[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10662-10675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 648 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4200.

                              {time}  1458


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Upton (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 108-499, offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Ryun), had been postponed.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the 
leadership and hard work of Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton 
in producing this Defense Authorization.
  I'd also like to thank my distinguished colleague from Washington, 
Congressman Baird, for offering this amendment with me.
  In March, we heard about a higher suicide rate for our troops in Iraq 
than elsewhere. We've heard about problems with morale.
  We're all committed to maximizing our troops' effectiveness. To keep 
them in fighting shape, we've got to safeguard their psychological 
resiliency.
  We know from past experience, articles in the press, and meeting 
personally with our returning troops the difficulties of readjusting to 
civilian life after duty in a combat area.
  They're troubled by anxiety and sleeplessness bred by the hyper-
vigilance required in combat. At its utmost worst, the ravages of war 
on a person's psyche may change them completely from those who knew 
them before, manifesting itself in depression, drug abuse, domestic 
violence, or suicide--we need to protect our troops from that.
  The intensity and nature of ground combat and urban warfare our 
troops face may produce some of the most lingering scars of war, those 
that lie beneath the skin: The emotional and the psychological.
  And the stress and emotional hardship our military families cope with 
may not necessarily end with the return of their loved ones.
  Our Nation and our Department of Defense need to address these needs 
and with this amendment, we make sure that they will.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Cunningham for his leadership 
on this issue, and rise in strong support of the Cunningham-Harman 
amendment.
  Let me tell you a story about four exceptional people who shared 
several things in common. What are the things that Jose Gutierrez, 
Jesus del Suarez, Francisco Martinez-Flores, and Jose Garibay had in 
common? They all loved this country, they all served in the U.S. Marine 
Corps, and they all died fighting for this country in Iraq. Something 
else they shared, Mr. Chairman--none of them were U.S. citizens.
  The amendment we are now considering appropriately recognizes these 
four young men and the thousands of other noncitizens whose service and 
ultimate sacrifice often goes overlooked.
  Based on legislation that Representative Cunningham and I introduced 
last fall, this amendment authorizes construction of a memorial at 
Arlington National Cemetery honoring the noncitizens killed in the line 
of duty while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
  Many of our military heroes, past and present--from the American 
Revolution to Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond--were, like Jose, 
Jesus, Francisco and Jose--born outside of the United States. In fact, 
an estimated 20 percent of Medal of Honor recipients--the Nation's 
highest military honor--are immigrants.
  Among the hundreds of U.S. service men and women we have lost in 
Iraq, at least 24 are foreign-born.
  A quote etched at Arlington's Memorial Amphitheater translates from 
Latin to read, ``It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.'' 
Those words hold just as true for our foreign-born patriots who have 
served and made the ultimate sacrifice for their adopted country.
  Our amendment honors the memory of these young men and all of our 
noncitizen heroes. It is the least we should do for them, their 
families and in acknowledgement of their sacrifice.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Cunningham. The amendment would 
honor noncitizens killed in the line of duty while serving in the U.S. 
Armed Forces with a memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.
  Throughout American history, foreign-born men and women have served 
in our military, standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S. citizens in 
defense of our Nation. Today, there

[[Page 10663]]

are over 36,000 noncitizens serving in our Armed Forces. Tragically, in 
the first year of the war in Iraq alone, 24 of these brave service 
members made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for their 
adopted country.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that we can never fully express our 
gratitude for the service and sacrifice these heroes have made. 
However, establishing a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in 
their honor is a fitting way to show the appreciation of a grateful 
Nation for the thousands of people who have come to this great country 
and given their lives for America.
  I thank my colleague from California for offering this amendment, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to give it their strong support.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, while I voted against the resolution 
authorizing the war with Iraq and whole-heartedly disagree with the way 
this administration has handled the conflict in Iraq, I strongly 
support our troops. Congress has been unwavering in its support for our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, passing resolutions and giving speeches 
praising their sacrifice and courage. However, such words are hollow if 
Congress does not proceed with real action. For that reason, I have 
supported legislation in the past and will support the bill in front of 
us today because it provides our tireless troops with the benefits they 
so rightfully deserve.
  This bill will make long-overdue changes to the current military pay 
and benefit rules for all members of the Armed Services. Among other 
things, this legislation will make permanent the increases in ``combat 
pay,'' the Family Separation Allowance and hardship duty pay that 
Congress passed on a temporary basis last year. More than any tax cut 
ever could, these increased benefits will provide substantive relief to 
the soldiers and their families in their time of need.
  This bill also recognizes the vital contribution that reservists have 
made to our country's military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Indeed, our country has not depended on the members of the Reserve 
forces and National Guard as much as we do now since the Korean war. 
This bill appropriately ensures that, after uprooting these men and 
women from their lives and putting them in the line of fire, they do 
not return home without adequate benefits. This bill extends healthcare 
coverage to National Guard members and reservists and their families 
who lack health insurance. It also provides pay parity to reservists, 
ensuring that reservists are paid the same bonuses and special pay as 
active duty members are.
  Not only does passing this bill keep our commitment to our troops, it 
also importantly keeps the promise we made to our country's veterans 
years ago. For years, the widows of veterans have unfairly seen their 
survivor benefit decrease after the age of 62, even though in many 
cases, retirees and survivors were never informed of the reduction when 
they signed up for the plan. This bill would rightly eliminate the 
reduction in the Survivor Benefit Plan annuities, thereby upholding our 
country's commitment and restoring the faith of our veterans who were 
unaware of the reduction.
  While I do not believe this bill is perfect, I cannot in good faith 
turn my back on the courageous men and women who have so valiantly 
served to preserve the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and protect our 
safety at home. Also, I am pleased to vote for a bill that delivers on 
a promise that we made to veterans and their families years ago--to 
provide surviving spouses the full benefits they deserve and the 
benefits that were promised to them.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this defense 
authorization bill. We are voting today on another bloated Pentagon 
budget full of wasteful and irresponsible spending. It seeks billions 
more for Iraq without mention of an exit strategy. It does not go far 
enough to help our troops who continue to fight in harms way.
  This bill continues to waste billions on the development of 
ineffective or duplicative weapons systems that pad the pockets of big 
defense contractors. It authorizes $10.2 billion on pie in the sky 
missile defense, a $1 billion increase over last year. Yet, this 
unproven cold war concept does not address the very real security 
threat posed by weapons of significant magnitude that are readily 
delivered in a suitcase or cargo container.
  This bill also throws money at building up nuclear weapon 
capabilities for use in conventional warfare. It authorizes $28 million 
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator or ``nuclear bunker buster 
bomb'' and $9 million for research on so-called low-yield nuclear 
weapons to be deployed in combat. The bill also provides nearly $30 
million to replace plutonium pits in existing nuclear warheads without 
evidence that such upgrades are necessary.
  This rush to nuclear weapons development won't deter terrorists or 
rogue nations like North Korea. It challenges them to answer in kind, 
especially as the Bush administration pursues its belligerent policy of 
preemption. It also undermines cooperative efforts to stop the 
proliferation of destructive weapons that keep them out of the hands of 
those who would do us harm.
  There is no question that this money is better spent securing uranium 
stockpiles, assisting cooperative threat reduction and advancing 
nonproliferation programs. But Republicans seem content to take that 
gamble with our national security and the cooperative security of the 
world.
  This bill also authorizes the President's request for $25 billion for 
Iraq. Make no mistake, our troops in Iraq deserve all the support we 
can provide to keep them safe. But, as their deployments are extended 
and hostilities increase, our troops also deserve to know our exit 
strategy. Even after the June 30 transfer of power, 135,000 troops will 
remain on the ground, in the words of General Myers, ``for the 
foreseeable future.''
  There's no question that America can't cut and run, but the American 
people ought to know what lies ahead and at what cost. We've spent $166 
billion thus far in Iraq without any clear strategy. Earlier this year, 
the administration said they didn't need any money. The President 
didn't account for anything in his budget. Now, they say they only need 
$25 billion.
  But, if you tally up what will be required for over the coming year, 
this just isn't enough. When you consider the over $4 billion we spend 
each month and the cost of replenishing needed equipment, the price tag 
is closer to $66 billion. I'm not sure how any American can be 
confident that we're really being told what is required. Yet, it is 
clear that we can no longer shoulder this effort alone and must move to 
share the responsibility with our major allies.
  Even as Republicans move forward to authorize this $25 billion for 
Iraq, they refuse to accept quality of life and force protection 
initiatives to help our troops. They refused to allow an amendment 
providing targeted pay raises to retain our forces. They shot down 
funding to test countermeasures to improvised explosive devices that 
continue to take the lives and limbs of our troops in Iraq. And they 
dismissed a proposal to provide free life insurance for soldiers 
serving in harms way.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this wasteful and irresponsible 
bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, 
an accounting for what is truly required in Iraq, and the best possible 
support we can provide our troops.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address provisions 
contained in section 2841 of H.R. 4200 that authorizes a transfer of 38 
acres in the District of Columbia from the Department of Navy to the 
General Services Administration for the purpose of housing the 
Department of Homeland Security at the Navy Complex on Nebraska Ave.
  First let me say I support the commitment of the Department of 
Homeland Security to remain in the District of Columbia and commend 
Secretary Ridge for his personal involvement in this decision. Since 
the Department was created two years ago I have worked with both the 
Department and the General Services Administration to identify suitable 
space in the District to house the new department, and am delighted 
that for now and until the Transportation Committee reviews and 
approves its housing plans, they will be housed at the Naval Complex on 
Nebraska Ave.
  However, I do have objections, and these are bi-partisan objections 
shared with my colleagues on the Transportation Committee, about 
authority contained in section 2841 that transfers the Naval property 
into the GSA inventory.
  Section 2841 transfers the property to the General Services 
Administration using the phrase ``administrative jurisdiction,'' rather 
than the more traditional and routinely used phrase ``custody and 
control.''
  Mr. Chairman, by way of background, officials from the White House, 
Office of Management and Budget, The Department of Homeland Security, 
General Services Administration and the Navy agreed to a three step 
approach whereby: (1) the Nebraska Ave. Complex would be transferred to 
GSA; (2) GSA would lease the space to Homeland Security; and (3) the 
Navy would be made whole for the expenses associated with its move from 
the site. In fact in February of this year these officials met with 
Transportation Committee staff, on a bi-partisan basis, to review the 
details of this approach.
  This provision reflects that approach, except that the property 
should be transferred to the full custody and control of the 
Administrator of GSA. The reason for this change is quite simple. 
According to GSA's lawyers, administrative jurisdiction is undefined 
and thus open to

