most qualified and the most
experienced person to conduct an interrogation is a contract employee.
As the gentleman from North Carolina mentioned, there is an exception
for interpreters. But an interrogator who also speaks the language and
even the dialect can be a much more effective interrogator if he can
combine those skills. Yet that capability cannot be combined under this
amendment unless that person happens to work for the government.
There are situations where technical knowledge is essential to
conduct an interrogation, and often that technical knowledge does not
exist with government employees. So there is no choice under this
amendment. That interrogation simply cannot be conducted in the most
effective way.
Madam Chairman, there are folks who have conducted interrogations for
years. They are experienced. They know what they are doing. But they
have to retire from the military. That person can no longer be hired to
do the job.
There are folks who don't want to be government employees all year-
round, for whatever reason. They may want to just go work 3 or 6
months. But they know what they are doing. They may work for the FBI.
They may work for the police department the rest of the time. That
person cannot be an interrogator.
So the bottom line is this amendment ties our hands and prevents us
from using the most effective, most qualified people to conduct
interrogations. And when you do that, you are limiting the information
that is necessary to keep this country safe.
The gentleman talks about, well, we all want high quality folks,
well-trained and so forth. Absolutely. And if there are issues the
gentleman wants to specifically talk about related to hiring or
supervision or qualifications, we ought to talk about that. But this
amendment doesn't do that. It is a blanket prohibition, and in my view
it ties our hands from having the best people available to protect the
country. And that is always a mistake. I think it should be rejected.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, the gentleman talks
about the need to have qualified and experienced persons as
interrogators. There are some qualified and experienced persons who may
be in the private sector, who may be contractors. Yet that contractor
is not under a clear chain of command; that contractor is not subject
to the same accountability as governmental employees; and that
contractor is not in the sworn service of the U.S. Government.
If there ever was an inherently governmental function, it would be
that of an interrogator. The case is very plain for those services not
being contracted out.
Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our colleague, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, and
I particularly thank him for introducing this legislation.
I appreciate the views of the gentleman from Texas, but this is a
commonsense amendment and there have been abuses. And the people that
have abused the law, who acted illegally, whether it be at Abu Ghraib
or Guantanamo Bay or some of the black sites that the CIA have
operated, some of them have been contract employees.
Now, if we have people who are the best interrogators, we need to
hire them. This is an inherently governmental function. I think you
could ask any American, even contractors, if this is work that should
be contracted out and they would say no. But in fact there are job
openings posted for five major defense contractors for interrogators.
I represent any number of defense contractors, but I can tell you,
this is not a function that they should be performing. This Congress
should support Mr. Price's amendment and recognize this as inherently
governmental and stop this abuse.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, let me go over the adequate safeguards
that are currently in place. The contract must specify the
interrogation support. All support must be in accordance with
applicable law and policy. They must be trained and certified, in-
theater training. They must be closely supervised and monitored. They
will not oversee, direct or monitor interrogations. They operate only
in fixed facilities. They must submit a written interrogation plan.
And, lastly, they are subject to prosecution.
Let me say to my friend from Virginia and the author of this
amendment, because they are both friends and I know their hearts are in
the right place, I have observed one interrogation, one of the first
times I have seen an interrogation. It was an older lady reading a
children's book to a detainee.
I said, ``You gotta be kidding me.'' I expected all the classic stuff
like we see in the movies. And our escort said, ``Are you kidding?''
They said, ``This lady is one of the most effective people we have, and
she does extremely well.'' I believe she was a contractor. She sure as
heck wasn't a uniformed service person.
Now, my point is that there is a lot of psychology, that there is a
lot of art to this, there is a lot of human relations. And if you have
prohibitions against coercive behavior, and we have got rows of those
in all of our manuals, if you have got somebody that you can contract
with who can walk into a room and walk out maybe 2 days later, maybe 8
days later, maybe 6 months later with information that will save the
lives of your troops and advance the mission, who cares if that is an
elderly lady who happens to be a civilian and may not want to join the
Army?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Will the gentleman yield for just a second?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to my friend.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. It seems if she is that good, we ought to make
an attempt at hiring her and not contracting out, if she is that good.
Make her an offer she can't refuse, if she is that good.
Mr. HUNTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the chairman of the
committee, our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. I think back lo those many years ago to a time when I
was prosecuting attorney of Lafayette County and had the opportunity to
witness our sheriff, deputy sheriff or Missouri Highway Patrol
interrogating people who were suspects of various
[[Page H4796]]
different offenses, and I shudder to think what if we had contracted
that out to someone who had not been fully trained on the one hand and
who did not understand the law or the rules and regulations under which
interrogations must be conducted.
Fast forward to today and the interrogation of detainees. I think a
governmental function that is as important as interrogating detainees
should be a function of the government.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from California has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would just say to my colleagues that
you do have to be certified, you do have to be trained, you have to be
supervised, and you are subject to prosecution. So our special
operators have laid down a pretty strict set of guidelines. And the
last thing that I saw coming from the department was that this would
severely hamper Special Operations' capability if it was passed.
Now, that may be because many of the things Mr. Thornberry talked
about with respect to language, with respect to availability. I think
we should respect what the warfighters say about this and get more
information before we take a vote like this.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam 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 North
Carolina will be postponed.
{time} 1900
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Holt:
Add at the end of title X, the following:
SEC. 10__. REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEOTAPING OR OTHERWISE
ELECTRONICALLY RECORDING STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE
INTERROGATIONS OF PERSONS IN THE CUSTODY OF OR
UNDER THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the Army Field Manual
on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM 2-22.3,
September 2006), or any successor thereto, and the guidelines
developed pursuant to subsection (e), the Secretary of
Defense shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure
the videotaping or otherwise electronically recording of each
strategic intelligence interrogation of any person who is in
the custody or under the effective control of the Department
of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense
facility.
(b) Classification of Information.--To protect United
States national security, the safety of the individuals
conducting or assisting in the conduct of a strategic
intelligence interrogation, and the privacy of persons
described in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall
provide for the appropriate classification of video tapes or
other electronic recordings made pursuant to subsection (a).
The use of such classified video tapes or other electronic
recordings in proceedings conducted under the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 (title 14 of Public Law 109-163 and
title 10 of Public Law 109-148), the Military Commissions Act
of 2006 (10 U.S.C. 948 et seq.; Public Law 109-366), or any
other provision of law shall be governed by applicable rules,
regulations, and law.
(c) Strategic Intelligence Interrogation Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``strategic intelligence
interrogation'' means an interrogation of a person described
in subsection (a) conducted at a theater-level detention
facility.
(d) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
as requiring--
(1) any member of the Armed Forces engaged in direct combat
operations to videotape or otherwise electronically record a
person described in subsection (a); or
(2) the videotaping or other electronic recording of
tactical questioning, as such term is defined in the Army
Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM
2-22.3, September 2006), or any successor thereto.
(e) Guidelines for Videotape and Other Electronic
Recordings.--
(1) Development of guidelines.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through 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 develop and
adopt uniform guidelines designed to ensure that the
videotaping or other electronic recording required under
subsection (a), at a minimum--
(A) promotes full compliance with the laws of the United
States;
(B) is maintained for a length of time that serves the
interests of justice in cases for which trials are being or
may be conducted pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act of
2005 (title 14 of Public Law 109-163 and title 10 of Public
Law 109-148), the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (10 U.S.C.
948 et seq.; Public Law 109-366), or any other provision of
law;
(C) promotes the exploitation of intelligence; and
(D) ensures the safety of all participants in the
interrogations.
(2) Submittal to congress.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing
the guidelines developed under paragraph (1). Such report
shall be in an unclassified form but may include a classified
annex.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, 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. Madam Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment with a
simple purpose: To ensure the video recording of each strategic
intelligence interrogation of any person in the custody of the
Department of Defense, except for personnel and troops in the field
conducting battlefield interrogations. The video recordings would be
kept at the appropriate level of classification and could be used to
get maximum intelligence benefit of the interrogation, and the judge
advocate general would develop guidelines for the recording and
retaining of the recordings. I think it is important for our national
security that we make this provision law.
I yield 2 minutes to an Iraq war veteran, a former officer in the
Judge Advocate General Corps who understands this very well, the need
for it, and will speak, Mr. Patrick Murphy from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment from the great
State of New Jersey. I rise because this debate is personal to me.
Madam Chairman, as a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, I saw
American heroes at their finest, gaining vital intelligence the right
way. We have all seen images of what happens when young soldiers are
left without clear leadership at the top. Simply put, the treatment of
detainees is a strategic imperative to every servicemember wearing the
uniform and every American we took an oath to support and protect.
In the first Gulf War, over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered to
American forces because they knew that they would be treated humanely
by the American forces. Thousands who did not hide behind street
corners with RPGs or IEDs.
The treatment of detainees is what set America apart as a global
leader, and it is how we begin to restore the reputation squandered by
President Bush and the tragedy of Abu Ghraib.
Madam Chairman, there is nobody in this chamber who supports the
vigorous interrogation of suspected terrorists more than me, but it
must be done the way that reflects the greatness of America and in a
way that protects our fighting men and women. Madam Chairman, this
amendment helps do just that.
One of my heroes, General Colin Powell, once said: The world is
beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.
Will this amendment fix all our problems? Of course not. But it
certainly is a start. I urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I am going to yield to Mr. Thornberry, but first let me
just say this. I respect the gentleman who just made the statement who
has been in Iraq. But my son was in Iraq, also, and on two missions,
two tours, and Afghanistan. And one important fact that I think comes
out when you talk to folks who have been there is the exigency of the
battlefield. That is the
[[Page H4797]]
need to do things quickly, to be creative, to be able to move quickly
to save the lives of your comrades and to carry out your mission.
Now, let's think about this. You have to videotape interrogations.
What happens if you have got people coming in, moving in a pincer
movement against a particular area, maybe some buildings, maybe you
have got some machine gun fire, and you have been hitting IEDs, and you
capture somebody and you have got people in movement. And you have to
bring up then the video cameras to interrogate before you can have a
successful interrogation. And what if you don't have video cameras? You
are going to have people who are deterred from being able to do that
because they are going to be worried that somehow they are going to be
found in violation of the rules.
Now, we have got a letter here from the Under Secretary of Defense
who says that the Defense Department very strongly opposes this
requirement to video record all intelligence interrogations. They say:
This requirement runs contrary to sound Defense Department policy,
which relies upon careful selection and empowerment of the chain of
command to execute the mission. Currently, commanders video record
interrogations only after determining that the environment is conducive
and the recordings will add value to the mission.
I might add that if you have interrogations, especially if you have
got special operators who are out among the population and you lose one
of the recordings, then you expose them to enormous risk.
So the idea of making this not discretionary and mandating it I think
doesn't make a lot of sense.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, and then I
will yield to Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I have great
respect for the gentleman from California, and that he is also a
paratrooper. But, Madam Chairman, I would suggest that those were my
same concerns. In that letter we address those concerns that the Under
Secretary said; that in forward operating bases in the environment,
there is no mandate in this bill that would require them to videotape
the interrogations. It is only at the strategic level in theater, only
where they go.
In my case in al Rasheed, Baghdad in 2002, 2004, Madam Chairman, we
would interrogate them at a forward operating base, then we would bring
them up to the Baghdad airport, then they would go to somewhere else.
It would only be at that higher level, not at the forward operating
base. And we put that language in this bill to address those exact
concerns.
So although I respect greatly the service and the commitment of the
gentleman from California and his concerns, those concerns were
addressed in this bill. And that is why I support our amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his answer. But if you have a
situation where you are doing intel interrogations close to the
battlefield, which you are in many places, a matter of minutes or hours
could make the difference between life and death. And if you don't have
video equipment available, which you wouldn't have in many of those
cases, you could still have what I would call a disastrous result.
I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for the
remaining 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Chairman, this idea has been proposed and
rejected before, partly because it makes no sense to stop what is
happening on the battlefield and go film. The author of this amendment
says, no, it only applies to theater level detention facilities. The
problem is that if somebody is really going to commit some sort of
abuse, they will just conduct that abuse somewhere else. This amendment
only applies in certain places.
The problem is that video recordings of interrogations creates a
discoverable record, and disclosure of that record complicates the
criminal prosecution. That is why a lot of jurisdictions in this
country, Federal and State, do not require these sorts of recordings.
In addition, as the former chairman said, having interrogators on
camera threatens them, because their face and their voice could well be
made public and, therefore, the danger to their lives could increase.
Secondly, these things could be made public, and the techniques and
tactics that are used and the procedures would also be made available
to the enemy in the future.
The bottom line is that when you have got a camera there, these
interrogations are most likely going to be less effective.
So here, again, we have an example of putting our military folks in
the category as suspects, because we assume they are going to do some
sort of abuse and so we have got to film them because we don't trust
them and limit the effectiveness of what they do. We tie their hands
and therefore make it more difficult for them to do their job. I think
that is a mistake.
Mr. HOLT. May I ask the remaining time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey controls 2
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Look, law enforcement is using videotaping because it
not only is a matter of protection for the person that is being
interrogated, but for the interrogator, him or herself, as well. There
are rules that guide interrogations. Having those tapes is a safeguard
that we can have to make sure that the rules of interrogation set down
by the Department of Defense will protect those people as well. If they
need to be disguised in some way, I believe that the amendment would
allow for that. This is to protect both the interrogator and the one
who is being interrogated.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady.
It is becoming standard for interrogations all over this country, I
have a list here from the 50 States, for enforcement and prosecutorial
interrogations where it is required. In fact, it is required in New
Jersey, Alaska, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota. And it is required for a
variety of reasons, not just for the protection of the detainees or the
protection of the interrogators, but to get maximum benefit from the
interrogation.
Under this amendment, the judge advocate general would develop
guidelines to ensure that the required video recording is sufficient to
protect both the abuse of detainees and to protect the identity of the
interrogators from unauthorized disclosure. This is standard practice.
I yield to the chairman of the committee, who can speak not only from
his position as Chair but from his experience as a prosecutor, the
balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let's really look at what we are talking about. It is important to
note that the amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to classify
videotapes. Under the existing rules--by the way, there are three
theater internment facilities in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Under
those rules, one can only be held 14 days. But any interrogation
between the time of capture and the time a person is entered in the
theater internment facility does not have to be videotaped.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
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. HUNTER. Madam 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.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H4798]]
Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. McGovern:
At the end of subtitle G of title X of the bill, add the
following new section:
SEC. 10XX. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF STUDENTS AND
INSTRUCTORS AT WESTERN HEMISPHERE INSTITUTE FOR
SECURITY COOPERATION.
Section 2166 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Public Disclosure of Students and Instructors.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense shall release to the public, upon
request, the information described in paragraph (2) for each
of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and any fiscal
year thereafter.
``(2) The information to be released under paragraph (1)
shall include the following with respect to the fiscal year
covered:
``(A) The entire name, including the first, middle, and
maternal and paternal surnames, with respect to each student
and instructor at the Institute.
``(B) The rank of each student and instructor.
``(C) The country of origin of each student and instructor.
``(D) The courses taken by each student.
``(E) The courses taught by each instructor.
``(F) Any years of attendance by each student in addition
to the fiscal year covered.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Skelton for his generosity and his
support of this amendment. I also want to thank Defense Appropriations
Chair Murtha for supporting this amendment.
Madam Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. For over 40 years,
the names of graduates and instructors at the former U.S. Army School
of the Americas, and now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation, were available to the public. All that was required was a
phone call or a letter to school officials or to file a Freedom of
Information Act request, and the names were provided. Suddenly, in
August 2006, the names were classified. The only reason cited by the
Defense Department for denying the names was that the list includes
personal information.