[[Page 10664]]

interpretation regarding the bundle of rights and responsibilities 
associated with use and ownership of property in the GSA inventory. 
Such uncertainties associated with the transfer of responsibility for 
property inevitably lead to delays based on different legal 
interpretations and often to litigation.
  For example, the ability of GSA to operate, maintain, and protect 
buildings is for buildings under the custody and control of the 
Administrator, but the ability to perform these activities is unclear 
for facilities under administrative jurisdiction. Further, the ability 
to assign and reassign space is for those buildings under the custody 
and control of the Administrator, but it is unclear that the 
Administrator would preserve the complex for federal purposes under 
``administrate jurisdiction.'' Finally, the application of NEPA and 
historic preservation provisions are unambiguous for buildings under 
the custody and control of the Administrator but would not apply for 
buildings under the administrative jurisdiction.
  Needless to say, a simple remedy of inserting ``custody and control'' 
will clarify any use or ownership circumstances that could affect these 
38 valuable acres in my District.
  My staff has been working with staff from the House Armed Services 
Committee on a freestanding bill that will make this section obsolete. 
On a bi-partisan basis, we believe there is a way to deal with this 
issue. Once we reach agreement on appropriate and legally sufficient 
language we hope this agreement will be reflected in the DOD conference 
report.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, today, our nation is at war--a war that 
should never have been started, a war without an exit strategy, a war 
without allies, and a war I will continue to oppose. Congress ought to 
be debating these issues--now! But what is not debatable is the fact 
that all of us in Congress support our dedicated men and women serving 
in harm's way.
  This bill is not perfect--and includes many very bad provisions. This 
hulking bill, authorizing well over half of our nation's spending every 
year, has often been the culprit in funding dangerous cost overruns and 
government spending waste.
  Just like last year's Defense Authorization bill, this bill 
authorizes previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons. 
The bill also authorizes $28 million to study the feasibility of 
developing a high-yield, earth penetrating nuclear weapon to destroy 
hardened and deeply buried targets.
  Another troubling provision is the approval of the administration's 
request of $10.2 billion for ballistic missile defense programs--$1.1 
billion, or 13 percent more than the current level. The total includes 
funding for the initial deployment of a national missile defense system 
based in Alaska and California. In today's world of terrorist cells 
scattered around the globe, this $10.2 billion expenditure is a 
wasteful boondoggle left over from another time.
  There were many good provisions that the Republican Leadership would 
not even allow the People's House to debate and vote on. These 
Democratic amendments related to the war in Iraq, and dealt with 
important issues, such as why money is going to the Iraqi National 
Congress despite repeatedly bad intelligence from them, affirmations of 
the Geneva Convention and training requirements, support for Reserves 
and National Guard, and the need for greater international military 
support. Shutting out a full debate on these issues is a great failing 
of this bill.
  Possibly most troubling is the lack of oversight Congress is 
exercising in this bill. Since the spring of 2003, Congress has 
appropriated more than $166 billion for the war efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Since the last supplemental measure, the administration 
had been claiming additional funds would not be needed until next year. 
Unbelievably, the President's FY 2005 defense authorization request, in 
fact, contained no money for Iraq operations.
  However, the worsening situation in Iraq forced the White House last 
week to ask for an additional $25 billion for operations there this 
year--and the Armed Services Committee authorized the funding with 
little discussion on the floor.
  In essence, the President of the United States hasn't been honest 
with either the Congress or the American people about what this war is 
costing, and what funding he needs in the months, and potentially 
years, to come. The Congress missed a golden opportunity to discuss and 
debate the substance of the nation's deepening descent into Iraqmire.
  Despite these shortcomings, the bill contains many important 
provisions that are essential to our soldier's serving in combat. I 
strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, special 
pay and bonuses for reservists and active duty personnel, and improved 
housing provisions. The bill also includes an authorization for 
additional body armor and armored Humvees, which have been, tragically, 
in short supply over the last year in Iraq.
  I am very happy that after many of us have struggled for years to end 
the Survivor Benefit Penalty, the Republican Leadership has finally 
relented in this bill. Democrats have worked with veterans' and 
military officers' organizations to press for the elimination of the 
social security offset under the SBP by increasing the annuities paid 
to survivors of military retirees who are 62 or older from 35 percent 
of retired pay to 55 percent. This is a major victory for our nation's 
military retirees and their spouses.
  In addition, this bill contains a 2-year delay of the Base 
Realignment and Closure process (BRAG), which I strongly support. This 
delay in the BRAC process is important to all of us in San Diego, and 
we all need to stand up to the President's desire to complete the next 
round of base closings as soon as possible. I hope the final bill 
stands up to the Presidential blustering threats of veto.
  Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this bill because it keeps faith with 
our men and women in uniform, serving in combat halfway around the 
world.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill we are 
considering today. A major issue of concern is the additional $25 
billion authorized for military operations in Iraq gives the Pentagon a 
blank check to spend the money as it sees fit. The Secretary of Defense 
wants unfettered flexibility in the disposition of these funds free 
from Congressional oversight. As Bob Woodward's book details, the 
administration cannot be trusted to seek Congressional approval to 
reprogram resources. The administration secretly moved approximately 
$200 million out of Afghanistan operations into Iraq war planning in 
2002 without the approval of Congress. There must be more Congressional 
oversight in this $422 billion bill.
  Additionally, I am, frankly, disappointed in the work of the House 
Armed Services Committee to address several key issues, especially the 
lack of attention given to the problem of sexual assault and abuse 
within military circles. I appreciate the efforts of Representatives 
Skelton and Slaughter to make improvements in this area, but I think we 
could have done better.
  This measure allows the Pentagon to continue to do business as usual. 
I find that unacceptable; therefore, I cast my vote against this 
measure. I am hopeful that a better bill will emerge from conference 
when the House meets with the other body to iron out a compromise 
agreement.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have strong reservations about 
this bill, but I will support it.
  We are three years into our war on terrorism and still engaged in 
military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no doubt that we must 
continue to focus on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must 
support our military personnel, and we must give our military the 
training, equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the 
world.
  In particular, we must respond to the needs of our men and women in 
uniform in Iraq as they struggle against a persistent and dangerous 
insurgency with too few troops and inadequate supplies.
  That's why I'm in favor of increasing protection for our troops in 
Iraq through funding provided in the bill for expedited production of 
armored Humvees, body armor, and armored trucks. And I'm also in favor 
of provisions in the bill authorizing the largest increase in military 
end-strength in decades--increasing active duty Army by 30,000 
personnel and the Marine Corps by 9,000. Our army is overstretched, and 
we can't and shouldn't continue to rely on National Guard, reservists, 
and private contractors to fill in the gaps. I'm pleased also that the 
bill includes provisions--such as the continuing extension of TRICARE 
coverage--to ease the particular hardships that our campaign in Iraq 
has
  The bill includes provisions authorizing $25 billion in response to 
the president's most recent supplemental budget request for the war in 
Iraq. The costs of our Iraq mission continue to skyrocket, adding to 
our ballooning federal deficit and shortchanging domestic programs. But 
these costs must be paid. So I am encouraged that this bill doesn't 
give the president a blank check. Instead, it breaks down the $25 
billion and specifies that certain amounts be spent on operations and 
maintenance, personnel, and weapons procurement.
  I support the BRAC provisions in the bill. BRAC is an important 
process that has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. But 
no process should go forward blindly, without taking into account 
changing facts on the ground. In my view, given the uncertainty of the 
current wartime environment, it makes

[[Page 10665]]

sense to give Congress time to consider what resources our military 
might need in the future. We are still making decisions regarding the 
number of troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be 
located. Many of them may return to the U.S. This bill itself increases 
troop strength by 39,000--and it isn't clear how this increased end-
strength will figure in to the next BRAC round. The Department of 
Defense is still completing its global posture review, yet as reported 
by CongressDaily recently, DoD officials have no plans to share the 
review with Congress. Yet that review no doubt informs the BRAC process 
in ways that Congress needs to understand.
  So I think it's important for Congress to have a year to review 
reports from DoD on its global basing strategy and its infrastructure 
needs.
  I'm also in favor of provisions in the bill establishing new rules 
for the interrogation of prisoners and commending the actions of Joseph 
Darby, the brave soldier who first notified authorities of the prisoner 
abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.
  The bill also provides for our men and women in uniform an across-
the-board pay increase of 3.5 percent, boosts military special pay and 
extends bonuses, and funds programs to improve living and working 
facilities on military installations. These are all necessary and 
important provisions that I support.
  I do have a number of serious reservations about the bill.
  I don't believe it addresses 21st century threats as well as it 
could. With the exception of the Crusader artillery system and the 
Comanche helicopter, the Administration and Congress have continued 
every major weapons system inherited from previous administrations. So 
although the bill brings overall defense spending to levels 18 percent 
higher than the average Cold War levels, it doesn't present a coherent 
vision of how to realign our defense priorities.
  I am strongly opposed to the authorization of $10 billion to deploy a 
missile defense system that doesn't work and that wouldn't protect 
against the terrorist threats that we face today.
  And I'm strongly opposed to the funding provided in the bill to study 
the feasibility of developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and to 
authorize previously prohibited research on low-yield nuclear weapons. 
Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five kilotons or 
less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb dropped on 
Hiroshima. Our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to work towards nuclear 
disarmament, rather than further increase the size and diversity of our 
arsenal. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons at 
the same time that we are trying to convince other nations to forego 
obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the fight to 
stop nuclear proliferation.
  I also was disappointed in the way the bill was handled here on the 
floor of the House.
  Not only was inadequate time allowed for debating this important and 
far-reaching measure, the House was prevented from even considering 
amendments on some aspects of the bill--such as the missile defense 
system--or was able only to consider amendments that were too narrow in 
scope.
  An example of the latter is the amendment by my friend from 
Tennessee, Mr. Wamp.
  The Wamp amendment is well-intentioned, and by itself it would do no 
harm. So, it is not surprising that it was adopted by a voice vote. 
However, I am concerned that adoption of the amendment may send the 
wrong signal to the Administration and to the Cold War warriors it is 
supposed to help.
  The amendment would change one small part of the compensation program 
established by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act (EEOICPA).
  Originally enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense 
Authorization Act, that compensation program is split into two parts.
  One is administered by the Department of Labor for workers exposed to 
radiation, beryllium and silica. It has worked fairly well--something 
that can't be said about the second part.
  The second part, commonly referred to as Subtitle D, is administered 
by the Department of Energy and covers workers exposed to radiation, 
and other toxic hazards.
  Under Subtitle D, DOE is required to use physicians panels to 
evaluate whether an illness is work related, and relies upon state 
workers' compensation programs to assure payments for wage loss and 
medical benefits.
  The Wamp amendment would fine-tune the way the physicians' panels 
work and smooth the linkage to state workers' compensation programs.
  But these are marginal changes at best--and they would do nothing to 
fix the most serious problem with Subpart D.
  That problem is that, by DOE's own admission, for too many people 
Subpart D simply will not work.
  In fact, as many as 50 percent of claimants may find that even if a 
physicians panel finds their illness is covered, there is no ``willing 
payer'' that will follow through by providing compensation. Colorado is 
one of the states where this can happen, along with Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, 
Kentucky, Missouri, and other states.
  The GAO recognizes this ``willing payer'' issue is one that cannot be 
ignored. The federal government should not make compensation under the 
program depend on geography. EEOICPA needs to be amended to make sure 
that doesn't happen.
  Furthermore, so far DOE has processed fewer than 2 percent of its 
caseload under Subpart D. In fact, I am told that as of March of this 
year, there were approximately 22,000 claims pending--and only ONE had 
been paid, even though DOE had spent approximately $50 million to 
administer this part of the law. On the other hand, the Department of 
Labor has processed 97 percent of its 52,000 claims it has received and 
issued over $825 million in payments and medical benefits.
  The Wamp amendment well might improve DOE's claims processing--which 
certainly need improving. But it will not guarantee payments for 
meritorious claims in Colorado and other states across the nation. Too 
many of our cold war veterans are headed down a dead end street. 
Speeding the trip isn't the answer--we need to change the route.
  The Wamp amendment won't do that. That was why I hoped the House 
would have been able to consider the amendment filed by my friend from 
Ohio, Mr. Strickland.
  The Strickland amendment would have required the President to submit 
to Congress a proposal for legislation to establish a Federal payer for 
Subpart D claims, if legislation to solve the problem is not enacted 
during this Session of Congress.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow the House to 
even consider that amendment, just as they refused to permit 
consideration of the amendment I filed with my colleague from Colorado, 
Mr. Beauprez.
  The purpose of our amendment was to help some people who worked at 
DOE's Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant.
  Some of them are suffering from cancer or other conditions because 
they were exposed to radiation or other hazards while they were working 
there. So they are covered by the EEOICPA program.
  For those who worked at most sites, coverage requires a finding that 
their condition is as likely as not to have resulted from on-the-job 
exposure. That's a reasonable requirement--provided there is adequate 
documentation of exposures. But, unfortunately, over the years there 
were serious problems with the way DOE kept records at Rocky Flats. So, 
as things stand now, there is a real risk that many Rocky Flats workers 
who should be covered will not get coverage in time to benefit from it, 
because their claims are tied up in red tape.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, despite my concerns and disappointments, I 
do think enactment of this bill will help support our men and women in 
uniform and help them win the peace in Iraq and to defeat terrorism in 
Afghanistan. And, while in my view Congress was wrong to allow the 
president to rush us into war in Iraq, I think it now is imperative to 
provide our men and women in uniform with what they need.
  So I will support this bill today.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for H.R. 4200, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, because it contains a 
number of provisions that I support that will address the needs of the 
brave men and women serving on the front lines in Iraq, as well as the 
needs of our dedicated members of the civil service here at home.
  This bill includes much needed increases in separation allowance and 
combat pay for troops that are deployed in combat. It also includes 
provisions that will greatly improve the A-76 process, which governs 
competitions between the private sector and federal employees. These 
provisions will ensure, among other things, that federal employees are 
permitted to compete for their jobs before they are outsourced to the 
private sector and will give them the same legal rights as contractors 
enjoy. These are important protections that I strongly support.
  However, I have a number of concerns with other provisions in the 
bill, and believe it should have gone further than it does in some 
areas.
  Iraq is fast becoming a hall of mirrors. When the Administration says 
conditions are getting better, they are probably getting worse. When