But nothing about the request had changed. No one had asked for new
information, and certainly none of a personal nature. So for the past 2
years, the names of graduates and instructors at the WHINSEC have
remained secret. Well, almost secret. Names constantly pop up in
WHINSEC PR material like this with the nice color pictures and names
underneath them, but the public is still denied access. There doesn't
seem to be a security concern when it comes to press releases.
It is difficult, Madam Chairman, to understand the national security
or privacy concerns raised by some when this information has been
available for so many years. The WHINSEC and Defense Department have
never, ever cited personal security or national security as the reason
for denying the names. In over four decades of public access, not once
has there ever been a whisper that military officers attending WHINSEC
were targets. And these were turbulent years, with coups in the
southern cones, civil wars in Central America, and insurgencies, drug
lords, and armed groups in the Andes, especially in Colombia and Peru.
Not a hint that attending the school was dangerous.
The WHINSEC is supposed to be a model for transparency,
accountability, and respect for civil society, including human rights
groups and critics. What signal does the school send to its Latin
American counterparts about our democratic values when it denies NGOs
access to information that has been available for decades? I urge my
colleagues to vote to restore public access this information.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I want to yield very quickly to Dr. Gingrey. But first,
we have that list, and any Member can go look at it but it is not made
available to the public. And I think there is a safety issue here. I
think there is a safety issue with respect to the families, the
children, the wives of the folks that attend this particular
institution.
{time} 1915
And you know something else?
We applaud our military people regularly. We acknowledge that they're
some of the most honorable of citizens. We trust them with the lives of
our children and in battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And yet it seems like the amendments that come up show quite a bit of
distrust. We don't trust our interrogators, so now we're going to
videotape them as if they were stealing candy at a 7-Eleven because we
don't trust them.
And here we don't trust these great military folks that run WHINSEC
who, I think, are going to have a salutary effect on the leaders that
come from other countries that come to this school.
Americans are the best. Our military people are often the very best
ambassadors for this country. And the idea that we continue to try to
close down the best ambassadors, so that the people who will offer
schools to them are people like Hugo Chavez, I think that doesn't make
a lot of sense.
So as much as I respect my colleague who is offering this amendment,
I would hope that my colleagues would vote against it.
I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr.
Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
And I appreciate the gentleman's intentions with his amendment. But I
do have some serious concerns, and I briefly want to outline them,
Madam Chairman.
The protection of the names of WHINSEC students and staff is both a
privacy and security issue, with broader implications for our
international security cooperation.
Publicizing the names of WHINSEC students in their home countries,
where in some cases there are active guerilla or narcotrafficking
insurgencies could expose these students to threats to their personal
safety and, indeed, to that of their families. This could include
hostile attention from nations, organizations and individuals that may
wish to do harm to the United States, its friends and its allies.
Such publication, Madam Chairman, could serve as a disincentive to
foreign students who would otherwise want to attend WHINSEC, and it
could discourage nations from sending their students to the institute.
This would undercut the effectiveness of WHINSEC as a tool for building
hemispheric security cooperation and communicating the democratic
values and the respect for human rights that we champion.
A further concern I have is that cooperative training at WHINSEC does
not just involve military personnel. We're also training police forces,
of which more are from Colombia than any other nation. Many of these
personnel are involved in counterdrug operations when they return to
their country. It is incomprehensible that we would put their names out
there, likely to be published on the Web sites of radical protest
groups and put at risk not only their ability to participate in
counternarcotic operations, but also their lives. Indeed, Madam
Chairman, we would be putting a bull's-eye on their backs.
Madam Chairman, the gentleman noted that these names have been
available upon request prior to 2005. That is true.
Well, Madam Chairman, the world has changed. You used to be able to
drive freely around this Capitol prior to 9/11. You used to be able to
get on an airplane without going through metal detectors. Obviously,
you can't do that now. The security environment in the western
hemisphere has also changed.
In his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Admiral
Stavridis, the Commander of SOUTHCOM, testified, and I quote, ``Some
trends in a few countries in SOUTHCOM's area of responsibility impede
security cooperation, as their governments espouse vocal, anti-U.S.
messages, and they undertake policies that portend a less stable and
secure hemisphere.''
For most of the period of time when names were released, as Mr.
McGovern was mentioning, Venezuela's foreign policy toward the United
States was much different than it is now. We now also know that China
is engaging militarily on a daily basis with the nations in our own
backyard.
[[Page H4799]]
Madam Chairman, those who seek to close WHINSEC will attempt to take
advantage of this policy to create the appearance----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, they will take advantage of this policy
to create the appearance of impropriety at the institute, and Venezuela
and China will be the beneficiaries. Those concerned about human rights
will then have to deal with these potentially hostile nations setting
the human rights standard in Latin America.
As for transparency, Madam Chairman, you simply do not learn
everything about any institution solely by looking at the names of
those who have attended. If you followed that logic, one could contend
that Harvard is an institution that trains brutal killers and human
rights violators simply because the Unabomber once took a class there.
On the other hand, WHINSEC is open to visitors every working day. It
invites people to sit in class, talk with the students, the faculty,
review instructional material. This is perhaps the most open,
transparent and welcoming organization in the Department of Defense.
And it has certainly been the subject of more oversight than any other
element of the Department.
Madam Chairman, unfortunately, I believe that the release of personal
information has less to do with transparency and more to do with yet
another effort to shut down WHINSEC.
On May 7, 2008, the Department of Defense provided to the Congress
the names, country of origin, rank, courses, dates of attendance of
students and instructors at WHINSEC for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 in
accordance with the report language in the fiscal year 2008 Defense
Appropriations Act. This information was provided in a classified
format. The Department of Defense deemed that sensitive personal
information must be safeguarded to protect the privacy, security and
dignity of individual students, instructors and families. The fiscal
year 2008 information will be provided in a similar format no later
than 60 days after the beginning of the next fiscal year, as directed.
There's a working system to provide information regarding WHINSEC
students, instructors and courses. This information my friend is asking
for with his amendment----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has again expired.
Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. GINGREY. This information that my friend is asking for in this
amendment has therefore already been made available to Congress. He can
walk over right now to the Rayburn Building and study the names to his
heart's content.
So I am led to wonder, Madam Chairman, what is the McGovern amendment
trying to accomplish?
I fear it will only give ammunition to radical groups who hope to
ultimately shut down WHINSEC, which the Armed Services Committee and
this Congress are opposed to doing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, let me again remind my colleagues that
the names have always been public with regard to those who attended
WHINSEC, and it never discouraged attendance. The only thing that's
different is it's now classified and there's no transparency.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. Let me say at the outset that it's important that this
school continue to succeed. It does yeoman's work, not just in
educating, but in building fences between our country and those in
Latin America. The military culture reigns, as it should, and
friendships are formed through the years.
And I think that transparency as to who goes, who graduates, and the
fact that names and pictures are put in the advertising brochures lets
everyone know that this is not such a secret thing.
Openness is important. The Defense Department, up until 2005,
released the names of instructors to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act. I think, in order for this school to be fully
transparent and successful, it should allow the names to be made
public.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield at this time to
another gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank Ranking Member Hunter. And I
certainly agree with what he said about the military being some of our
greatest ambassadors that we have for this country.
I also want to agree with the distinguished chairman of the committee
about the great work that WHINSEC does.
I also want to emphasize what Congressman Gingrey said about, that
this is no more than a back door attempt to shut down this school. It
does great work. I have visited there. This school is open to the
public 7 days a week. You can go in, you can sit in the classes, you
can talk to the military personnel. It's as open as you could possibly
get.
The times in this country and times in this world have changed. And
to put these men and women at risk in their own country and their
families at risk is not fair.
The DOD has released these names. They've publicized it. They're for
anybody in this body that wants to go read them to try to find out who
has been there. I don't know what more we can ask for.
If we're going to have transparency in everything we do, why don't we
release all the information about our families and where we're from and
maybe even our intelligence community.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia, who represents the district where the WHINSEC
is located, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to cosponsor this
amendment which would provide public access to the names of the
graduates and instructors of WHINSEC, which is located at Fort Benning,
where I'm privileged to represent.
I have been in this House some 16 years, and every one of those 16
years I have found myself in the position of defending this school.
Throughout my years of representing Fort Benning, I've visited on many
occasions this institute, and consistently I've supported the
institute's efforts to provide civil and military training and
leadership skills to our friends and our partners in Latin America.
They do a tremendous job.
It serves as a unique, creative and a powerful tool in preserving
democracy and fighting the global war on terror, promoting human
rights, and facilitating international cooperation in our hemisphere.
But every fall we have hundreds of thousands of protesters who come
to our city and cause millions of dollars to be spent in security
because the protestors believe that some sinister activities take place
at this school. Transparency is the only way to put the lie to that,
and to show the wonderful work that takes place at that school.
And so I agree with my colleague, Mr. McGovern. We've been on
different sides of this issue for many years. But with regard to this,
I believe it's appropriate that transparency be there, and that the
personnel who attend or teach at the institute should be made public as
a matter of transparency. I believe that allowing information will
prevent attempts to discredit the institute, will fortify the public's
belief in its mission.
We must keep open the channels of information that show WHINSEC's
true purpose, namely, that protecting human rights and building
democratic governments requires a continued, concerted effort by
friends, both at home and abroad.
Please join me in supporting this to secure that the institutions
that we entrust promote democratic principles.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Please, I ask this House to join me in
supporting this effort to ensure that the institution that we entrust
to promote democratic principles remains open for review and
discussion.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help us put the
lie to
[[Page H4800]]
all of these protesters that come down and pretend, or that, through
misinformation, believe that some sinister activities are taking place
there. Please support this amendment. It's good for the school, and
it's good for American democracy.
{time} 1930
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield to Dr. Gingrey
such time as we have left.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, you have heard some serious, serious
concerns with this amendment. But whatever the outcome today, we must
remember what is at stake when it comes to WHINSEC. If we were not to
engage with the participating nations, Madam Chairman, we would be
abandoning our most effective means of developing relationships with
the security forces of these countries. The void created would be
filled by countries with poor records on democracy and human rights,
such as Venezuela and China.
Madam Chairman, the friendships fostered at WHINSEC have enabled El
Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras to provide well-trained
forces to our endeavors in Iraq. Further, thanks to the counterdrugs
civil military and medical assistance courses at WHINSEC, hemispheric
military police and civilian organizations have also been capably
providing counterdrugs and disaster-relief capabilities.
Madam Chairman, the success of current and foreseeable future
conflicts will be highly influenced by the degree of international
cooperation of allied and friendly countries. This requires engagement
and building partnerships and relationships. And I certainly look
forward to working with Chairman Skelton, Admiral Sestak, Mr. Bishop,
my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, to ensure that we continue
utilizing WHINSEC for this purpose.
Needless to say, Madam Chairman, since we already have a system in
place where we're reviewing the names of students attending WHINSEC and
because the institute is very transparent, I believe the amendment is
unnecessary and could potentially do much more harm than good.
As for the brochures that the gentleman presented, I can assure him,
and I'm sure he knows, that those pictures are only published with the
permission of those students. So I don't think that is in any way
indicative of what we're talking about here.
With that, Madam Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this
amendment. It's a dangerous amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, a cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. Sestak.
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, I stood here a year ago and borrowed time
from the other side to speak with my good colleague from Georgia
against an amendment from my good colleague from Massachusetts that had
defunded this school.
This school is everything you say it is. It has come a long way since
the days of the School of the Americas. And I told the story of how I
pulled into, during my 30 years in the military, one country where
young officers got underway with us. And as the officers left, one of
them said to me, You treat your enlisted different than we do. And I
said, What do you mean? He said, You treat them as though they're equal
to you. And I said, Well, they say ``yes, sir,'' ``no, sir.'' He said,
No. You treat them as though they're equal human beings. We don't.
That's what's good about this School of the Americas. They're exposed
to us, Americans.
But I took two other things away that day. That young man was
attracted to us. Even though they respected the power of our economy
and our military, he admired the power of our ideals. That's what is
good about being attracted to our ideals.
I believe also in transparency because the second thing is I learned
in this those 30 years that I did not work, even though I took orders
from the Commander in Chief of this Nation, I worked for the public
citizens of this country. They deserve to know how I was doing my job,
whether it was leading men or women into harm's way or whether it was
whom I was working with as long as it was safe for them.
I do believe that 40-some years of having told who these individuals
were to change it, it eludes me why now it is a danger. I support the
ideal of transparency. It was attracted into my ship that day, and
that's why I always support this School of the Americas now that I know
it's WHINSEC because of the good it can do in teaching transparency to
those elsewhere.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, has my colleague used up all his time?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California's time has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, as my fellow cosponsors have said, we
do not agree on the fate of WHINSEC. I would like to see it closed.
They want it to stay open. But this is not a vote to shut it down. This
is a vote to keep it transparent. And we have come together and we all
agree that we need to restore public access to these names for reasons
of accountability, transparency, and the democratic mission of our own
military.
Madam Chairman, look at these lists: all blacked out. Does this look
like transparency? Is this what we mean by transparency? Is this
democracy at work? Is this the model that we want Latin American
militaries to copy? Is this what we stand for?
The names were public for decades, decades, until August of 2006, and
the world all of a sudden didn't just become dangerous, the world has
been dangerous, especially in Latin America, for decades.
Openness was the norm, not secrecy. Now, all of a sudden, everything
is secret. Why? Because there is some who don't want accountability.
There are some who don't want the sunshine in on those who attend this
school.
There are no new threats to justifying denying these names. When I
visited the school a few months back, no one, nobody came forward and
said to me, Please do not make the names public because it will
threaten somebody. Or nobody said that the reason why all of a sudden
the names became classified was because of an increase in threats. That
is just not the case. That's just an excuse.
The bottom line is that there are no new threats to justify denying
these names to the public. We need to restore public access. This is
the right thing to do. Transparency is a good thing for this Congress
to support.
Support the McGovern amendment.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McGovern-
Sestak-Bishop, GA, amendment.
This important amendment will restore public access to the name,
country of origin, and other information of graduates and instructors
of the infamous Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation,
WHINSEC, formerly known as the School of the Americas.
In doing so, this amendment will provide a critical measure of
transparency to the training provided by the United States at this
institution.
We know that prior training provided by WHINSEC has led to increased
instability in Latin America and numerous violations of human rights at
the hands of former students--including torture, extortion, and
executions.
Rather than supporting peace and stability, this institution has
instead done quite the opposite.
Many countries in the region are still struggling to recover from
decades of dictatorship, corruption, and human rights abuses
perpetrated by WHINSEC graduates.
At a time when our occupation of Iraq has greatly damaged our
credibility and standing in the world, it is imperative that we reverse
the legacy of this school that is drenched in secrecy, terror, and
violence.
I urge my colleagues to improve our reputation as a promoter of
democratic ideals, protect human rights, and support this amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. I return the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H4801]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Ellsworth
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 55
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 55 offered by Mr. Ellsworth:
In the appropriate place in title VIII, insert the
following:
SEC. 8__. REQUIREMENT FOR DEFENSE CONTRACT CLAUSE PROHIBITING
CERTAIN USES OF FOREIGN SHELL COMPANIES.
(a) Contract Clause Requirement.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal
Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to require each
contract awarded by the Department of Defense to contain a
clause prohibiting the contractor from performing the
contract using a subsidiary or subcontractor that is a
foreign shell company if the foreign shell company will
perform the work of the contract or subcontract using United
States citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
(b) Foreign Shell Company.--In this section, the term
``foreign shell company'' means an entity--
(1) that is incorporated outside the United States or
Canada; and
(2) that does not manage, direct, or exercise operational
control over personnel performing work under a contract of
the entity.
(c) Applicability.--The contract clause required by this
section shall apply to contracts in amounts greater than the
simplified acquisition threshold (as defined in section 2302a
of title 10, United States Code) entered into after the 210-
day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity
to thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for helping cosponsor
this amendment, which is really a shame that we have to file this
amendment. It's a very commonsense, straightforward amendment that, as
much as I hate to say it, that we found out about it in a newspaper
article.