[[Page 10666]]

the Administration says they have a plan, they usually don't. And when 
the Administration says they are trying to build an international 
coalition, they may actually be further alienating our allies.
  We can add another contradiction to this list: When the 
Administration says they will closely scrutinize the work of private 
contractors in Iraq, what they mean is that they have given the 
contractors a virtual blank check.
  The Coalition Provisional Authority has identified over 2,000 
specific reconstruction projects in Iraq. The contracts to perform this 
work should be bid competitively, so that market forces would dictate 
the costs to taxpayers. But under the Administration's approach, not a 
single one of the 2,000 reconstruction projects will be awarded on the 
basis of competition. Instead, they will all be performed on a cost-
plus basis by large private contractors who have been awarded 
monopolies over large sectors of the reconstruction effort.
  The public wonders why unsupervised private contractors would be 
allowed to interrogate and abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib . . . how 
Halliburton could be allowed to charge inflated prices for gasoline and 
to submit bills for millions of meals it never served . . . and why 
there is so little to show for the billions that the Administration has 
spent on the reconstruction effort.
  There is one answer to all of these questions: whether by design or 
incompetence, the Administration is failing in its responsibility to 
oversee the reconstruction effort and to protect the taxpayer from 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Under these circumstances, aggressive and impartial oversight is 
obviously crucial. Yet as I and others described in a report released 
yesterday, the Administration has outsourced this essential oversight 
responsibility to private contractors who have significant conflicts of 
interest.
  While Parsons is supposed to oversee Fluor's electricity work in 
Iraq, Parsons and Fluor have a huge $2.6 billion joint venture in 
Kazakhstan. CH2M Hill has been permitted to oversee the Iraq work of 
Washington Group International, Fluor, and AMEC even though it has 
existing contractual relationships with all three companies in the 
United States. Parsons is even in a position to benefit its own 
reconstruction efforts through the use of its oversight powers.
  This is an unacceptable situation that I would have liked to address 
with an amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, it was not made in 
order.
  Another way to ensure vigorous congressional oversight of the Iraqi 
reconstruction efforts would be to require the Defense Department to 
provide contract information to both the chair and ranking members of 
committees with jurisdiction.
  For months I have attempted to obtain information from the 
Administration about the contracting in Iraq. For the most part, the 
Administration has a poor record of complying with these requests.
  I have written four letters to the White House requesting information 
about the inflated prices Halliburton was charging to import gasoline 
into Iraq under a sole source, IDIQ contract from the Army Corps of 
Engineers. The only responses they received were two nearly identical, 
two-paragraph letters from Condoleezza Rice saying that Pentagon 
auditors are investigating the overcharges.
  The White House hasn't offered any justification for Halliburton's 
$2.64 per gallon price of gasoline from Kuwait. The White House hasn't 
turned over task orders or invoices for the gasoline importation work 
either.
  It's not just the White House. I've also written to Secretary 
Rumsfeld to request information about Halliburton's subcontractors and 
the process by which they were selected. I sought basic documents, like 
the subcontracts themselves and the bid proposals from potential 
subcontractors. Over five months have passed, but the Defense 
Department has not produced any of the requested documents.
  Under the bill, the Department is required to respond to a request 
from the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee. That is a 
start. I would have liked to offer an amendment to also require the 
Department to respond to the Government Reform Committee, which has 
government-wide jurisdiction over contracting issues. But again, 
unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order.
  One of the reasons events are not going well in Iraq is that there 
has not been enough accountability and oversight by this House. No one 
was held accountable for the Administration's false claim that Iraq 
attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or misleading claims about 
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. While we all agree that the 
abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison is 
completely unacceptable and universally condemn this illegal and 
inhumane misconduct, the House has yet to fully investigate this 
terrible episode.
  Today, I offered a procedural motion to express the sense of the 
House of Representatives that a select committee should immediately be 
established to investigate the treatment of detainees held by the 
Administration in connection with the global war on terrorism. A select 
committee is necessary because this House has ignored its 
constitutional responsibility for holding the Administration 
accountable. Time and time again, the Republican leadership has 
demonstrated that it has no interest in performing any serious 
oversight of the Administration. I am disappointed that the motion 
failed by a vote of 202-224.
  There are other troubling elements of this bill that I do not 
support. I staunchly oppose the more than $10 billion authorized for 
ballistic missile programs plagued by massive cost overruns and 
consistent failures in testing. I also oppose other wasteful programs 
like the $4.2 billion included for the F/A-22 Raptor, a fighter 
aircraft best known for its technical difficulties, questionable 
utility, and unprecedented price-tag of between $200 to $300 million 
per plane. I find it most disturbing that the bill also allows 
continued research for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons for 
deployment in combat and directs $36 million to research the 
feasibility of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that existing 
research shows is more likely to spread contamination than destroy its 
target.
  The Bush Administration's quest for usable nuclear weapons 
contravenes the basic principle of nuclear deterrence and threatens to 
undermine decades of U.S. leadership non-proliferation efforts. 
Together with the doctrine of pre-emption and the President's policy 
endorsing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, the 
effort sends the wrong message at a time when we are trying to get the 
international community to help us challenge proliferation in North 
Korea and Iran.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I hope this bill signals the beginning 
of a different approach from Congress in dealing with Defense 
Authorization. I'm pleased that there is at least some money for Iraq, 
with some instructions on how it's to be spent rather than relying 
exclusively on the discretion of the administration. It is encouraging 
that more attention is given to the specific needs of our men and women 
on the ground in Iraq. It's unfortunate that despite hundreds of 
billions of dollars authorized in previous bills, not enough has made 
it to our troops for essential things that they need.
  The bill continues to spend too much money on the wrong things. The 
most graphic example is the 13 percent increase for missile defense; 
$10.2 billion that's critically needed in other areas of homeland 
security and defense activities.
  One other area I take strong exception to is delaying the next round 
of base closings. Base closings have historically been highly 
controversial and political, and Congress was unable to deal with it 
until we had a BRAG process that helped to de-politicize the process. 
This bill represents an unfortunate step backwards placing politics 
over economic or military concerns. We continue to have inventory left 
over from a bygone era of defense needs that is far more than is 
necessary. It doesn't speak to today's demands, to say nothing of where 
we're going to be in the future. We have to be able to close and 
realign military facilities.
  Part of the reason that people are upset when a military base is 
closed is that we do a terrible job of transitioning what can be 
extraordinarily valuable resources back to the community. If we were to 
clean them up and recycle them in a way that helped the environment, 
local governments, and local enterprises, there would be much less 
reticence. Unfortunately, we hamper communities by not providing the 
resources or guidance to bring these lands back to productive use. 
Simply delaying the next round of BRAG closures gives us the worst of 
both worlds. We have an inappropriate inventory of facilities, and we 
do nothing to speed the transition that could help everyone--the 
taxpayers, the military, and the local communities in which they're 
located.
  I am disappointed that my amendment to help the Department of Defense 
return former military bases back to local communities was not made in 
order. My amendment would have codified a recommendation by the Defense 
Science Board, issued in November, 2003, to implement a national Wide 
Area Assessment for unexploded ordnance (UXO). This assessment would 
enable the Department to determine the extent of UXO contamination and 
help restore at least 8 million acres of potentially contaminated sites 
scattered throughout the country.
  This is the largest and arguably the most important authorization 
Congress takes up