It requires contracts awarded by the Department of Defense to
prohibit contractors from using subsidiaries or subcontractors as a
foreign shell company performing the work of the contract of a U.S.
citizen. In this amendment, a foreign shell company is an entity
incorporated outside the U.S. or Canada that does not manage, direct,
or exercise operational control over personnel performing work under
contract.
Now, what that means in plain English is that companies that are
receiving government contracts and working overseas, Iraq and
Afghanistan, are opening post office boxes in the Grand Caymans. A box.
No employees, no telephone, no apartments, not an office, not an
employee. Yet they claim to be a company out of the Grand Caymans.
What that does, Madam Chairman, is it cheats our government, it
cheats our taxpayers at home, and it cheats the folks that work for
these companies. This was originally found out by a person going in and
filing for a disability claim, and they said, You're not an employee of
the United States.
Madam Chairman, this is wrong, and we need to close this loophole.
This simple, straightforward amendment that simply closes this is what
we want to do here. And I think it's a straightforward amendment.
I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chairman, I rise to support this amendment because no one
should receive special privileges under our tax system.
I want to recognize Representative Ellsworth and Congressman Emanuel
for the hard work on this important issue.
It is unacceptable for the Department of Defense to pay for this war
by doing business with companies that siphon money from their own
workers and from their own government. What does it say about our
Nation and our priorities when American companies like Kellogg, Brown &
Root, by far the largest contractor in Iraq, are allowed to take their
Department of Defense dollars, filter them through an offshore shell
company, all to avoid paying significant Social Security and Medicare
taxes?
Madam Chairman, we are depleting the Social Security and Medicare
trust funds by hundreds of millions of dollars, and this amendment says
that must end--prohibiting Defense Department contractors from using
foreign shell companies to employ American workers. When tax dodgers
avoid their responsibilities, the American taxpayers suffers. We cannot
afford this. Support this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I have a lot of respect for the author of this amendment,
and I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to keep a
corporation from basically employing through a subsidiary American
citizens who are not contributing to the tax withholdings.
Is that right?
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Yes. The gentleman from California is correct. That's
the sole intent of this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. I understand that.
The way it's drafted, it appears to me that it's a flat prohibition,
and any organization with even one U.S. citizen might be precluded from
using this business form, which I think is a far more anticompetitive
approach than the gentleman might want.
My feeling is this, that if we approve this amendment, I would hope
that the gentleman would work in conference to make sure that it's
narrowed to this focus on making sure that these companies pay taxes
and that it doesn't have some kind of exclusionary or unintended
consequence.
Will the gentleman work with us in conference?
Mr. ELLSWORTH. That's agreed to, absolutely.
Mr. HUNTER. In that case, Madam Chairman, we do not object to this
amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. People might be wondering if this is a serious
problem. We have had estimates from the Congressional Budget Office
that if this tax loophole were closed, CBO estimates the Federal
Government will save $846 million over 10 years. I would say that's a
pretty big problem. I think the folks in Indiana would say that's a big
problem, too.
During a time of tightened budgets and escalating national debt,
closing this loophole makes sense. The tax provision was included in
the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act which passed the
House just this week.
I would urge my colleagues, and like I said, I would like to thank
the gentleman from California. I would be honored to work with him to
straighten out his concerns, and I would ask all of my colleagues to
support this bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Hodes
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Hodes:
At the end of title X, add the following new section:
SEC. 1071. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO PROPAGANDA.
(a) Prohibition.--No part of any funds authorized to be
appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used by the
Department of Defense for propaganda purposes within the
United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law.
(b) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of the
United States shall each conduct a study of, and submit to
the Congress a report on, the extent to which the Department
of Defense
[[Page H4802]]
has violated the prohibition on propaganda established in
section 8001 of Public Laws 107-117, 107-248, 108-87, 108-
287, 109-148, 109-289, and 110-116, the Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2008.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``propaganda'' means any form of communication in support of
national objectives designed to influence the opinions,
emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of the United
States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or
indirectly.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank the distinguished
Chair of the committee, Mr. Skelton, as well as my cosponsors on this
amendment, Congresswoman DeLauro and Congressman DeFazio.
Madam Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 5658 addresses an issue of
utmost importance to our Constitution and to the integrity of our
government.
{time} 1945
And it will help restore the trust of the American people in their
government.
In a free and democratic society, our government should never use the
public airwaves to propagandize our citizens.
Recent media reports have alleged an organized effort by former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Department of Defense
officials to manipulate network news military analysts to promote
administration spin on the war in Iraq, even though many of those
analysts knew the information not to be accurate.
Internal Pentagon documents obtained by the New York Times refer to
these military analysts as message force multipliers, surrogates who
can be counted on to deliver administration themes and messages to
millions of Americans in the form of their own opinions.
In fact, one analyst apparently referred to the efforts by the
Pentagon as brainwashing. A report conducted by media watchdog Media
Matters showed that from January 2002 these military analysts, many of
whom have ties to the defense industry, appeared on network and cable
news stations nearly 4,500 times. That's right, 4,500 instances.
Imagine the millions of people who heard those impressions 4,500 times.
The American people were spun by Bush administration message
multipliers. They were fed administration talking points believing they
were getting independent military analysis.
Days after the news story appeared, the Pentagon suspended the
program. The news outlets who hosted the programs and analysts have
been remarkably silent. The Department of Defense Inspector General has
already begun an internal review of the program, but given the
possibility that the public, as well as decision-makers in this
Congress, were misled about the war in Iraq, both in the run-up to the
war and afterwards, I believe it is absolutely critical that a public
investigation happen that is transparent to this body, as well as to
the American people.
Congress cannot allow an administration to manipulate the public with
false propaganda on matters of war and our national security.
My amendment will ensure that no money authorized in this act will be
used for any domestic propaganda program within the United States aimed
at U.S. citizens. It will require a report to Congress by both the
Defense Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on
whether previous restrictions on propaganda have been violated and laws
broken.
It's finally time for the American people to know the truth. If we
allow our government to lie to the American people, we lose the
democracy and liberty on which our country was founded, and we risk
becoming what generations of brave Americans have fought so hard to
defeat.
Let us today on this floor in this Congress say never again will we
allow this to happen in our republic.
I urge passage of this amendment, and today, we will say with one
voice that the American people will not tolerate domestic propaganda.
We will find the truth. We will correct any abuses of power.
I reserve 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
10 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. What is propaganda? Of course, Americans engage
in propaganda. It is a vital part of the mission of the United States
to promote democracy and protect our country from harm. The United
States spreads propaganda every day in spreading freedom and democracy
across the world.
The military uses propaganda to recruit soldiers. TV commercials, air
shows and other military events all use what is considered to be
propaganda to bring out the patriotic spirit of the American youth and
people. Slogans such as ``Be all you can be in the Army'' and ``The
Few, the Proud, the Marines'' are all propaganda directed at the
American people, and there is no deception or malice in their intent.
During war, propaganda can save American lives. It already has in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't we rather shoot our enemy or talk him
out of fighting? For Americans fighting overseas, it could be described
as persuading our enemies to lay down their arms rather than to fight
us.
It is better to defeat our enemies with words than with guns.
However, we know that commanders have already been hesitant in many
cases to use propaganda during this war because they don't want to be
accused of propagandizing American contractors overseas. The
misconception of what kinds of propaganda are allowed has already
caused harm to our soldiers overseas.
This amendment raises significant concerns about our ability to
defeat terrorists overseas and protect American lives. This amendment
would prohibit funding for propaganda, which is defined as ``any form
of communication in support of national objectives designed to
influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people
of the United States.''
This definition raises serious questions when you apply it in this
sense:
Could we produce the propaganda within the United States and use it
overseas? Would this amendment restrict U.S. military operations,
including propaganda aimed at our enemies that a U.S. contractor
working overseas may see?
Would this restrict certain types of military recruitment within the
United States?
What about propaganda that is aimed for overseas consumption, that
because of the Internet, returns to the United States and influences
U.S. citizens; would that violate the prohibition?
Is there any way that this could interfere with the military
releasing information to the media in the United States?
Under this amendment, would providing facts and data on successes
overseas to the American public be defined as propaganda?
What if the information went to Members of Congress and they were to
share it; is that a violation?
Before we vote to tie the hands of our military, we should make
absolutely sure that the Hodes-DeFazio-DeLauro amendment will not
constrain recruitment or warfighting efforts by not allowing the types
of propaganda that we need.
I would hope that as this bill moves to the conference that we can
work to ensure that the language is not so broad that the military
cannot do its job.
I recommend that people vote ``no'' on this amendment because I think
it would be disastrous for our Nation because it is an overly broad
amendment and would hamstring and shackle our military and our
government.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, perhaps the gentleman, my colleague, does
not understand that this amendment prohibits lying. ``Be all you can
be'' is persuasion. A concerted program of government-directed lies is
propaganda.
The amendment would simply codify language outlawing propaganda
within
[[Page H4803]]
the United States aimed at our citizens, and perhaps the gentleman is
unaware that similar language has been included in congressional
appropriations bills since the 1950s. And thus, this amendment does not
represent any change in U.S. policy.
Propaganda is narrowly defined as communications designed to
influence the people of the United States, and it is limited to
domestic programs within the United States aimed at U.S. citizens.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield to my distinguished cosponsor Mr.
DeFazio for 2 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is extraordinarily confused. Domestic
propaganda? Propaganda to convince the elected officials of the people
of the United States or the voters of the United States that some
misbegotten objective will be good for the country? That's what you're
talking about.
We're not talking about using intelligence or using our own auspices
overseas, the Voice of America, whatever, to spread the voice of
freedom and democracy around the world. But we are talking about
deceiving the United States Congress and the voters of the United
States of America in violation of the law, a law that was passed in
reaction to the Soviet empire.
You are advocating the position of the Soviet Union in the 1950s,
propaganda to deceive your own people. That is unbelievable to me on
this floor.
Since the 1950s, since the height of the Soviet Union and the Cold
War, we have prohibited propaganda directed at the people of the United
States using taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon.
What happened here was a violation of that law, and that anybody
would stand here on this floor and say that that law, which we have had
in place for more than 50 years, should be repealed or undermined by
one narrow-mined administration or Vice President Cheney or anybody
else who wants to manipulate intelligence, the Congress and the
American people into a war that should not have been initiated is
unbelievable at this point in time.
An informed, free and fair press is critical to our system of
government to have informed decision-makers here. Maybe you don't want
to hear the truth, but I do, and to have informed voters who are voting
based on the truth and choosing their elected representatives based on
decisions that they fully understand and that they have been fully
informed on and not propagandized.
It's extraordinary to me in the 21st century anybody would advocate
the use of propaganda against the voters and the people of the United
States.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on this
side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire controls 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HODES. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California controls 6
remaining minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I would yield myself such time as I might consume.
Madam Chairman and my colleagues, we have general officers, flag
officers who go over to Iraq, Afghanistan just as they have gone to
every war theater we've fought in. They talk to their colleagues. Their
colleagues give them the facts as they see the facts. They come back.
They repeat those facts, the ones that they concur in, and they draw
conclusions.
Now, they do that on dozens and dozens of talk shows and other media
outlets throughout the United States. Some of them are for the
operation and some of them are against the operation.
The idea, and this sounds like something we might want to adopt for
our campaigns because I've found myself falling prey to this now and
again, thinking what my opponent said was propaganda, what I said was
the absolute truth. But how about the General McCaffreys who come back,
having talked to their friends in theater, and they come back and give
their set of facts and they say, therefore, we don't think things are
going well, as opposed to the general who goes over and talks to
friends in the theater, some of them the very same people, and they
come back and say our conclusion is that things are going well.
The idea that we take this great resource, and I understand this is
directed at general officers who go over to the theater, come back,
appear in the American media, and give their take on where they think
this war is going. I think that's a great asset for this country, and I
say that, even though I've appeared many times opposite general
officers and flag officers who have the opposite opinion from mine. But
it's a great resource to have people that have that background and are
able to look at the situation and come back and give their opinion
freely.
The idea that the people who agree with the operation over there are
giving propaganda, but the generals who have come back and said that we
think there is a problem with this operation, and there are quite a few
of them, that somehow their point is right on and they are precisely
accurate and they are serving the public, that's nonsense.
You've got to let your general officers go over, make an evaluation,
come back, give that evaluation, and we get to cross-examine them in
committee, as we often do. We'll have people on both sides who have
seen the same wars and the same operations and come to different
conclusions.
The idea that we are going to label the people we don't agree with
propagandists and the ones that agree with us are philosophers and
statesmen is kind of a zany idea.
Let's let all of our general officers, let's look at them as a great
resource, whether they agree with us or not. I've always said that,
even about the folks that come back and have a totally opposite view
from mine. I've always said this is a great resource to have retired
military people with a long background, who go over, have these
insights, make an evaluation and come back and give us that evaluation.
Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, we've had it on both sides on the
Afghanistan and the Iraq operations. We've seen guys like General Zinni
come back and give a viewpoint totally opposite the administration. Yet
I listen to that gentleman. I greatly respect him. I think he's got a
lot of wisdom. I disagree with him in some cases.
But the idea that we call the people who disagree with us
propagandists and the other ones great seers and statesmen and
philosophers doesn't make any sense.
{time} 2000
Let's let everybody come back and exercise the right to free speech,
and let's not have any of these inhibiting amendments.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Chair of the committee, Mr. Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I was sorely distressed when I learned
of the fact that there were a good number of former military officers
that were given special access, many of whom had conflicts of interest
in various defense businesses, and they were considered military
television analysts.
You see, people in the military are trusted by Americans. People who
are retired military are trusted by Americans. And what's interesting
is that this special group had special access to information in the
Pentagon and obviously used that in their analysis when talking of the
Middle East on television. And what's really interesting is the fact
that their special access was canceled.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. This is domestic propaganda. It is a military-
industrial-media complex in which military analysts, many who have ties
with the contractors making money off of the war and parroting DOD
talking points on the air to mislead the American public, and the TV
networks did nothing to prevent it.
I will just tell my colleagues that if you voted for the DOD
appropriations bill last year, if you did, you voted to prohibit this.
You've done it since 2002. Donald Rumsfeld met with these guys 18
times, told them what to say, and then, my friends, DOD hired a company
to track their remarks on the TV networks.
[[Page H4804]]
I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleagues. This has been
a secret propaganda program within the Department of Defense to use
military analysts to generate positive news coverage of the war in
Iraq, conditions on Guantanamo, and other activities as part of the war
on terror.
New York Times: 75 retired military analysts briefed often by high-
level officials in a ``powerfully seductive environment'' only to be
found later again parroting the administration's talking points on
major television news programs, over the radio and through newspapers.
Also, the Times reported internal DOD documents described the
analysts as ``message force multipliers'' who could be counted on to
deliver the administration's themes and messages to millions of
Americans in the form of their own opinions.
You know, when you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing
their business interests or their relationship with high-level
officials, you have betrayed the public trust. This should not have
happened. Unfortunately, our leaders at the Department of Defense
didn't understand it. Support this amendment.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California controls 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, let me say this: I have always greatly
respected the ability of our guys, this great resource that we have of
flag officers--and nonflag officers, incidentally, NCOs and company
grade officers--to go over to a warfighting theater and come back and
bring you the news, whether it's good or bad. In fact, I've hosted
forums in the Armed Services Committee when I brought in dissenting
officers who would come back and tell us what they thought was wrong
with the war because you've got to listen to it. If you're going to
shape good policy, you've got to hear both sides to these things.