[[Page 10667]]

each year. It helps shape the largest single federal expenditure. I 
long for the day when there is a full and open debate and when there's 
a way to right-size and re-direct these funds. Never has the need been 
greater. It's unfortunate that this bill continues to miss the mark.
   Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the provision in the FY 
2005 Defense Authorization Bill that would finally end the Survivor 
Benefit Penalty (SBP), a reduction in survivor benefits when a 
beneficiary reaches age 62. I have heard from many veterans and 
military families among my constituents who have waited for too long to 
end this discriminatory policy. Members who signed up for SBP in the 
1970s were led to believe they were purchasing annuities that would 
provide their surviving spouses 55 percent of retired pay for life. 
After paying decades of premiums, they understandably feel betrayed 
upon learning that their benefit drops by more than one-third when they 
reach age 62. To make matters worse, the U.S. Defense Department 
Actuary has confirmed that the federal subsidy has dropped to 19 
percent--far below the 40 percent level Congress intended when the 
program was first enacted. There could be no more effective way for the 
Federal government to restore the intended cost-sharing relationship 
than by raising the age-62 SBP annuity.
  I have been a long-standing cosponsor of two free-standing bipartisan 
bills, H.R. 548 and H.R. 3763, to make this change in the law and 
eliminate this penalty as quickly as affordable. Unfortunately, these 
bills remained stuck in committee until a discharge petition was filed 
a few weeks ago to bring this matter to a vote. I was happy to co-sign 
that discharge petition, just as I was glad to be one of nearly 170 
Democrats in this House to co-sign the letter sent to Congressman 
Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, urging 
that this provision be included in this bill. Now we must fight to 
retain this provision in conference to ensure a 5-year phase-in to 
finally eliminate this penalty once and for all.
   Mr. Chairman, I oppose those provisions in the FY 2005 Defense 
Authorization Bill which authorize an additional $28 million on the 
nuclear bunker buster, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, plus $9 
million for ``advanced concept initiatives.'' The direction in which 
the Bush Administration is leading our nation on nuclear weapons policy 
by steadily increasing funding for this type of de-stabilizing research 
is reckless and ill-advised. That is why I support the amendment 
offered by my colleagues, U.S. Representatives Tauscher, Markey, and 
Spratt, which would have shifted the funding in this bill away from 
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to increase both U.S. intelligence 
capabilities to get at hard and deeply buried targets and improved 
conventional bunker-busting capabilities.
  The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE, originally planned to spend $45 
million on such research between FY2003 and FY2005. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, DOE now projects spending $71 million 
through FY2006.
  We should be stepping away from researching new tactical nuclear 
weapons for new uses, not warming to that proposition. We are sending 
the wrong message to our allies and potential adversaries around the 
world. When they see the Bush Administration steadily increasing U.S. 
spending for this kind of research, they are understandably concerned 
that the U.S. is opening Pandora's box and encouraging the development 
and procurement of a new generation of nuclear weapons.
  Furthermore, this type of research does not make practical, 
scientific sense.
  Supporters of the nuclear bunker buster claim that such weapons would 
accomplish the destruction of deeply buried targets without causing 
massive collateral damage. But they ignore some fundamental 
considerations that are underscored in several recent scientific 
studies including some by scientists at Princeton University and by the 
Union of Concerned Scientists.
  First, since weapons cannot penetrate very deeply into the ground, 
then destroying deep hardened targets would require powerful, high-
yield nuclear warheads.
  Second, it is relatively easy to build a bunker so deep, 1,000 yards 
underground, that no earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, no matter how 
large its yield, could destroy such a bunker.
   Third, even a small, low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapon will 
create enormous radioactive fallout because the explosion could not be 
contained underground. The radioactive debris thrown into the air would 
drift for miles on the wind.
  Fourth, there is no guarantee that a nuclear blast would successfully 
destroy chemical or biological weapons. In fact, a nuclear attack on a 
bunker that contains chemical or biological weapons could easily lead 
to the release and spread of those agents.
  Fifth, there are conventional alternatives to the use of nuclear 
bunker busters. Current precision-guided conventional weapons could 
instead be used to cut off a bunker's communications, power, and air 
supply, thus effectively keeping the enemy weapons underground and 
unusable until U.S. forces could secure them.
  Finally, it is very troubling to me that, while Bush administration 
officials are quick to point out that no funds are authorized in this 
bill for production of these weapons, it is worth noting that their 
preferred federal budget plan over the next 5 years outlines spending 
$485 million to move into the deployment and engineering phases for the 
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
   Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of retaining the 
BRAC language in the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005. The bill as 
it currently stands would postpone BRAC for 2 full years, and require 
the Pentagon to submit reports by certain dates or BRAC will not take 
place.
  The United States military is being stretched thin due to the war 
against terrorism and the effort to rebuild Iraq. In addition, the 
Department of Defense, DOD, is currently considering significant 
realignments of forces in Europe and Asia while it transforms its 
forces. While I agree that we should evaluate overseas bases first 
before considering closing domestic bases, for DOD to make irreversible 
decisions to close or realign military installations before these 
changes have been fully considered by both DOD and Congress would be an 
enormous mistake.
  Further, the BRAC process is estimated to cost roughly $15 billion 
with savings not required until 2011. These funds could be used now for 
more equipment and supplies for our military troops. Make no mistake, 
our troops will be in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time. It is our 
responsibility to provide them with the necessary resources they need 
for survival. In addition, savings from previous BRAC rounds are almost 
entirely due to significant reductions in force structure and end-
strength. DOD and Congress are not decreasing either of these; instead, 
we are increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years and considering 
increases in force structure.
  I also continue to be extremely concerned that if the BRAC round in 
2005 commences, we will revert back to pre-World War II days when our 
valuable military assets were located in very few places. The attack on 
Pearl Harbor in 1941 completely crippled our Pacific Fleet. Further, 
the September 11th attacks are a fresh reminder that our homeland and 
our military headquarters, the Pentagon, are susceptible to attacks. 
History tells us we should not push for more base closures and 
consolidation of our forces.
  Finally, as the BRAC process currently stands, Congress is virtually 
eliminated from the decision-making process. There has been no effort 
on the part of DOD to work with Congress on basing locations, 
rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic infrastructure 
requirements which all directly affect BRAC.
   Mr. Chairman, since September 11th, the needs of our Nation continue 
to change. We are constantly reevaluating what resources we will need 
in the future. When a base is closed, that asset is lost forever to the 
community it serves and the military. We have fundamental decisions to 
make about overseas basing, transformation, and major military 
deployments before we make BRAC decisions. It is my preference that we 
eliminate this process completely; however, if Congress decides to move 
forward on another BRAC round, we have only one opportunity to do this 
right and Congress must be given the opportunity to provide sufficient 
oversight of the BRAC process. We cannot afford to act hastily. I urge 
my colleagues to support the BRAC language currently in H.R. 4200.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I support the provision in this bill which 
would at least postpone the 2005 BRAC Round until 2007.
  Since September 11, 2001, the national security and defense needs of 
our nation have been changing and are still changing. We are still 
uncertain as to what resources we will need in the future.
  First, U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan and Iraq for an 
uncertain period of time. Just look at Bosnia and Korea. In fact, after 
considerable effort to keep Congress from increasing end-strength, DOD 
is not reducing the number of military personnel in Iraq as planned, 
and Congress is increasing end-strength by 39,000 over 3 years.
  Second, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is still in the 
process of being established and the facilities and resources needed