I would just say to my colleagues who say, well, these people were
hosted; they came over and they were hosted. Listen, you have respected
people like General Zinni and Barry McCaffrey and other respected
leaders and generals, and they go over to a warfighting theater, you
can bet that they are hosted by their colleagues that they grew up with
in the military, fought alongside with, and that's absolutely
appropriate. And you can bet that they were given transport and they
got to look at the operations, they got to give their analysis. And you
know something? That has value. I always want to see the guy that
thinks that the operation isn't going well and listen to his remarks
and his comments.
So the idea that we're going to label the guys who we don't agree
with as having been ``propagandized'' and we're going to label the guys
we agree with as being seers and prophets and truth tellers, that just
doesn't work.
We've all been surprised. As you look at this array of general
officers, often you'll say, I would have bet that that guy likes the
operation. You talk to him and he says, ``no, I don't like it, I think
we're there for the wrong reason, I don't think it's going to work.''
And the guy that you thought probably is not going to support it says,
you know, I've seen this, this, this and this, and I agree with the
operation.
You want to listen to all of them. And the idea that we're going to
crunch down on them and also the idea that somehow Don Rumsfeld got
these people in a room and told them what to say, if you believe that,
you don't believe in the independence of these general officers. None
of them are used to having people tell them what to say. They're
independent. They're a source of information to us. They're a valuable
resource. And we ought to respect all of them. We ought to urge them
all to go to theater, come back with their remarks and their comments.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend. And I do regret that he's
leaving because we appreciate your point of view.
And I asked you to yield, Mr. Ranking Member, because in the article
that was in the New York Times they talked about a point where news
articles started revealing----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HUNTER. May I ask unanimous consent that he be given an
additional 30 seconds.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, each side will control
additional 30 seconds.
There was no objection.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my friend and very distinguished
gentleman from California.
When articles came out that troops were dying because of inadequate
body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues, and
that letter was made available to the Times, ``I think our analysts,
properly armed, can push back in that arena.''
Now, I suspect you are going to be asked to comment on military
things, and we are going to listen very intently. But if the Pentagon
asked you to say something that you knew not to necessarily be the
truth, you wouldn't do it. The problem is, we have quotes from senior
military officers saying they were concerned that their employer, their
military contract employers would lose access if they didn't do what
the Pentagon asked. That's what we're trying to get at.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I'm afraid that my distinguished
colleagues on the other side are laboring under a misapprehension.
This amendment is very simple. First, it codifies long-standing
policy prohibiting propaganda, domestic propaganda. Second, it calls
for an investigation into whether or not the Pentagon had a concerted
program to mislead the American public and this Congress.
This amendment deals with what strikes at the very heart of our
democracy: We must trust our military. We must have the truth. We make
decisions of life and death in this Chamber when we send people off to
war. The American people deserve the truth. This amendment will deliver
the truth to the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Foster
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 58
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. FOSTER. 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. 58 offered by Mr. Foster:
At the end of title XXXI, insert the following:
SEC. 3113. ENHANCING NUCLEAR FORENSICS CAPABILITIES.
(a) NNSA Fellowship Program for Graduate Students in
Nuclear Chemistry.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator for Nuclear Security
shall establish a fellowship program for graduate students
who are Ph.D. candidates in the field of nuclear chemistry.
(2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the fellowship program should--
(A) support at least six graduate students per year; and
(B) require each graduate student to spend at least two
summers in a national security laboratory over the course of
the program.
(3) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to an
authorization of appropriations in this Act or otherwise made
available from amounts for weapons activities from the
National Nuclear Security Administration for national
technical nuclear forensics for fiscal year 2009, $3,000,000
shall be available to establish the fellowship program.
(4) Plan.--No later than February 1, 2009, the
Administrator shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a plan describing the costs of continuing the
program for fiscal year 2010 and thereafter.
(b) NNSA Research and Development Program on Nuclear
Forensics Radiation-Measurement Equipment.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator for Nuclear Security
shall carry out a research and development program to improve
the speed and accuracy of nuclear forensics radiation-
measurement equipment.
(2) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to an
authorization of appropriations in this Act or otherwise made
available
[[Page H4805]]
from amounts for weapons activities from the National Nuclear
Security Administration for national technical nuclear
forensics for fiscal year 2009, $2,000,000 shall be available
to carry out the research and development program.
(3) Plan.--No later than February 1, 2009, the
Administrator shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a plan for the research and development program,
including a description of the costs of continuing the
program for fiscal year 2010 and thereafter.
(c) Research and Development Plan for Nuclear Forensics and
Attribution.--
(1) Research and development.--The Secretary of Energy
shall prepare a research and development plan to prioritize
research and development efforts in the Department of Energy,
and at the national laboratories overseen by offices of the
Department of Energy, on the technical capabilities
required--
(A) to enable a robust and timely nuclear forensic response
to a nuclear explosion or to the interdiction of nuclear
material or a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world; and
(B) to develop an international database containing data on
nuclear material, to enable the attribution of nuclear
material or a nuclear weapon to its source.
(2) Reports.--
(A) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the
congressional defense committees--
(i) not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, a report on the contents of the research and
development plan described in paragraph (1), and any
legislative changes required to implement the plan; and
(ii) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act, a report on the implementation status of the
plan.
(B) The Secretary shall submit each report required by this
subsection in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex with such report.
(d) Additional Information to Be Included in Report on
Nuclear Forensics Capabilities.--Section 3129(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 585) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) any legislative, regulatory, or treaty actions
necessary to facilitate international cooperation in
enhancement of international nuclear-material databases and
the linking of those databases to enable prompt data
access.''.
(e) Report on Nuclear Forensics Advisory Panel.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary
of Homeland Security, shall submit a report describing a
joint recommendation for establishing an independent Nuclear
Forensics Advisory Panel of recognized experts not directly
associated with the Federal laboratories.
(2) Role of independent panel.--The function of such an
independent panel should be to provide independent validation
of any Federal nuclear forensics analysis.
(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretaries referred to in
paragraph (1) shall submit a report on the structure and
membership of the panel required by that paragraph. The
report shall be submitted to--
(A) the Committee on Appropriations, Committee on Armed
Services, and Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Appropriations, Committee on Armed
Services, and Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Affairs of the Senate.
(f) Presidential Report on Involvement of Senior-Level
Executive Branch Leadership in Certain Exercises That Include
Nuclear Forensics Analysis.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit
a report on the involvement of senior-level executive branch
leadership in planned nuclear terrorism preparedness
exercises that have nuclear forensics analysis as a component
of the exercise. The report shall be submitted to--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House
of Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs of the Senate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, combatting the threat of nuclear terrorism on
American soil is a critical security challenge. At a time when
inadequately secured nuclear material can fall into the hands of the
world's most extreme groups, we must find ways to strengthen our
deterrent against acts of nuclear terrorism.
Today, I rise to offer this amendment to improve our Nation's nuclear
forensics capability to help deter and respond to terrorism. I am
pleased to offer it with my colleague, Representative Schiff, whose
leadership on nuclear security issues has been exemplary.
When combined with law enforcement and intelligence data, nuclear
forensics allows us to trace a nuclear device to its source through
technical analysis of its nuclear material or residue following a
nuclear detonation. As such, it represents one of the strongest
deterrents that we have against rogue nuclear nations who might
consider releasing nuclear materials to terrorist groups.
This amendment has its roots in a report issued by the American
Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. The American scientific community found that our Nation's
nuclear forensics capabilities are dangerously insufficient and
endangered by impending retirements, and made specific recommendations
for its improvement.
This amendment expands the nuclear forensics workforce by supporting
fellowships in nuclear chemistry, and calls for further research and
development in the field. Perhaps most important, this amendment also
sets up a joint Nuclear Forensic Advisory Panel of recognized experts
to confirm the findings of forensic analysis.
Given the intelligence failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, the
results of any nuclear forensics analysis may well be met by
international skepticism. This amendment enhances our Nation's
credibility on one of the gravest security challenges that we face and
represents a significant improvement in our nuclear and national
security.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Jones of Ohio). Without objection, the
gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HUNTER. I want to say that we've looked at this on our side, we
think it makes sense, and we concur with it. I want to congratulate the
two gentlemen who are the cosponsors of this particular amendment. We
support it.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time unless they want
to use some of the time on their side.
Mr. FOSTER. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California, my cosponsor.
Mr. SCHIFF. I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from
Illinois, for his leadership on this issue and thank him for including
any amendments and language on the topic that I have prepared.
Our amendment attacks the difficult problem of nuclear trafficking.
Illicit nuclear material has been intercepted in transit many times
since the end of the Cold War, and the material we catch is probably a
small fraction of the total trafficked.
Nuclear attribution would allow us to identify the provenance of
nuclear material in transit, or, God forbid, in the aftermath of a
detonation. That knowledge would help us decide how to respond, and it
would also provide a deterrent. If nations around the world knew that
they could be identified as the source of material used in a nuclear
attack, even irresponsible nations would be disinclined to proliferate.
By developing a robust attribution capability, we can usher in an era
in which proliferation is not just discouraged, but deterred, because
those responsible would be found and punished.
This amendment supports nuclear attribution by strengthening our
nuclear forensics capability. Nuclear forensics involves studying the
mix of isotopes and other nuclear material that give it a particular
signature. Physicists at the Department of Energy are world leaders in
this field, but more research is needed to make our capability prompt,
mobile and accurate. This amendment calls on the Secretary of Energy to
develop a research and development plan for all the technologies
involved so we can direct our funding appropriately.
[[Page H4806]]
Nuclear terrorism is a threat of paramount danger and uncertain
probability. It is not a threat we can measure in brigades, ships, or
warheads, but it is no less pressing for that. I believe this amendment
is an important effort to reduce the risk of a calamitous nuclear
event.
Mr. FOSTER. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Foster
amendment to H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009.
As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am proud to say
that my subcommittee's mark already included an increase of $5 million
for the Department of Energy's National Technical Nuclear Forensics
Program.
And I worked with my colleague, Adam Smith, chairman of the Terrorism
and Unconventional Threats Subcommittee in support of an additional $10
million for nuclear forensics for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
{time} 2015
So when Representative Foster approached us, we were happy to work
with him.
We welcome his amendment, which complements the base bill very nicely
by requiring a plan for forensics research and development and
requiring the Departments of Defense, Energy, and State to report on
how best to create an independent panel of forensics experts.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 51 Offered by Ms. Schwartz
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 51
printed in House Report 110-666.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 51 offered by Ms. Schwartz:
Add at the end of title X the following new section:
SEC. 1071. USE OF RUNWAY AT NASJRB WILLOW GROVE,
PENNSYLVANIA.
(a) Conditions on Conveyance, Grant, Lease, or License.--
Any conveyance, grant, lease, or license from the United
States to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or other legal
entity that includes the airfield property located at NASJRB
Willow Grove and designated for operation as a Joint
Interagency Installation pursuant to section 3703 of the U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (121 Stat. 145) shall
be subject to the restrictions on the use of the airfield set
forth in subsection (b).
(b) Restrictions on Use.--The airfield at the installation
shall not be used for any of the following purposes:
(1) Commercial passenger operations.
(2) Commercial cargo operations.
(3) Commercial, business, or nongovernment aircraft
operations for purposes not related to the missions of the
installation, except that this paragraph shall not apply in
exigent circumstances or prohibit use of the airfield by or
on behalf of any associated user which is a tenant of the
installation.
(4) As a reliever airport to relieve congestion at other
airports or to provide improved general aviation access to
the overall community, except that this paragraph shall not
apply in exigent circumstances.
(c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to diminish or alter authorized
uses of the installation, including the military enclave that
is part thereof, by the United States or its agencies or
instrumentalities or to limit use of the property in exigent
circumstances.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Airfield.--The term ``airfield'' means the airfield
referred to in subsection (a).
(2) Associated users.--The term ``associated users'' means
nongovernmental organizations and private entities that use
the airfield for purposes related to the national defense,
homeland security, and emergency preparedness missions of the
installation.
(3) Exigent circumstances.--The term ``exigent
circumstances'' means unusual conditions, including adverse
or unusual weather conditions, alerts, and actual or
threatened emergencies that are determined by the
installation to require limited-duration use of the
installation or its airfield for operations, including flying
operations, for uses otherwise restricted under subsection
(b).
(4) Commercial cargo operations.--The term ``commercial
cargo operations'' means aircraft operations by a commercial
cargo or freight carrier in cases in which cargo is delivered
to or flown from the installation under established
schedules, except that the term does not include any cargo
operations undertaken by or on behalf of any user of the
installation or cargo operations related to the national
defense, homeland security, and emergency preparedness
missions of the installation.
(5) Commercial passenger operations.--The term ``commercial
passenger operations'' means aircraft passenger operations by
commercial passenger carriers involving flights where
passengers are boarded or enplaned at the installation,
except that the term does not include passenger operations
undertaken by or on behalf of any user of the installation or
passenger operations related to the national defense,
homeland security, and emergency preparedness missions of the
installation.
(6) Installation.--The term ``installation'' means the
Joint Interagency Installation referred to in subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) and a Member opposed each
will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
(Ms. SCHWARTZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
directly address the concerns of a community in my district that is
impacted by BRAC 2005.
The BRAC Commission's recommendations related to the Naval Air
Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove call for a significant
continued presence of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard and other
military units and for maintenance of the airfield for their use.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is currently working with DOD to
transform Willow Grove into a Joint Interagency Operation Installation
dedicated to national defense, homeland security, and emergency
preparedness. This effort is supported by Federal, State, and local
leaders of both parties, including the Governor and both U.S. Senators.
Despite the outpouring of local support for the base and a unified
voice which we are supporting for continued military presence at the
base, there remains a significant concern in the community that the
base could be used for commercial passenger and cargo operations.
My amendment, jointly with Patrick Murphy, my colleague from
Pennsylvania, which was drafted in coordination with Pennsylvania's
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, would address this local
concern and strengthen the future capabilities of the base by codifying
what Governor Rendell and bipartisan elected officials at all levels of
government have been saying all along: Willow Grove will not become a
commercial cargo or passenger airport.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Chairman, first I want to acknowledge my esteemed
colleagues Congresswoman Schwartz and Patrick Murphy, and I very much
respect what they're trying to do for the citizens of their districts.
However, I have stood in this Chamber and watched Representatives
Costello, Oberstar, Andrews, and many others try to bring about
transparency to the Federal FAA and to resolve the chaos that is
presently in our air traffic management systems.
We have had an FAA that has covered over the safety violations at
Northwest and Southwest Airlines, letting 117 planes fly with safety
violations. NASA has said there are twice as many near midair
collisions than that FAA is reporting, with an 11 percent increase on
near runway collisions last year over the previous year. I bring that
up because I have also watched in
[[Page H4807]]
my district, which is near both of my esteemed colleagues.
And the FAA has now, after a period of time studying one option, has
said that they will now no longer have aircraft take off from
Philadelphia International Airport and stay over Delaware River, but
they will now turn over my citizens, whom I care just as deeply about,
at 500 feet.
The statistical studies that have been provided to the FAA that they
have ignored means that the children under those aircraft will lose 1
year of education between pre-K and high school and they will be at the
highest risk of the number one killer disease in America,
cardiovascular disease. And when the FAA Administrator was asked what
is the cost of this? she answered to Representative Andrews, ``We don't
know.'' We don't know the financial cost nor do we know the social
cost.
That is why the Government Accounting Office is investigating this
one option. The study is due out this summer. There are 12 cases of
litigation from four States that are trying to stop this option.
Therefore, I want to work and intend to work to stop this, but I am
standing here today because I believe no option should be taken off the
table until a comprehensive Federal, local, and regional air traffic
management plan has been conducted, and then we should work together,
joining together, so that no one will be advocating at Willow Grove any
civilian airport nor should they be flying over my district.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Chairman, let me just say that this amendment in
no way addresses the issue raised by Mr. Sestak regarding the FAA
airspace redesign.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my partner in this effort, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I rise in
support of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania's amendment.