[[Page 10668]]

for its diverse challenges, including any current military 
infrastructure that might be needed, are unknown.
  Third, difficult decisions are yet to be made about the number of 
troops needed in Europe and Asia and where they should be located.
  Fourth, there are efforts underway to raise or remove the caps on the 
number of troops in Colombia, and we have 2,500 Marines in Haiti. 
Similarly, we also see moves to shift at least 3,600 troops from South 
Korea to Iraq.
  Fifth, congressional oversight of the re-deployment and re-
positioning of American troops is needed now more than ever. Yet, there 
has been no structured, deliberate, and timely effort on the part of 
DOD to work with Congress to prepare our nation to confront additional 
and unprecedented challenges in the post-9/11 world. In fact, as 
reported in the National Journal last month, ``The department [DOD] has 
no plans to share the study [global posture review] with Congress, 
although Pentagon officials say the study will inform the BRAC 
process.''
  Sixth, the BRAC process is estimated to cost approximately $15 
billion. Savings above the cost of implementing BRAC are not required 
until 2011. These funds could be used now for our troops now.
  Seventh, we are confronting very different circumstances in 2005 
compared to the BRAC Rounds conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993 or 1995. 
Savings from previous BRAC rounds were derived almost entirely from 
substantial reductions in force structure and end strength. But now, we 
are increasing end strength and considering increases in force 
structure.
  Mr. Chairman, the following reports are required from DOD between 
January 1, 2006, and March 15, 2006, or the BRAC process dies:
  a. The Pentagon's Integrated Global Basing Strategy, including basing 
locations, rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic 
infrastructure requirements associated with that strategy;
  b. A study of the infrastructure requirements associated with force 
transformation efforts; a report on infrastructure requirements related 
to changes to the active and reserve personnel mixtures of the 
services;
  c. A study of the infrastructure requirements resulting from the 
Secretary of Defense's ``10-30-30'' objective; a reassessment of excess 
infrastructure capacity that is based upon infrastructure, facility, 
and space requirements of current, future, and surged military forces; 
and
  d. A definition of, and infrastructure requirements associated with, 
``surge requirements'' as determined by the Secretary as required by 
section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004 (Public Law 108-136).
  It is prudent for implementation of BRAC to be put off 2 years (1 
year if you start at the final due date of the reports) to allow 
Congress the opportunity and more time to review these reports in light 
of our nation's evolving defense needs. Realistically, even if Congress 
was to obtain the reports I've cited during the current BRAC timeline, 
there would not be enough opportunity for Congress to fully review and 
debate the merits before we would be required to vote on closure and 
realignment choices.
  We should postpone the 2005 BRAC Round for at least 2 years.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Thomas, regarding 
section 585 of H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005, and a response from the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter).

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2004.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hunter: I am writing concerning H.R. 4200, 
     the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2005,'' which was reported to the House by the House Armed 
     Services Committee on May 14, 2004.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over tax matters. Section 585 of H.R. 4200 
     allows individuals to donate their frequent traveler miles 
     through the Department of Defense to deployed members of the 
     armed forces and their families. This provision requires an 
     amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, and thus falls within 
     the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, 
     we will not take action on this proposal. This is being done 
     with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice 
     the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or 
     its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
     legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 4200, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2004.
     Hon. William Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 19, 
     2004 regarding H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
       I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid 
     jurisdictional claim to section 585 in this important 
     legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not 
     to request such a referral in the interest of expediting 
     consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
     sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not 
     waiving its jurisdiction. Further, per your request, your 
     letter and this response will be included in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration.
       With best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Duncan Hunter,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from the 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Hyde, 
regarding H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005.

         Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2004.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the close cooperation 
     between the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     International Relations concerning H.R. 4200, the FY 2005 
     National Defense Authorization Act. I commend your 
     leadership, and that of Mr. Skelton, in bringing forward this 
     important bill which will give the courageous men and women 
     of our armed forces what they need to continue to prosecute 
     the war on terrorism successfully.
       Further, several of the provisions of Title XIV (in 
     particular, in Subtitle A concerning export controls) amend 
     the Arms Export Control Act, a matter under the jurisdiction 
     of the Committee on International Relations. These provisions 
     will also make an important contribution to our Nation's 
     interests by ensuring that United States weapons systems and 
     technology do not fall into dangerous hands. Two provisions 
     in particular (sections 1401 and 1402) relate to the controls 
     required by United States law over our most significant 
     military technology and clarify that this technology is to be 
     handled with the utmost care. Because of the importance and 
     sensitivity of these areas, it is useful to set forth for the 
     record an explication of several points highlighted in your 
     Committee's report that have figured in the deliberations 
     between our two Committees during consideration of H.R. 4200. 
     Accordingly, when H.R. 4200 is taken up on the Floor for 
     adoption, I ask that you consent to include the full text of 
     this letter in the record, memorializing our discussions on 
     these matters.