In the post-9/11 world, we must utilize all the tools at our disposal
to keep our country safe and secure. That is why Congresswoman Schwartz
and I, along with our Governor and the majority of the Pennsylvania
delegation, are fighting to form a homeland security hub at Willow
Grove. Strategically located near Philadelphia, New York City, and
Washington, D.C., this air base must continue to serve as a strategic
asset for our regional and national security.
Madam Chairman, our amendment is simple: It prohibits the base from
becoming a commercial, cargo, or passenger airport. Maintaining Willow
Grove's strategic focus ensures that we continue to keep Pennsylvania
families safe. This is a commonsense, bipartisan way to secure our
region. It's a matter of national security.
I thank the Pennsylvania delegation, and I urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Chairman, I will just repeat that this amendment
is simple. It is consistent with the local and State efforts. We have
been working with DOD, with Armed Services staff. I want to thank the
leadership of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
I want to also say that if a rollcall is demanded on this amendment,
I ask that the House respect my desire to do what's right for my
district and what is right for the homeland security and emergency
preparedness for the Mid Atlantic region.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Spratt
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 110-666.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Spratt:
Strike section 1224 of the bill and insert the following:
SEC. 1224. REQUIREMENT TO UPDATE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
ESTIMATE ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR INTENTIONS AND
CAPABILITIES.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Director of National Intelligence shall submit to Congress an
update of the National Intelligence Estimate, entitled
``Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities'' and dated
November 2007. Such update may be submitted in classified
form.
(b) Elements to Be Considered.--Each update submitted under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) The locations, types, and number of centrifuges and
other specialized equipment necessary for the enrichment of
nuclear material and any plans to develop and operate such
equipment in the future.
(2) An estimate of the amount, if any, of enriched to
weapons-grade uranium materials acquired or produced to date
and plutonium acquired or produced and reprocessed into
weapons-grade material to date, an estimate of the amount of
plutonium that is likely to be produced and reprocessed into
weapons-grade material in the near- and midterms and the
amount of uranium that is likely to be enriched to weapons-
grade levels in the near- and midterms, and the number of
nuclear weapons that could be produced with each category of
materials.
(3) A description of the security and safeguards at any
nuclear site that could prevent, slow, verify or monitor the
enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of plutonium into
weapons-grade materials.
(4) A description of the weaponization activities, such as
the research, design, development, or testing of nuclear
weapons or weapons-related components.
(5) A description of programs to construct, acquire, test,
or improve methods to deliver nuclear weapons, including an
assessment of the likely progress of such programs in the
near- and mid-terms.
(6) A summary of assessments made by other allies of the
United States of Iran's nuclear weapons program and nuclear-
capable delivery systems programs.
(c) Notification.--The President shall notify Congress, in
writing, within 15 days of determining that--
(1) the Islamic Republic of Iran has met or surpassed any
major milestone in its nuclear weapons program; or
(2) Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, or cease
the development of any significant element within its nuclear
weapons program.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment that would strike the provisions
of section 1224 in the bill. It would replace those provisions with
language requiring the Director of National Intelligence to submit to
Congress regular updates of the National Intelligence Estimate with
respect to Iran's nuclear capabilities, present and prospective.
As offered in committee, section 1224 imposed a multiplicity of
reporting requirements, including all sorts of data from the Department
of Defense. Mr. Reyes offered a perfecting amendment culling out many
of those requirements and calling for a new commitment to readiness
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.
Rather than proliferate reporting requirements, my amendment cuts to
the heart of the matter, Iran's nuclear capabilities, and calls for
regular, periodic reports. What it seeks is basic: a sober analysis of
a gravely serious matter in a proven format, the National Intelligence
Estimate. This report is gleaned from all 16 parts of our intelligence
community, and the job of fusing that data, and drawing the right
conclusions, is assigned to the National Intelligence Director, a
position created by Congress by the unanimous recommendation of the 9/
11 Commission.
We need an assessment, but we need an assessment that is rigorous and
objective, pulling no punches, analyzing seriously all issues
surrounding nuclear weapons and fissile materials in Iran. And,
fortunately, we don't have to invent that vehicle. It exists already in
the form of the National Intelligence Estimate, like the NIE of last
November, 2007. It satisfies this requirement. And my amendment ensures
that this requirement continues to fulfilled, not ad hoc, but at
regular intervals, for the benefit of Congress.
My amendment simply places responsibility where it already rests by
law and uses a reporting process that is
[[Page H4808]]
well established. Why reinvent the wheel? The appropriate vehicle for
an ongoing objective of analysis is an updated NIE, not an independent,
redundant, parallel effort, overseen by DOD.
There are many good reasons for having unity of command here, but one
is simply this: By consolidating analysis in the NIE, we discourage the
temptation to ``forum shop,'' look for agencies that will be favorably
disposed.
My amendment allows for many of the points of inquiry in the bill's
existing language, including input from our allies. But it focuses the
NIE on near- and mid-term implications rather than on speculative far-
term projections, and it does not rush to a military response as a
presupposition.
My amendment leaves in place the bill's current requirement to
provide Congress 15 days' written notice when major developments in the
nuclear weapons program are detected. But the bill shifts that burden
from the Secretary of Defense to the President.
This amendment, the amendment I offer, is truly, Madam Chairman, a
perfecting amendment. It improves the language of the bill, and it
helps section 1224 fulfill its stated purpose.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chairman, let me say at the outset I appreciate the
gentleman's intent here, and I take at face value and both understand
and in large measure agree with his intent to serve to clarify the base
provision in which he is acting on this day.
Having said that, I do have some concerns. I would disagree with the
gentleman's assertion, as I understood it, and I have to apologize,
Madam Chairman, because the acoustics were rather difficult and I'm not
sure I heard everything the gentleman said, but I do believe he was
saying that there was a predicate reality in the underlying language
that assumed that military reaction was a given or at least a part of
it.
I want to make very clear for the record that on our side, Madam
Chairman, we feel it is critically important, when speaking on this
important issue to the Iranian people, and particularly the Iranian
leadership, that they understand that in our mind this is an
extraordinarily serious issue.
When we were marking up this provision in the full committee, I made
the comment that ambiguity, lack of clarity, on world and military
affairs has cost us dearly in the past. One can make the argument that
at least in significant measure, for example, the Korean War began on
ambiguity, a lack of clarity as to what the United States would do if
the Chinese and North Koreans were to take military action, as they
ultimately did. Similarly, when Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded
Kuwait, I think you can make the case that Saddam Hussein
misinterpreted the American position as to what the reaction of this
Nation would be upon such an invasion.
So we think that clarity should not be confused with militarism.
Clarity should not be mistaken for belligerence; that clarity,
particularly when we are talking in matters of warfare, is important.
Having said that, Madam Chairman, I do believe that Chairman Spratt,
the distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, has an idea
that bears consideration here.
I do have a question. I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina,
and this is not part of the prearranged script and I'm not trying to
play ``gotcha,'' but I was curious if the gentleman would yield for a
question that I would like to pose to him.
{time} 2030
Mr. SPRATT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate the
tenor of his question. What we have tried to do is get this effort down
to its essence. The two versions, iterations that we had in the
committee were, I thought, prolific with different ideas and
requirements.
We have an existing system. It works well. We have reaffirmed it in
the latest intelligence act we recently passed in creating the National
Intelligence Director. Let's make him or her the supervisor of this
process; and the vehicle, the NIE. That's the customary way of doing
it, and should be the preferred way of doing it. That is why we put
that emphasis in this bill.
Mr. McHUGH. I appreciate the gentleman's response. If the gentleman
would be so kind, if I may pose another question under my time to him.
What I am concerned about less, the structure of the gentleman's
amendment. I understand it. I think there are some concerns that I have
with respect to definitional and clarity issues. But putting those
aside, can the gentleman help me better understand why, under the
defense bill, this amendment, and I am speaking now, if I may, as a
member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, does
not subject this bill to sequential referral?
Mr. SPRATT. Not subject it to what?
Mr. McHUGH. Sequential referral. In order words, why this bill, with
the inclusion of this amendment that clearly transfers into the
intelligence title of our U.S. Code, would not require that HPSCI, the
security committee, national intelligence committee of the House, would
not have jurisdiction.
Mr. SPRATT. That is the reason we are offering it on the House floor
as opposed to offering in it the committee, where it may have resulted
in a sequential referral. So far as I know, nobody has raised a point
of order about the appropriateness of hearing it in this context.
Mr. McHUGH. With all due respect, does your side have an opinion from
the House Parliamentarian that the adoption of this language would not
subject the bill either on the floor or in conference to sequential
referral?
Mr. SPRATT. I don't think it will encounter that problem in
conference. The rule waived points of order. So we are clearly in a
proper status right here. I think this bill advances the whole idea
that we are working with, and as you know, it will go through another
iteration before it comes out of conference, I am sure.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for being responsive to my
questions.
With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Mr. Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. Gathering information, Madam Chairman, on Iraq's nuclear
program is an important priority for our Congress. The November, 2007,
National Intelligence Estimate provided the needed reappraisal of
Iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities. This amendment is sure that
that assessment process continues.
Given the differing conclusions between the then-NIE and its
predecessor and their analysis of the status of Iran's nuclear program,
it's appropriate that we continue to receive reports. This amendment
details specific information necessary for congressional oversight,
which we have been stressing in our committee all year long. This
amendment replaces and improves on the text of our committee, which was
of course approved on a bipartisan basis in our committee markup last
week. This amendment appropriately identifies the Director of National
Intelligence as the official to provide that assessment.
I think it's an excellent amendment. I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina for clarifying the text and replacing it with this amendment.
Mr. McHUGH. Can I inquire as to what the remaining time may be.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 5 minutes; the
gentleman from South Carolina has 6 minutes.
Mr. McHUGH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I had said earlier, Madam Chairman, that I do have some substantive
concerns or at least semantic concerns about the language of the
amendment. And I think it's important, if I may, to state at least at
this moment one or two of those for the record.
I am concerned about the vagueness of some of the language. For
example, the underlying amendment, the language that this amendment
seeks to change and to amend, requires the Congress to have a clear
milestone. One is, quite simply, does Iran have sufficient material for
a weapon.
I think most people understand the language behind that. This
language, however, says it requires the President to notify Congress
within 15 days of Iran having, ``met or surpassed any major milestone
in its nuclear weapons
[[Page H4809]]
program.'' I don't object to that goal, but I do become concerned about
defining what those milestones are.
Milestones in the process of development of nuclear weapons may be
self-evident to the scientific community, but for purposes of law, I am
not aware, and if I am wrong, then I need to be instructed today on
this debate. I am not aware that they are defined in law.
So I think we are leaving a problem there that perhaps as we move
into the conference we can----
Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McHUGH. I'd be happy to yield to the distinguished ranking
member.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, and I'd hoped that Mr.
Spratt would concur with this. It is important, I think, for the
Members of this body, because the first thing we ask when we do
intelligence briefings, we say, How far away is that Nation or those
particular people from developing enough material or having enough of a
program to build a weapon, a device, a nuclear weapon. So in
commonsense language that is the question we ask.
So the gentleman has put the word milestones, as the gentleman from
New York said, in this particular report. I would hope that we could
define that as we go into conference in terms of material necessary to
build a device, and to receive some specifics on that so that we don't
have a vague question that the community may have a problem in
determining precisely what we mean.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman from California in his clarity, as
always.
I do have another point or two I'd like to make, Madam Chairman, that
I think should be stated for the record as we go forward to conference.
But for the moment, in terms of time balance, I will reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I rise in support of the Spratt amendment. A
reasoned and objective approach is needed for analyzing and assessing
the serious issues surrounding the potential for nuclear weapons
proliferation in Iran. The current bill language couples military
readiness and contingency response planning with report elements that
are inherently intelligence-related and dependent on the full spectrum
of intelligence sources and methods.
The amendment appropriately shifts the burden of assessment regarding
Iran's nuclear weapons capacity and/or intentions from the Secretary of
Defense to the Director of National Intelligence. Why reinvent the
wheel? Precedent and institutional knowledge specific to the issue
already exist. The appropriate vehicle for perpetuating objective
analysis of the situation is an updated NIE, with further updates
regularly to follow, not an independent and parallel effort on the part
of the DOD.
Renewing demand for products of the proven method of consolidating
analysis through a centralized NIE process also discourages the
temptation for some to ``forum shop,'' I assure you, among national
security agencies for favorable or dissenting views, depending on the
circumstance. We are all well aware of the Douglas Feith-led, Dick
Cheney-originated cabal that was a major instigator of the war in Iraq.
A disassociated DOD effort would undermine a widely considered and
properly vetted approach to nuclear proliferation and other high
priority national security issues.
The amendment substantially reflects many of the points of inquiry
from the report elements in the bill's existing language, but it
centers the focus on an updated NIE analysis on the near and mid-term
implications rather than on the speculative far-term projections, and
does not rush to associate U.S. military response as a presupposition.
On that basis, Madam Chairman, I think this amendment deserves our
favorable attention, and I thank you for the time allotted to me.
Mr. McHUGH. I would ask again, because I know we are getting down
toward the end, what the remaining time balances are, please.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes. The
gentleman from South Carolina has 4.
Mr. McHUGH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I said, the concerns that I have, and I think it's fair to say our
side have with respect to a major part of this amendment centers on
semantics. Normally, that can be considered a minutia. But when you're
dealing with questions of nuclear capability, when you're dealing with
questions of sending a message from country A to country B, in this
case, United States to Iran, I think semantics and definitional issues
are very, very important.
I appreciated the dialogue that the gentleman from South Carolina and
the distinguished ranking member of the full committee had with respect
to the question of milestones, but I also have a concern about the
language with respect to the reporting requirement with the fact that
should Iran speed up, slow down, or stop, and I will quote now, Madam
Chairman, ``any significant element'' of these programs.
I certainly don't disagree with the intent of that language. But,
again, we are writing law, we are not writing narrative, we are not
writing a novel. The fact that any significant element is not a
definitional perspective concerns me.
So, again, I would simply say for the record, as we go forward, while
the intent of this amendment and the prospect of it is positive, there
are some concerns on clarity, there are some concerns on definition. I
think we need to continue to focus on in the conference and I would
hope as we go forward, we can help clarify those kind of issues.
I don't know if the gentleman on the other side has any more
speakers. Assuming that he might, I would reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SPRATT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio). Before he begins, could I inquire how much time remains on
this side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will have 2 minutes after the
gentleman from Oregon. The gentleman from New York has 15 seconds.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue
and for this amendment. I think this is very necessary. This is not a
fine debate about semantics or definitions, it's an issue about the
integrity of the intelligence process in the United States of America.
It's well-known now that because of a focus that was created by Vice
President Cheney in the lead-up to the Iraq war and the exclusion of
the broader views of the intelligence community, that the intelligence
that was provided to the Congress and other decision makers was not
comprehensive and not accurate. So the question arises about the
language in the bill.
Instead of taking the newly formed and reformed national intelligence
agencies and getting their opinion on the capabilities of Iran, it
would single out one component of those agencies, the Department of
Defense, to write a new opinion. I, for one Member, can speak for
myself, am concerned that this is an attempt to redirect our
intelligence and to get intelligence that is only coming from a small
portion of the intelligence community, the same failing that led to the
lead-up and the faulty intelligence for the Iraq war.
We have reformed the intelligence process. We have confidence in our
National Intelligence Director, and we should allow him to do his job
and compile the advice from all the intelligence agencies of the United
States Government, as was done last fall, which contradicted previous
opinions on Iraq. We don't want to send any message or direction that
we are unhappy with that. We want them to do their job, do it properly,
properly inform us, and there is no reason why any sort of additional
evaluation should be restricted only to the Department of Defense. That
just doesn't make sense.
So it's not an argument about semantics, it's about the fact we were
failed in the run-up to the war by cherry picking and focusing of
intelligence. We don't want to be failed again. We want the full
opinion of the national intelligence agencies.
{time} 2045
Mr. McHUGH. Madam Chairman, in the 15 seconds I have left, I think
the gentleman makes some good points. Obviously a broader-based look at
this
[[Page H4810]]
is more efficacious than a narrow-based look.
I want to compliment the gentleman from South Carolina for trying to
refine what I think is a very important provision. I would say as I
noted, the comments that I made as to clarity have no intent to in any
way besmirch the perspective, the professionalism that the gentleman
always brings, and I look forward to producing a good amendment in this
regard when we reach conference.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Let me say to the gentleman, I don't expect this to be
the last iteration of this bill. It is the third already. If there are
issues of clarity, issues of definition, we will revisit those issues
and work them out in conference towards a common purpose here.
I do think this bill advances the process. I think it is better than
the previous two bills, and we are building towards a conclusion we can
all accept. You can count on my cooperation to that end.
So I thank you for your observations. We will be visiting this topic
again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-666 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Price of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 31 by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 168, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 361]
AYES--240
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foster
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--168
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
NOT VOTING--31
Andrews
Bordallo
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pomeroy
Pryce (OH)
Reynolds
Rush
Stark
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weller
Wexler
Young (AK)
{time} 2108
Mr. KING of Iowa changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CLEAVER, TIERNEY, and SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, on May 22, 2008, I missed rollcall vote
No. 361. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following
manner: Rollcall No: 361--``aye.''
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 192, not voting 29, as follows:
[[Page H4811]]
[Roll No. 362]
AYES--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--192
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Andrews
Bordallo
Braley (IA)
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Doyle
Ehlers
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Reynolds
Rush
Smith (TX)
Stark
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weller
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 2115
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 362, I was unaware
of the two-minute vote and just missed recording my vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. McGovern
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 189, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 363]
AYES--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
[[Page H4812]]
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--30
Andrews
Bordallo
Cannon
Carnahan
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Doyle
Ehlers
Fortuno
Gillibrand
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Hobson
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Reynolds
Rush
Stark
Stearns
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weller
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains on this
vote.
{time} 2120
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. BORDALLO. I requested an official leave of absence beginning at
6:30 p.m. today, Thursday, May 22, 2008, to enable me to return to my
district, Guam, for official business. I was therefore absent from the
chamber when rollcall votes 361 to 364 were taken. Had I been present
for these votes taken in the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union on amendments to H.R. 5658, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, I would have voted as follows:
``aye'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina
(rollcall vote 361); ``aye'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Holt of
New Jersey (rollcall vote 362); ``aye'' on the amendment offered by Mr.
McGovern of Massachusetts (rollcall vote 363).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pastor) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, 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.
5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 1218, she reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Conaway
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONAWAY. Yes, I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conaway moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5658 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House promptly in the form to which perfects
at the time of this motion, with the following amendments:
At the end of title X, add the following new sections:
SEC. 1071. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL
PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
prohibiting Federal agencies from entering into contracts for
procurement of alternative or synthetic fuel will make
Federal agencies like the Department of Defense more
dependent on oil from less secure, foreign sources of oil,
such as the Middle East, and will lead to higher gasoline
prices for Americans.
(b) Repeal of Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement for
Federal Agencies.--Section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is
hereby repealed.
SEC. 1072. EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW REFINING CAPACITY ON
CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``base closure law'' means the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and title II of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(2) The term ``closed military installation'' means a
military installation closed or approved for closure pursuant
to a base closure law.
(3) The term ``designated refinery'' means a refinery
designated under subsection (b).
(4) The term ``Federal refinery authorization''--
(A) means any authorization required under Federal law,
whether administered by a Federal or State administrative
agency or official, with respect to siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a refinery; and
(B) includes any permits, special use authorizations,
certifications, opinions, or other approvals required under
Federal law with respect to siting, construction, expansion,
or operation of a refinery.
(5) The term ``refinery'' means--
(A) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine crude oil by
any chemical or physical process, including distillation,
fluid catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, coking, alkylation,
etherification, polymerization, catalytic reforming,
isomerization, hydrotreating, blending, and any combination
thereof, in order to produce gasoline or other fuel; or
(B) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine coal by any
chemical or physical process, including liquefaction, in
order to produce gasoline, diesel, or other liquid fuel as
its primary output.
(6) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
(7) The term ``State'' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
(b) Designation Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate no less than 3 closed military installations, or
portions thereof, subject to subsection (d)(2), that are
appropriate for the purposes of siting a refinery.
(c) Analysis of Refinery Sites.--In considering any site
for possible designation under subsection (b), the President
shall conduct an analysis of--
(1) the availability of crude oil supplies to the site,
including supplies from domestic production of shale oil and
tar sands and other strategic unconventional fuels;
(2) the distribution of the Nation's refined petroleum
product demand;
(3) whether such site is in close proximity to substantial
pipeline infrastructure, including both crude oil and refined
petroleum product pipelines, and potential infrastructure
feasibility;
(4) the need to diversify the geographical location of the
domestic refining capacity;
(5) the effect that increased refined petroleum products
from a refinery on that site may have on the price and supply
of gasoline to consumers;
(6) the impact of locating a refinery on the site on the
readiness and operations of the Armed Forces; and
(7) such other factors as the President considers
appropriate.
(d) Sale or Disposal.--
(1) Designation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
until the expiration of 2 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Federal Government shall not sell or
otherwise dispose of the military installations designated
pursuant to subsection (b).
[[Page H4813]]
(2) Governor's objection.--No site may be used for a
refinery under this section if, not later than 60 days after
designation of the site under subsection (b), the Governor of
the State in which the site is located transmits to the
President an objection to the designation, unless, not later
than 60 days after the President receives such objection, the
Congress has by law overridden the objection.
(e) Redevelopment Authority.--With respect to a closed
military installation, or portion thereof, designated by the
President as a potentially suitable refinery site pursuant to
subsection (b)--
(1) the redevelopment authority for the installation, in
preparing or revising the redevelopment plan for the
installation, shall consider the feasibility and
practicability of siting a refinery on the installation; and
(2) the Secretary of Defense, in managing and disposing of
real property at the installation pursuant to the base
closure law applicable to the installation, shall give
substantial deference to the recommendations of the
redevelopment authority, as contained in the redevelopment
plan for the installation, regarding the siting of a refinery
on the installation.
(f) Designation as Lead Agency.--
(1) In general.--The Department of Energy shall act as the
lead agency for the purposes of coordinating all applicable
Federal refinery authorizations and related environmental
reviews with respect to a designated refinery.
(2) Other agencies.--Each Federal and State agency or
official required to provide a Federal refinery authorization
shall cooperate with the Secretary and comply with the
deadlines established by the Secretary.
(g) Secretary's Authority to Set Schedule.--The Secretary
shall establish a schedule for all Federal refinery
authorizations with respect to a designated refinery. In
establishing the schedule, the Secretary shall--
(1) ensure expeditious completion of all such proceedings;
and
(2) accommodate the applicable schedules established by
Federal law for such proceedings.
(h) Consolidated Record.--The Secretary shall, with the
cooperation of Federal and State administrative agencies and
officials, maintain a complete consolidated record of all
decisions made or actions taken by the Secretary or by a
Federal administrative agency or officer (or State
administrative agency or officer acting under delegated
Federal authority) with respect to any Federal refinery
authorization.
At the end of division A, add the following new title:
TITLE XVII--ENHANCEMENT OF RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND READJUSTMENT
THROUGH EDUCATION
Sec. 1701. Short title.
Sec. 1702. Findings.
Sec. 1703. Plan on coordination of current educational assistance
programs and development of additional educational
assistance programs to enable career-oriented members of
the Armed Forces to attain a bachelor's degree.
Sec. 1704. Increase in rates of basic educational assistance under the
Montgomery GI Bill.
Sec. 1705. Annual stipend for recipients of basic educational
assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill.
Sec. 1706. Increase in rates of educational assistance for members of
the Selected Reserve.
Sec. 1707. Increase in rates of educational assistance for reserve
component members supporting contingency operations and
other operations with extended service in the Selected
Reserve.
Sec. 1708. Enhancement of transferability of entitlement to educational
assistance.
Sec. 1709. Use of educational assistance to repay Federal student
loans.
Sec. 1710. Educational assistance for graduates of the service
academies and Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs.
Sec. 1711. Opportunity for current and certain retired VEAP-era
personnel to enroll in basic educational assistance under
the Montgomery GI Bill.
Sec. 1712. College Patriots Grant Program.
SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Enhancement of
Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education
Act of 2008''.
SEC. 1702. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The World War II-era GI Bill assisted almost 8,000,000
members of the Armed Forces in readjusting to civilian life
after completing their service to the nation. With the
support and assistance of America's colleges and
universities, the GI Bill provided incentives that
transformed American society, making a college degree a
realizable goal for millions of Americans.
(2) In the years following World War II, the GI Bill
continued to provide educational benefits for members of the
Armed Forces who had been drafted into or volunteered for
service.
(3) The establishment of the All Volunteer Force in 1973,
and its development since its inception, has produced highly
professional Armed Forces that are recognized as the most
effective fighting force the world has ever seen.
(4) The Sonny Montgomery GI Bill was enacted in 1984 to
sustain the All Volunteer Force by providing educational
benefits to aid in the recruitment and retention of highly
qualified personnel for the Armed Forces and to assist
veterans in readjusting to civilian life. Today, it remains a
cornerstone of military recruiting and retention planning for
the Armed Forces and continues to fulfill its original
purposes.
(5) The All Volunteer Force depends for its effectiveness
and vitality on successful recruiting of highly capable men
and women, and retention for careers of soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines, in both the active and reserve
components of the Armed Forces, who, with the support of
their families and loved ones, develop into professional,
dedicated, and experienced officers, noncommissioned
officers, and petty officers.
(6) The achievement of educational goals, including
obtaining the means to a college degree, has traditionally
been a key reason for volunteering for service in the Armed
Forces. For members who serve a career in the Armed Forces,
this goal extends to their spouses and children and has
resulted in requests for the option to transfer educational
benefits under the GI Bill to spouses and children.
(7) As in the aftermath of World War II, colleges and
universities throughout the United States should demonstrate
their and the Nation's appreciation to veterans by dedicated
programs providing financial aid.
(8) It is in that national interest for the United States--
(A) to express the gratitude of the American people by
assisting those who have honorably served in the Armed Forces
and returned to civilian life to achieve their educational
goals;
(B) to provide significant educational benefits to provide
incentives for successful recruiting;
(C) to motivate continued service in the All Volunteer
Force by those members with the potential for military
careers and their spouses and children; and
(D) to assist those who serve and their families in
achieving their personal goals, including higher education,
while progressing in a military career.
SEC. 1703. PLAN ON COORDINATION OF CURRENT EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND DEVELOPMENT OF
ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO
ENABLE CAREER-ORIENTED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES TO ATTAIN A BACHELOR'S DEGREE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the outstanding men and women who volunteer for service
in the Armed Forces and demonstrate through their service the
ability, motivation, and commitment to serve as career
commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers, petty
officers, and warrant officers should be given the
opportunities and resources needed to obtain a bachelor's
degree before they complete active duty and retire from the
Armed Forces; and
(2) every effort should be made by the leaders of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard to demonstrate
to members of the Armed Forces who are willing to serve and
study that the dual goals of attaining a bachelor's degree
and a distinguished military career are achievable and not
mutually exclusive.
(b) Plan To Coordinate and Develop Educational Assistance
Programs.--
(1) Plan required.--The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
develop a plan to make the attainment of a bachelor's degree
an achievable goal for members of the Armed Forces who are
motivated towards careers in the Armed Forces and who are
able and willing to accept the challenges of military duty
and pursuit of college level studies.
(2) Advice of the service chiefs.--The Secretary of Defense
shall develop the plan required by paragraph (1) with the
advice of the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval
Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
(3) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Appropriate elements of current programs to assist
members of the Armed Forces in obtaining college-level
education, including tuition assistance programs, distance
learning programs, and technical training and education
provided by the military departments, including programs
currently administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(B) Appropriate elements of current programs to provide
members of the Armed Forces with assistance in obtaining
college-level credit for the technical training and
experience they undergo during their military career.
(C) One or more additional education programs to assist
members of the Armed Forces in obtaining a college-level
education, including mechanisms for the provision by the
military departments of guidance, mentoring, and resources to
assist members in achieving their professional military and
personal educational goals.
(D) Such additional programs or mechanisms, such as
sabbaticals from the Armed Forces or college-level education
provided or funded by the military departments, as the
[[Page H4814]]
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to assist members
of the Armed Forces in making adequate progress towards a
bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher
education while continuing a successful military career.
(E) Such mechanisms for the application of the elements of
the plan to members of the National Guard and Reserves as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to ensure that
such members receive appropriate assistance in achieving
their professional military and personal educational goals.
(F) Such elements of current programs of the military
departments for in-service education of members of the Armed
Forces as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to
maintain and enhance the recruitment and retention by the
Armed Forces of highly trained and experienced military
leaders.
(4) Submittal to congress.--The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report setting forth the plan
required by paragraph (1) not later than August 1, 2009.
SEC. 1704. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Increase in General Rates and Augmented Rates for
Extended Service.--
(1) Rates based on three years of obligated service.--
Subsection (a)(1) of section 3015 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``on a full-time basis, at the
monthly rate of'' and all that follows and inserting ``on a
full-time basis--
``(A) in the case of an individual who served on active
duty in the Armed Forces for 12 or more years, at the monthly
rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,650;
``(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2010,
$1,800;
``(iii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2011,
$2,000; and
``(iv) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding
fiscal year increased under subsection (h); and
``(B) in the case of an individual who served on active
duty in the Armed Forces for less than 12 years, at the
monthly rate of--
``(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,500;
and
``(ii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal
year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding
fiscal year increased under subsection (h); or''.
(2) Rates based on two years of obligated service.--
Subsection (b)(1) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting
the following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $950;
and''; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to basic educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) Limitation on cost-of-living adjustments.--
(A) Certain rates based on three years of obligated
service.--No adjustment under subsection (h) of section 3015
of title 38, United States Code, shall be made in the rates
of educational assistance payable under subsection (a)(1)(A)
of such section (as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this
section) for any of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
(B) Other rates.--No adjustment under subsection (h) of
section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, shall be made
in the rates of educational assistance payable under
subsection (a)(1)(B) of such section (as so amended), or
subsection (b) of such section, for fiscal year 2009.
SEC. 1705. ANNUAL STIPEND FOR RECIPIENTS OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Entitlement to Stipend.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3020A. Educational stipend
``(a) Entitlement.--Each individual receiving basic
educational assistance under this subchapter who is pursuing
a program of education at an institution of higher learning
(as such term is defined in section 3452(f) of this title) is
entitled to an educational stipend under this section.
``(b) Amount of Stipend.--The educational stipend payable
under this section to an individual entitled to such a
stipend shall be paid--
``(1) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved
program of education on at least a half-time basis, at the
annual rate of $500; and
``(2) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved
program of education on less than a half-time basis, at the
annual rate of $350.
``(c) Payment Frequency and Method.--The educational
stipend payable under this subsection shall be paid with such
frequency (including by lump sum), and by such mechanisms, as
the Secretary shall prescribe for purposes of this
section.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by adding at
the end of the items relating to subchapter II the following
new item:
``3020A. Educational stipend.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 3020A of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 1706. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates.--Section 16131(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$251'' and inserting
``$634'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$188'' and inserting
``$474''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$125'' and inserting
``$314''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) No cost-of-living adjustment.--No adjustment under
paragraph (2) of section 16131(b) of title 10, United States
Code, shall be made in the rates of educational assistance
payable under paragraph (1) of such section for fiscal year
2009.
SEC. 1707. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS SUPPORTING
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND OTHER OPERATIONS
WITH EXTENDED SERVICE IN THE SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) Increase in Rates for Extended Service.--Paragraph (2)
of section 16162(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) The educational assistance allowance provided under
this chapter shall be the amount as follows (as adjusted
under paragraphs (3) and (4)):
``(A) In the case of a member who serves an aggregate of 12
years or more in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve,
the amount provided under section 3015(a)(1)(A) of title 38
for the fiscal year concerned, except that if a member
otherwise covered by this subparagraph ceases serving in the
Selected Reserve the amount shall be the amount provided
under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
``(B) In the case of any other member, the amount provided
under section 3015(a)(1)(B) of title 38 for the fiscal year
concerned.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
SEC. 1708. ENHANCEMENT OF TRANSFERABILITY OF ENTITLEMENT TO
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Modification of Authority To Transfer Entitlement Under
Montgomery GI Bill.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 3020 of title
38, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall authorize each
Secretary concerned to permit an individual described in
subsection (b) who is entitled to basic educational
assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer to one
or more of the dependents specified in subsection (c) the
unused portion of such individual's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitation under subsection
(d).''.
(2) Eligible individuals.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual referred to in
subsection (a) is any member of the Armed Forces serving on
active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve who, at
the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement to basic educational
assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed six years of service in the Armed
Forces; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.''.
(3) Limitations on months of transfer.--Subsection (d) of
such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), an individual may
transfer under this section any number of months of unused
entitlement of the individual to basic educational assistance
under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of an individual who has completed at
least six but less than 12 years of service in the Armed
Forces at the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned
of the individual's request to transfer entitlement under
this section, the number of months that may be transferred by
the individual under this section may not exceed the lesser
of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.''.
(4) Timing, revocation, and modification of transfer.--
Subsection (f) of such section is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``without regard'' and
all that follows and inserting ``while the individual is a
member of the Armed Forces.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``while the
individual is serving as a member of the Armed Forces or in
the Selected Reserve'' after ``at any time''.
(5) Exclusion from marital property.--Subsection (f) of
such section is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
[[Page H4815]]
``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be
treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital
estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil
proceeding.''.
(6) Overpayment.--Subsection (i) of such section is
amended--
(A) by striking ``(1)'' before ``In the event''; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
(7) Regulations.--Subsection (k) of such section is amended
to read as follows:
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(8) Heading amendment.--The heading of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance''.
(9) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 3020 and inserting the
following:
``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
(b) Authority for Transfer of Entitlement Under Reserve
Components Educational Assistance Programs.--
(1) Selected reserve program.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 1606 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 16131a the
following new section:
``Sec. 16131b. Transfer of entitlement to educational
assistance
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary concerned may permit a member of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) who is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter to elect to
transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in
subsection (c) a portion of such member's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitations under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member described in this
subsection is a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve who, at the time of the approval of the member's
request to transfer entitlement to educational assistance
under this section--
``(1) has completed at least six years of service in the
Selected Reserve; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--A member approved to transfer
an entitlement to educational assistance under this section
may transfer the member's entitlement as follows:
``(1) To the member's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the member's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a member may transfer under this
section any number of months of unused entitlement of the
member to educational assistance under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of a member who has completed at least
six but less than 12 years of service in the Selected Reserve
at the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement under this section,
the number of months that may be transferred by the member
under this section may not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--A member transferring an
entitlement to educational assistance under this section
shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1)
Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under
section 16133 of this title, a member approved to transfer
entitlement to educational assistance under this section may
transfer such entitlement at any time after the approval of
the member's request to transfer such entitlement.
``(2)(A) A member transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(3) Entitlement transferred under this section may not be
treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital
estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil
proceeding.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to educational assistance is transferred under this section
may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement
until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the member making the transfer of six years
of service in the Selected Reserve; or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the member making the transfer of
six years of service in the Selected Reserve; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under
this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
member making the transfer at the rate of one month for each
month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner
as the member from whom the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to
a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section shall be the monthly amount payable to the member
making the transfer under section 16131 or 16132a of this
title, as applicable.
``(4)(A) The death of a member transferring entitlement
under this section shall not affect the use of the
entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(B) The involuntary separation or retirement of a member
transferring entitlement under this section because of a
nondiscretionary provision of law for age or for years of
service, as described in section 16133(b) of this title, or
medical disqualification which is not the result of gross
negligence or misconduct of the member shall not affect the
use of entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement
is transferred.
``(5) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section may not use any entitlement so transferred after
attaining the age of 26 years.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall
apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this
section, except that the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred shall be treated as the eligible member for
purposes of such provisions.
``(i) Overpayment.--(1) In the event of an overpayment of
educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent
and the member making the transfer shall be jointly and
severally liable to the United States for the amount of the
overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of title 38.
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the
case of a member transferring entitlement under this section
whose eligibility is terminated under section 16134(2) of
this title, the amount of any transferred entitlement under
this section that is used by a dependent of the member as of
the date of the failure of the member to participate
satisfactorily in training as specified in section 16134(2)
of this title shall be treated as an overpayment of
educational assistance under paragraph (1).
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the case of a
member who fails to complete service agreed to by the
member--
``(i) by reason of the death of the member; or
``(ii) for a reason referred to in section 16133(b) of this
title.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to educational assistance under this
section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of this
title in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as a result of
such transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
[[Page H4816]]
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1606 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 16131a the
following new item:
``16131b. Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance.''.
(2) Program for reserve components supporting contingency
and other operations.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 1607 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 16162a the
following new section:
``Sec. 16162b. Transfer of entitlement to educational
assistance
``(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary concerned may permit a member of the
Armed Forces described in subsection (b) who is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter to elect to
transfer to one or more of the dependents specified in
subsection (c) a portion of such member's entitlement to such
assistance, subject to the limitations under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection
(a) is a member of the Armed Forces who, at the time of the
approval of the member's request to transfer entitlement to
educational assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed at least six years of service in the
Armed Forces; and
``(2) meets such other requirements as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--A member approved to transfer
an entitlement to educational assistance under this section
may transfer the member's entitlement as follows:
``(1) To the member's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the member's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(d) Number of Months Transferrable.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), a member may transfer under this
section any number of months of unused entitlement of the
member to educational assistance under this chapter.
``(2) In the case of a member who has completed at least
six but less than 12 years of service in the Armed Forces at
the time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement under this section,
the number of months that may be transferred by the member
under this section may not exceed the lesser of--
``(A) the number of months transferrable by the individual
under paragraph (1); or
``(B) 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--A member transferring an
entitlement to educational assistance under this section
shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--(1)
Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement under
section 16164 of this title, a member approved to transfer
entitlement to educational assistance under this section may
transfer such entitlement only while serving as a member of
the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed.
``(2)(A) A member transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to educational assistance as transferred under this section
may not commence the use of the transferred entitlement
until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the member making the transfer of the years
of service in the Armed Forces applicable to the member under
subsection (b); or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the member making the transfer of
the years of service in the Armed Forces applicable to the
member under subsection; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to educational assistance transferred under
this section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
member making the transfer at the rate of one month for each
month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (5) and (6), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
educational assistance under this chapter in the same manner
as the member from whom the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The monthly rate of educational assistance payable to
a dependent to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section shall be the monthly amount payable to the member
making the transfer under section 16162 or 16162a of this
title, as applicable.
``(4) The death of a member transferring an entitlement
under this section shall not affect the use of the
entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(5) A child to whom entitlement is transferred under this
section may not use any entitlement so transferred after
attaining the age of 26 years.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(7) The administrative provisions of this chapter shall
apply to the use of entitlement transferred under this
section, except that the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred shall be treated as the eligible member for
purposes of such provisions.
``(i) Overpayment.--In the event of an overpayment of
educational assistance with respect to a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section, the dependent
and the member making the transfer shall be jointly and
severally liable to the United States for the amount of the
overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of title 38.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to educational assistance under this
section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of this
title in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as result of such
transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the following:
``(1) The circumstances under which the Secretaries
concerned may permit and approve transfers of entitlement
under this section.
``(2) Such requirements for eligibility for transfer of
entitlement under this section as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The manner and effect of an election to modify or
revoke a transfer of entitlement under subsection (f)(2).''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1607 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 16162a the
following new item:
``16162b. Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance.''.
(3) Funding under department of defense education benefits
fund.--Section 2006(b)(2)(D) of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, including payments attributable to increased
usage of benefits as a result of transfers of entitlement to
educational assistance under sections 16131b and 16162b of
this title''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on October 1, 2009.
SEC. 1709. USE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO REPAY FEDERAL
STUDENT LOANS.
(a) Use of Educational Assistance To Repay Federal Student
Loans.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38,
United States Code, as amended by section 1705(a) of this
Act, is further amended by inserting after section 3020A the
following new section:
``Sec. 3020B. Use of basic educational assistance benefits
for repayment of Federal student loans
``(a) In General.--An individual entitled to basic
educational assistance under this subchapter who is serving
on active duty in the Armed Forces may elect to apply amounts
of basic educational assistance otherwise available to the
individual under this subchapter to repay all or a portion of
the outstanding principal and interest on any Federal student
loan owed by the individual for the individual's pursuit of a
course of education.
``(b) Designation of Loans and Amounts Payable.--An
individual electing under this section to apply amounts of
basic educational assistance to the payment of the
outstanding principal and interest on Federal student loans
shall designate (in such form and manner as the Secretary
shall prescribe for purposes of this section) the following:
``(1) Each Federal student loan of the individual for which
payment shall be made under this section.
``(2) For each Federal student loan designated under
paragraph (1), the monthly amount to be paid under this
section.
``(c) Limitation on Amount of Payments.--(1) The monthly
amount payable with respect to an individual under this
section may not exceed the monthly rate of basic educational
assistance to which the individual is otherwise entitled
under this subchapter at the time of payment of such monthly
amount.
[[Page H4817]]
``(2) The aggregate amount of basic educational assistance
payable with respect to an individual under this section for
any 12-month period may not exceed $6,000.
``(d) Frequency of Payments.--Payment of amounts of
principal and interest on Federal student loans of an
individual under this section shall be made on a monthly
basis.
``(e) Cessation of Payments.--Payments made under this
section with respect to an individual shall cease if the
individual ceases serving on active duty in the Armed Forces,
effective as of the first month that begins after the date on
which the individual ceases serving on active duty in the
Armed Forces.
``(f) Charge Against Entitlement.--The period of
entitlement to basic educational assistance under this
subchapter of an individual for whom payments are made under
this section shall be charged at the rate of one month for
each payment or aggregate of payments under this section that
are equivalent in amount to the monthly rate of basic
educational assistance to which the individual is otherwise
entitled under this subchapter.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as the Secretary considers appropriate for
purposes of the administration of this section.
``(h) Federal Student Loan Defined.--In this section, the
term `Federal student loan' means any loan made under title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et
seq.).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections of
subchapter II of chapter 30 of such title, as so amended, is
further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 3020A the following new item:Q02
``3020B. Use of basic educational assistance benefits for repayment of
Federal student loans.''.Q02
(b) Effective Date.--Section 3020B of title 38, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to educational assistance payable for months that
begin on or after the date that is one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1710. EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR GRADUATES OF THE
SERVICE ACADEMIES AND RESERVE OFFICERS'
TRAINING CORPS PROGRAMS.
(a) Active Duty Program.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 3011 of title
38, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) after September 30, 2009--
``(i) receives a commission as an officer in the Armed
Forces--
``(I) upon graduation from the United States Military
Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States
Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy; or
``(II) upon completion of a Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of title 10; and
``(ii) completes at least five years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces (excluding any period of obligated
service in connection with receipt of a commission as an
officer in the Armed Forces under clause (i) and excluding
any other period of obligated service in connection with
education, training, or instruction provided or funded,
whether in whole or in part, by the United States);''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)'';
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(C) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)''.
(b) Selected Reserve Program.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 3012 of such
title is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) after September 30, 2009--
``(i) receives a commission as an officer in the Armed
Forces--
``(I) upon graduation from the United States Military
Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States
Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy; or
``(II) upon completion of a Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of title 10; and
``(ii) completes at least five years of continuous active
duty in the Armed Forces (excluding any period of obligated
service in connection with receipt of a commission as an
officer in the Armed Forces under clause (i) and excluding
any other period of obligated service in connection with
education, training, or instruction provided or funded,
whether in whole or in part, by the United States);''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)'';
(B) in subsection (d)--
(i) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(d)''; and
(ii) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(C) in subsection (f)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(c) Amount of Basic Educational Assistance.--Section
3015(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Paragraph (1) of this section also applies to the
following:
``(A) An individual entitled to an educational assistance
allowance under section 3011 of this title by reason of
subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section.
``(B) An individual entitled to an educational assistance
allowance under section 3012 of this title by reason of
subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009.
SEC. 1711. OPPORTUNITY FOR CURRENT AND CERTAIN RETIRED VEAP-
ERA PERSONNEL TO ENROLL IN BASIC EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Opportunity for Current and Certain Retired VEAP-Era
Personnel To Enroll.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 30 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 3018C the
following new section:
``Sec. 3018D. Opportunity for current and certain retired
VEAP-era personnel to enroll
``(a) In General.--An individual described in subsection
(b) who makes an election described in paragraph (5) of such
subsection is entitled to basic educational assistance under
this chapter, subject to the provisions of subsection (d).
``(b) Covered Individuals.--An individual described in this
subsection is an individual who meets each of the following
requirements:
``(1) The individual first became a member of the Armed
Forces or first entered on active duty as a member of the
Armed Forces on or after January 1, 1977, but before July 1,
1985.
``(2) The individual, as of the date of the individual's
election under paragraph (5)--
``(A) is serving on active duty without a break in service
(other than as described in section 3202(1)(C) of this title)
since the date the individual first became such a member or
first entered on active duty as such a member; or
``(B) is retired from the Armed Forces after serving at
least 20 years on active duty in the Armed Forces, which
service included service on active duty in the Armed Forces
on or after September 11, 2001, and elected not to
participate in the program of educational assistance under
chapter 32 of this title.
``(3) The individual, before applying for benefits under
this section, has completed the requirements of a secondary
school diploma (or equivalency certificate) or has
successfully completed the equivalent of 12 semester hours in
a program of education leading to a standard college degree,
but has not completed the requirements for nor been awarded a
bachelor's degree.
``(4) The individual--
``(A) in the case of an individual described by paragraph
(2)(A), is discharged with an honorable discharge or released
with service characterized as honorable by the Secretary
concerned; or
``(B) in the case of an individual described by paragraph
(2)(B), was discharged with an honorable discharge or
released with service characterized as honorable by the
Secretary concerned.
``(5) During the one-year period beginning on October 1,
2009, the individual makes an irrevocable election to receive
benefits under this section pursuant to procedures which the
Secretary of each military department shall provide in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense for the purpose of carrying out this section or which
the Secretary of Transportation shall provide for such
purpose with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy.
``(c) Reduction of Pay; Collection and Payment of
Amounts.--(1) In the case of an individual described by
subsection (b) who makes an election under this section to
become entitled to basic educational assistance under this
chapter--
``(A) the basic pay or retired or retainer pay, as
applicable, of the individual shall be reduced (in a manner
determined by the Secretary concerned) until the total amount
by which such pay is reduced is $2,700; or
``(B) to the extent that the basic pay of the individual is
not so reduced before the individual's discharge or release
from active duty as described in subsection (d)(4)(A), the
Secretary concerned shall collect from the individual an
amount equal to the difference between $2,700 and the total
amount of reductions with respect to the individual under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) An individual covered by paragraph (1) may at any
time pay the Secretary concerned an amount equal to the
difference between the total of the reductions otherwise
required with respect to the individual under that paragraph
and the total amount of the reductions with respect to the
individual under that paragraph at the time of the payment.
``(3) Any amounts collected under paragraph (1)(B) or paid
under paragraph (2) shall
[[Page H4818]]
be paid into the Department of Defense Education Benefits
Fund under section 2006 of title 10.
``(4) The total amount of reductions in pay, or of
collections or payments, required with respect to an
individual under paragraph (1) shall be achieved not later
than 12 months after the date on which the individual makes
an election under subsection (b)(5).
``(5) No amount of educational assistance allowance under
this chapter shall be paid to an individual covered by
paragraph (1) until the date on which the total amount of
reductions in pay, or of collections or payments, required
with respect to the individual under paragraph (1) is
achieved.
``(d) Limitations on Basic Educational Assistance.--(1) The
basic educational assistance allowance payable under this
chapter to an individual entitled to such educational
assistance allowance under this section shall be payable at
the monthly rate of basic educational assistance payable
under section 3015(a)(1)(B) of this title.
``(2) Basic educational assistance under this section shall
be available only for pursuit of a non-degree vocational
training program, an associate degree, or a bachelor's
degree, but shall not be available for pursuit of a masters
degree or other advanced college degree.
``(3) An individual entitled under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is entitled to the
educational stipend provided under section 3020A of this
title.
``(4)(A) Entitlement under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is not
transferrable under the provisions of section 3020 of this
title.
``(B) An individual entitled under this section to basic
educational assistance under this chapter is not eligible for
the following:
``(i) The use of basic educational assistance benefits
under this chapter for the repayment of Federal student loans
under section 3020B of this title.
``(ii) Supplemental educational assistance authorized by
subchapter III of this chapter.
``(5)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
provisions of section 3031 of this title shall apply to the
use of entitlement under this section to basic educational
assistance under this chapter.
``(B) In the case of an individual entitled under this
section to basic educational assistance under this chapter
who is described by subsection (b)(2)(B), the period during
which the individual may use such entitlement expires on
October 1, 2019.
``(e) Outreach.--The Secretary shall, in coordination with
the Secretary of Defense, provide for notice of the
opportunity under this section to elect to become entitled to
basic educational assistance under this chapter.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 3018C the following new
item:Q02
``3018D. Opportunity for current and certain retired VEAP-era personnel
to enroll.''.Q02
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 3017(b)(1) of such
title is amended--
(1) in subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking ``or
3018C(e)'' and inserting ``3018C(e), or 3018D(c)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or 3018C(e) of this
title'' after ``section 3018C(e), or 3018D(c) of this title
or paid by the individual under section 3018D(c) of this
title''.
SEC. 1712. COLLEGE PATRIOTS GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 36 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--COLLEGE PATRIOTS GRANTS
``Sec. 3699A. College Patriots Grant Program
``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
provide, through a partnership with the Department and
institutions of higher education, supplemental educational
grants to assist in making available the benefits of
postsecondary education to qualified veterans by meeting such
veterans' unmet financial need.
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall carry
out a supplemental educational grant program under which--
``(1) an institution of higher education participating in
the program voluntarily provides a covered individual
enrolled in the institution with the non-Federal share of a
percentage of the covered individual's unmet financial need
determined in accordance with subsection (e); and
``(2) the Secretary provides the Federal share of a
percentage of the covered individual's unmet financial need
determined in accordance with subsection (e).
``(c) Designation of Program.--The program under this
section shall be known as the `College Patriots Grant
Program'.
``(d) Institutional Eligibility Criteria.--Assistance may
be made available under this section only to an institution
of higher education that satisfies any criteria specified by
the Secretary. Such criteria shall include an agreement or
other appropriate assurance from the institution of higher
education that--
``(1) the non-Federal share of a covered individual's unmet
financial need awarded under this section shall be provided
from non-Federal resources, including--
``(A) institutional grants and scholarships;
``(B) tuition or fee waivers;
``(C) State scholarships; and
``(D) foundation or other charitable organization funds;
and
``(2) funds made available under this section shall be
provided to a covered individual for whom the institution of
higher education has made a determination that the covered
individual has an unmet financial need, which determination
shall be made before including Federal student loans under
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in the covered
individual's financial aid package.
``(e) Federal Share; Non-Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not approve an
institution of higher education for participation in the
College Patriots Grant Program unless the institution of
higher education has provided, in the manner required by the
Secretary, the following:
``(A) An agreement or other assurance that the institution
of higher education will provide the non-Federal share in
accordance with this subsection.
``(B) Information on the specific methods by which the non-
Federal share shall be paid.
``(C) An acknowledgment that the non-Federal share provided
under this subsection shall supplement and not supplant other
Federal and non-Federal funds.
``(2) Federal and non-federal shares.--Each institution of
higher education participating in the program under this
section shall select one of the three contribution percentage
tiers described in paragraph (3) for purposes of meeting a
percentage of the unmet financial needs of covered
individuals enrolled in the institution.
``(3) Percentage contribution tiers.--
``(A) 25 percent tier.--In the case of a covered individual
enrolled in the institution who has an unmet financial need
that is--
``(i) less than $8,000, the non-Federal share shall be 12.5
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 12.5 percent of the unmet financial need, except
that the Federal share shall not exceed $1,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $8,000, the Federal share
shall be $1,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 25 percent
of the covered individual's unmet financial need minus
$1,000.
``(B) 50 percent tier.--In the case of a covered individual
enrolled in the institution who has an unmet financial need
that is--
``(i) less than $8,000, the non-Federal share shall be 25
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 25 percent of the unmet financial need, except that
the Federal share shall not exceed $2,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $8,000, the Federal share
shall be $2,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 50 percent
of the covered individual's unmet financial need minus
$2,000.
``(C) 100 percent tier.--In the case of a covered
individual enrolled in the institution who has an unmet
financial need that is--
``(i) less than $6,000, the non-Federal share shall be 50
percent of the unmet financial need and the Federal share
shall be 50 percent of the unmet financial need, except that
the Federal share shall not exceed $3,000; and
``(ii) equal to or greater than $6,000, the Federal share
shall be $3,000 and the non-Federal share shall be 100
percent of the covered individual's unmet financial need
minus $3,000.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations necessary to implement and administer the College
Patriots Grant Program, including regulations establishing
the procedures for determining eligibility for the program,
applying for supplemental educational grants under the
program, and distributing the Federal share provided by the
Secretary under the program.
``(g) Outreach.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Education, shall--
``(1) make available to the public on the Internet website
of the Department--
``(A) a current list of institutions of higher education
participating in the College Patriots Grant Program; and
``(B) information on the extent of participation of each
institution of higher education participating in the College
Patriots Grant Program;
``(2) make available to the public on the Internet website
of the Department information about all Federal and State
education benefits that members of the regular components of
the Armed Forces, members of the reserve components of the
Armed Forces, veterans, and their dependents may be eligible
to receive; and
``(3) make available to institutions of higher education
information about the College Patriots Grant Program and take
appropriate actions to encourage broad participation of
institutions of higher education in the program.
``(h) Awards for Institutional Recognition.--The Secretary
may establish and administer an awards program to recognize
the extent of an institution of higher education's
participation in the College Patriots Grant Program.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Cost of attendance.--The term `cost of attendance'
has the meaning given the term in section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll).
``(2) Covered individual.--The term `covered individual'
means an individual who--
``(A) is enrolled in an institution of higher education
that is participating in the College Patriots Grant Program;
[[Page H4819]]
``(B) has such amount of remaining entitlement to
educational assistance under chapter 30 or 32 of this title,
or under chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, as the Secretary
may require for purposes of this section; and
``(C) after receipt of any of the educational assistance
described in subparagraph (B), has an unmet financial need to
attend the institution of higher education for which a
supplemental educational grant is sought.
``(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education' has the meaning given the
term in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1002).
``(4) Unmet financial need.--The term `unmet financial
need' means, with respect to a covered individual, the cost
of attendance for the covered individual to attend an
institution of higher education participating in the College
Patriots Grant Program, minus the sum of--
``(A) grant and work assistance received by the covered
individual under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.); and
``(B) any educational assistance payments received by the
covered individual through any programs administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of
Defense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 36 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new items:
``subchapter iv--college patriots grants
``3699A. College Patriots Grant Program.''.Q02
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and shall apply to terms, quarters, or semesters
beginning on or after that date.
Mr. CONAWAY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to consider it read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I'm asking my colleagues to make a
clear choice, a choice between a rational development of American
energy resources, or a flawed policy of shackling ourselves to
unfriendly nations for the fuel we depend on every day.
The Republican motion to recommit will move restrictions on the
Federal Government to speed the development and production of American
resources, as well as reduce our reliance on imported refined products.
It would first repeal the misguided policies introduced by section 526
of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which senselessly
handcuffs the Federal Government, especially the Department of Defense,
to only conventional sources of diesel, gasoline or jet fuel.
Second, it would expedite the siting of potential new refinery
capacity.
Congress has already admitted that we want to continue relying on
fossil fuels by passing legislation to let Americans sue OPEC to force
them to increase their oil production. It is irrational to restrict our
access to American fossil fuels, but continue buying these same fuels
from countries that are, at best, not our allies. This motion will
unleash the purchasing power of the Federal Government to accelerate
the development and exploitation of unconventional fuels.
With oil at $130 a barrel, we should be embracing alternative sources
of fuel and actively seeking to improve processes and increase refinery
capacity, as well as increase fuel efficiency. But instead, Section 526
shuts the door on alternative, unconventional and synthetic fuels, and
makes us more reliant on foreign oil.
This motion to recommit also provides the Secretary of Energy with
the ability to reuse not less than three excess military installations
as possible locations to site new refineries. This process will protect
all Federal, State, local review and permitting processes and will even
allow an opportunity for the Governor of the State to veto the site.
These refineries are critically needed to address not only our
military's vulnerabilities, but the needs of all American consumers.
By repealing Section 526 and providing for the construction of new
refining capacity, we are taking positive steps to alleviate our
reliance on foreign sources of fuel and ensuring the Department of
Defense has what it needs to accomplish its security mission.
To me, a choice like this is no choice at all. Relying on
untrustworthy regimes for fuel we need that leaves our Nation
vulnerable to the whims of thugs and dictators. Tonight, this motion to
recommit provides us with the opportunity to become more economically
and strategically competitive by promoting the responsible development
of American sources of refined products.
Please join me in supporting the passage of this motion to recommit
and putting our Nation on a path to energy self-reliance.
I now yield to Fred Upton.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this motion unlocks the Canadian tar sands
and allows that crude oil to come down to the U.S. I spoke to the
Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. just a couple of hours ago. They are
producing a million and a half barrels a day of this, and they're going
to 4 million barrels a day. They're going to do this with us or without
us. Wouldn't you rather have this crude come to the U.S. rather than go
to China?
This will actually reduce greenhouse gases because you won't have to
transport it to China.
This is a good amendment.
Mr. CONAWAY. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. This motion is an expansion of the GI Bill to improve
educational benefits for active duty, Guard and Reserve and veterans.
This motion, if enacted, increases monthly educational benefits in
October of 2008, then gradual increases tied to length of service. It
includes funding for books and supplies, and increases benefits for
Guard and Reserve members. It allows members to transfer benefits to
their spouse or children, and allows more servicemembers to access
these benefits. It also offers student loan repayment help.
I believe it is time to update and improve educational benefits
offered to our brave men and women. I believe there is overwhelming
consensus in this body to do so.
By adding this provision to the NDAA, it allows these benefits to
actually become law.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the Republican leader, Mr.
Boehner.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this will be the last
time that the defense authorization bill comes to the floor of the
House under the able hands of our Republican ranking member, Mr. Duncan
Hunter.
Duncan has been a valued member of the Armed Services Committee for
the 28 years that he's been here. I know for a lot of us he's our
friend, he's our colleague and someone who brings not only a great
amount of knowledge about this defense bill, but also brings a lot of
passion with it.
{time} 2130
And I just think that we ought to honor Duncan for a job well done.
And this is bigger. Let me also thank his able staff who have done a
marvelous job in helping Duncan be a great ranking member and a great
chairman.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
motion to recommit, and I yield back.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in
opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult for me to understand or
believe that a motion on the bill named in honor of our good friend and
colleague, Duncan Hunter, is being sent back with the word ``promptly''
when everyone knows that under rule XXI, clause 2 of our House rules, a
motion to recommit using the word ``promptly'' with instructions sends
the bill back to committee and kills it.
Mr. Boehner just spoke a moment ago about this being the last time
this bill would be considered. I trust he would vote against this
motion to recommit. Because if this motion prevails, along with it goes
a pay raise, health benefits, so many good things for those wonderful
troops that we support.
The committee would be forced to take it up, and it would come back
and then be subject to a point of order because it violates the PAYGO
rules. I'm surprised and shocked and saddened at this because, Mr.
Speaker, there has
[[Page H4820]]
never been, in the history of this body, a motion to recommit using the
word ``promptly,'' which would have the effect of killing the bill.
I recognize my friend from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this could be called the fig
leaf motion to recommit because it will allow a number of Members on
one side of the aisle in this House who voted against the GI Bill in
the supplemental appropriation bill just a few days ago to now say they
voted for the GI Bill after they voted against the GI Bill.
For the record, the Senate has passed the GI Bill, and I ask my
colleagues who voted against it the other day to join with us in a
bipartisan effort to pass the new 21st century GI Bill.
In regard to sending this back to committee, I would like to send a
clear message as someone who's represented over 40,000 soldiers who
fought in Iraq during my time in Congress, I would like to send them a
message before Memorial Day that this House is together on sending them
a 3.9 percent pay raise.
I respect my friend, my colleague from Texas, Mr. Conaway, on energy
issues. We work together on many of them. But this is a defense
authorization bill. And at the last moment with no notice, I would love
to test every Member of the House on how much you know about section
526 of the Energy Security Act that Mr. Conaway went through very
quickly. Nobody has seen this. We don't know what the implications are
of putting oil refineries on military bases.
So that's the reason to vote ``no'' on this. Let's say ``no'' to the
fig leaf and ``yes'' to helping veterans in a real way with the real GI
Bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the majority leader, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we come to the end of
an 8-week series. This motion is a little bit like voting ``present.''
On the one hand, you say, Yes, let's be for veterans; yes, let's be for
energy independence. On the other hand you say, But let's not pass the
bill. The American public must be very confused by that kind of action.
But I am convinced that this night we will stand with our troops, we
will stand with our Armed Forces, we will stand with the national
security of our country. Reject this motion which sends this bill back
to committee; and once having done that, vote overwhelmingly for this
bill and honor Mr. Hunter in the process; and honor a great leader of
this House, as knowledgeable about national security as any Member of
this House, the great Ike Skelton of Missouri.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, reject this political
``promptly'' motion. Pass this bill and be proud to go home and tell
America that you stood up for our national security and our troops.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; and the motion to
suspend the rules on House Resolution 986.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 223, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 364]
AYES--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--25
Andrews
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Doyle
Ehlers
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Stark
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Weller
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in the vote.
{time} 2152
Mr. REICHERT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page H4821]]
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 384,
noes 23, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 365]
AYES--384
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--23
Baldwin
Campbell (CA)
Clarke
Davis (IL)
Duncan
Ellison
Filner
Flake
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Michaud
Moore (WI)
Olver
Rangel
Schakowsky
Serrano
Velazquez
Waters
Welch (VT)
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--27
Andrews
Cannon
Carter
Castor
Crenshaw
Doyle
Ehlers
Feeney
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Hobson
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Musgrave
Nadler
Paul
Platts
Pryce (OH)
Rush
Stark
Udall (CO)
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining in this vote.
{time} 2159
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________