          SEC. 1401. DEFINITIONS UNDER ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT

       As the report by the Committee on Armed Services makes 
     clear, the addition of several new definitions to section 47 
     of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) will help ensure that 
     the future administration of United States law in this 
     sensitive area is carried out in accordance with longstanding 
     principles that have safeguarded our Nation's security and 
     foreign policy interests for many years. Of particular 
     importance, the terms ``agent'' and ``exporting agent'' have 
     long been in common usage in the AECA but have lacked precise 
     definitions. This absence appears to have given rise to a 
     recent controversy in which some maintain the term ``agent'' 
     can be construed as any foreign person who has a general 
     association with a foreign government receiving United States 
     defense articles or defense services, such that any (and 
     potentially all) foreign corporations located in the same 
     country could be eligible to receive custody or ownership of, 
     or access to, the United States articles or services without 
     any need to seek the U.S. Government's consent to such a 
     transfer from the foreign government to its private sector. 
     However, such a construction would run counter to well-
     established principles in our laws. In this respect, section 
     3(a) of the AECA and section 505(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act are very important. Section 3(a) provides that ``no 
     defense article or defense service shall be sold or leased by 
     the United States Government . . . and no agreement shall be 
     entered into for a cooperative project . . . unless--``(2) 
     the country . . . shall have agreed not to transfer title to, 
     or possession of, any defense article or related training or 
     other defense service . . . to anyone not an officer, 
     employee, or agent of that

[[Page 10669]]

     country . . . unless the consent of the President has first 
     been obtained.''
       Section 505(a) provides a nearly identical requirement with 
     respect to military assistance provided under Chapter 2 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act. These provisions (which also 
     provide a legal framework for commercial arms sales and 
     training under section 38 of AECA) ensure that all of the 
     stringencies and safeguards that apply under United States 
     law to a weapons related export also apply equally to any 
     subsequent re-export or retransfer to third parties 
     (including third parties located in the country to which the 
     original export was authorized).
       Section 1401 will make abundantly clear that the term 
     ``agent'' must be understood in its classic and commonly 
     understood form, as a person that is specifically authorized 
     by the foreign government to represent its interests (other 
     than an officer or employee, who are presumptively authorized 
     representatives), and one that is subject to the foreign 
     government's supervision and control and for whom the foreign 
     government is responsible (such as an officer or employee). 
     This type of ``agency'' relationship occurs commonly in the 
     foreign military sales program where foreign governments 
     routinely designate freight forwarders and other agents 
     through contractual relationships to receive and transport 
     United States defense articles. Section 1401 accommodates 
     this practice. Similarly, but less frequently, a foreign 
     government may establish an agency relationship with one of 
     its corporations for the purpose of carrying out part of a 
     cooperative agreement it has entered into with the Department 
     of Defense under section 27 of the AECA. Such relationships 
     would still be acknowledged under section 1401, provided that 
     a bona fide agency relationship has been established. On the 
     other hand, this definition is intended to resolve, 
     definitively in favor of longstanding principles in United 
     States law, the recent controversy related to the proposition 
     that any foreign corporation located in a foreign country 
     with which the United States has entered into a cooperative 
     agreement under section 27 of the AECA (or another similar 
     provision in United States law) may be presumed to be an 
     agent provided only that it is a participant at some level in 
     the cooperation (irrespective of whether the foreign 
     corporation is, in fact, a true agent of the foreign 
     government). In such matters, the clear intent of the AECA 
     and the Foreign Assistance Act is that persons who are not 
     specifically authorized agents of the foreign government must 
     be subject to the specific approval of the U.S. Government 
     before United States defense articles or defense services are 
     made available to them, whether by satisfaction of the 
     requirements of section 3, pursuant to issuance of an export 
     license under section 38, or by other statutorily provided 
     means (e.g., U.S. Government approval when such persons are 
     designated as agents in an international agreement to which 
     the United States is a party).


     SEC. 1402. EXEMPTION FROM LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPORT OF 
                     SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT

       This provision would amend section 38(b) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act in order to codify the longstanding regulatory 
     practice not to establish exemptions in regulation from the 
     munitions export license requirements of section 38 that 
     apply to commercial defense exports by private U.S. and 
     foreign persons for any defense article that has been 
     designated as ``significant military equipment.'' The 
     President's authority under section 38 has been delegated by 
     Executive Order to the Secretary of State. The regulations 
     that implement the President's authority in this area are the 
     International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 
     Sec. Sec. 120-130). ``Significant military equipment'' (or 
     ``SME,'' as it is commonly referred to) is any defense 
     article required to be so designated on the United States 
     Munitions List, ``for which special export controls are 
     warranted because of the capacity of such articles for 
     substantial military utility or capability'' in accordance 
     with section 47(9)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2794(9)(A)). By longstanding practice, an export 
     license has generally been required for the permanent export 
     of any SME defense article or technical data (such as 
     production or manufacturing know-how for SME articles), 
     except in certain areas (described below) pertaining to 
     official use by the Department of Defense and other U.S. 
     Government agencies that section 38(b)(2) of the Arms Export 
     Control itself (as distinct from an exemption established by 
     the President in regulation) specifically declares to be 
     outside the ambit of the export licensing requirements 
     imposed on private U.S. persons.
       However, as part of an ongoing process to ``reform'' or 
     relax military export controls, the Committee on 
     International Relations has recently been informed of the 
     State Department's intention to establish a new exemption in 
     regulation available to private U.S. persons for the export 
     of a wide range of cargo, transport and trainer fixed-wing 
     aircraft, as well as certain utility rotary aircraft, to a 
     large number of foreign governments. The aircraft that would 
     be exempt are: C-21, C-22, C-130 Hercules (earlier than J 
     configuration), CT-39, T-1, T-3, T-6, T-34, T-37, T-39, T-41, 
     T-42, T-43, T-44, UH-1 Huey, CH-46, OH-58, and U-27. Most of 
     these aircraft would be eligible for export without a license 
     to any one of the 26 NATO member governments, as well as to 
     Australia, Japan, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, 
     Switzerland, and those other countries designated as major 
     non-NATO allies under section 517 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act (Israel, Egypt, Republic of Korea, Jordan, Argentina, New 
     Zealand and, prospectively, Pakistan). Some of these aircraft 
     would only be eligible for NATO countries, Australia and 
     Japan. All of these aircraft are designated as SME. Certain 
     of these aircraft (e.g., C-130, T-6, T-37, OH-58 and UH-1) 
     are also ``major defense equipment,'' an additional category 
     of defense articles required to be identified on the 
     Department of Defense's List of Major Defense Equipment. 
     Under section 47 of the Arms Export Control Act, items that 
     are ``major defense equipment'' are those that are both SME 
     and have been designed and developed through major DoD 
     procurement programs (i.e., involving $50 million or more in 
     non-recurring Research and Development or $200 million or 
     more in total production costs).
       Section 1402 would bar the establishment of such exemptions 
     for the export of defense articles designated as 
     ``significant military equipment.'' It is difficult to 
     understand why some apparently believe it is appropriate or 
     timely to relax our military export controls in the midst of 
     the global war on terrorism, least of all over defense 
     articles that fall into the SME category. Under the Arms 
     Export Control Act, these articles are intended to be the 
     subject of ``special export controls'' which historically 
     have included the requirement for the foreign end user to 
     sign a U.S. Government nontransferable and end-use 
     certificate before a license is issued. A further 
     consideration is that the State Department has not yet been 
     able to put into place an adequate system for monitoring and 
     tracking exports of SME that are approved under licenses (let 
     alone exemptions). In this respect, more than four years 
     after the enactment of Public Law 106-113 requiring a 
     quarterly report to Congress of all SME exports licensed 
     under section 38, the State Department has yet to submit its 
     first report. Further, State announced earlier this year that 
     it was deferring implementation of a regulation to require 
     reporting by exporters of technical data and defense services 
     exported under section 38, suggesting that its initial report 
     is not in the immediate offing.
       The Committee on International Relations is very 
     sympathetic to the goal of expediting the export of such 
     defense articles to our coalition partners in the war on 
     terrorism (although a list of our coalition partners might 
     not necessarily coincide with the above list of countries 
     drawn up by State). This said, it would be far preferable to 
     establish priorities in the export license process such that 
     our closest coalition partners are placed at the head of the 
     line. In this way, exports involving coalition partners can 
     be processed more securely (without the increased risks of 
     diversion that arise from license exemptions) and more 
     quickly, with licenses issued in a matter of a few days 
     rather than many weeks. Initiatives to relax military export 
     controls when our country is at war, as reflected in such 
     proposals and others which the Committee on International 
     Relations understands may be forthcoming in the context of a 
     new policy to promote defense trade (National Security Policy 
     Directive 19), are inherently inconsistent with the national 
     security interests of our Nation.
       By the same measure, section 1402 would not significantly 
     alter the existing regulatory regime in this area. Until now, 
     the principal exceptions to the practice of not exempting SME 
     defense articles from munitions license requirements have not 
     resulted from exemptions established by the President in 
     regulation, but from the express exclusion by Congress when 
     enacting the Arms Export Control Act of certain U.S. 
     Government (chiefly Department of Defense) activities from 
     the ambit of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act. 
     Section 38(b)(2) of that Act provides that ``. . . no license 
     shall be required for exports or imports made by or for an 
     agency of the United States Government (A) for official use 
     by a department or agency of the United States Government, or 
     (B) for carrying out any foreign assistance or sales program 
     authorized by law and subject to the control of the President 
     by other means (22 USC 2778(b)(2)).'' This provision (section 
     1402), therefore, does not affect the export of defense 
     articles that are expressly precluded by section 38(b)(2) 
     from export licensing under the Arms Export Control Act, 
     including defense articles that are SME, and without regard 
     to whether they are unclassified or classified (provided, in 
     the latter case, that they are subject to the control and 
     other requirements of applicable United States law and 
     regulation concerning handling and shipments of classified 
     material). Nor does this provision affect any regulatory 
     procedures in place or promulgated in the future to 
     facilitate the import or export of defense articles through 
     U.S. ports of entry and exit that meet the exclusionary 
     standards of section 38(b)(2). Such regulatory procedures do 
     not constitute the establishment of an exemption in 
     regulation by the President, but merely facilitate activities 
     by the Department of Defense and other U.S. Government 
     agencies that have been expressly excluded in law from 
     license requirements by the Congress.

[[Page 10670]]

       Similarly, section 1402 is not intended to affect the 
     longstanding practice with respect to exports to Canada, 
     where the Congress has also provided an exemption in law in 
     section 38(f)(3) of the AECA with respect to export license 
     requirements. Further, section 1402 is concerned 
     fundamentally with permanent exports and is not intended to 
     impinge on regulatory practice to permit license exemptions, 
     under well-defined conditions relating to ``temporary'' 
     exports under well-defined circumstances by United States 
     defense firms, of significant military equipment for purposes 
     of exhibition and demonstration to friends and allies of the 
     United States.
       Thank you for your kind and immediate attention to this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us. I 
wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their 
leadership in crafting a bill that will provide our military--and the 
men and women who serve in it--the resources they need to keep America 
strong in the 21st century. It is always a daunting task to craft 
legislation that balances the needs of our services, and such an effort 
is even more challenging during a time of military conflict. Chairman 
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton have succeeded admirably in this 
endeavor, and the product before us today is a fine example of careful 
craftsmanship and bipartisan cooperation. I am particularly 
appreciative of the Chairman's theme of ``The Year of the Soldier,'' 
and the commitment this legislation demonstrates to force protection 
and quality of life enhancements. We are proud of our men and women in 
uniform, and we must ensure that they are given the resources necessary 
to succeed in their mission.
  I am pleased that the legislation includes provisions that I offered 
with Congressman Jim Cooper during committee consideration to ensure 
that civilian employees at the Department of Defense do not lose their 
jobs to private contractors without first having the opportunity to 
compete for the work. The legislation closes loopholes that have 
allowed the Department of Defense to reclassify or reorganize work to 
avoid Congressionally mandated competition requirements. It also 
supports efforts to provide civilian employees with comparable legal 
standing to private-sector workers when appealing contract decisions. 
These provisions will offer equality to our civilian employees and 
significant savings to our taxpayers.
  I also appreciate the committee's effort to correct the problem of 
reduced survivor benefits for military spouses. For too long, military 
spouses have witnessed their survivor benefits drop by more than one-
third once reaching the age of 62. Comparable civilian plans provide 
survivors a lifetime annuity of 50-55 percent of retired pay and 
protect against a drop in annuity at age 62. As a cosponsor of the 
Military Survivor Benefits Improvement Act, I have supported efforts to 
repeal this unfair burden and am pleased that this legislation would 
restore benefits gradually to 55 percent by March 2008.
  As we move forward on this legislation, I hope to work with the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member to address my concerns about our 
nation's shipbuilding rates. This legislation would postpone by one 
year construction of our next-generation destroyer, DD(X), and the 
Littoral Combat Ship, at a time when our naval fleet is shrinking and 
our shipbuilding industry is struggling. The proposed $221 million 
reduction for DD(X) is particularly disconcerting when the project has 
been running on budget and on schedule. Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of 
Naval Operations, has indicated his opposition to these shipbuilding 
cuts, and I look forward to working with the committee to restore 
funding for DD(X) and LCS.
  Overall, this legislation is a well-balanced approach to the needs of 
our nation's military, and I commend the Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
my colleagues on the committee for a fine work product. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, while I do have concerns with this bill, I 
rise to voice my support for H.R. 4200, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We need to do everything we can 
to make our armed forces as effective as possible. That's why I support 
the 2-year delay for the next BRAC round.
  California has seen 29 bases close. In the Inland Empire, George and 
Norton Air Force Bases have been closed. And March Air Force Base was 
reduced to a reserve base. This cost an estimated 37,000 jobs and $3.9 
billion in economic activity. That is 39 times the size of the San 
Bernardino city budget. That's real money that could have helped our 
citizens.
  The 22,000 citizens of Barstow are worried that the Nebo Marine Corp 
Logistics Base and Yermo Annex will close. It is the city's second 
largest employer. What will happen when it closes?
  When Norton Air Force Base closed in a previous BRAC round, it 
devastated my district. We lost 10,000 military and civilian personnel. 
And thousands more lost their job off the base. We have never been able 
to replace those jobs. It's not only communities that will be affected. 
Base closings will affect our troops and their families. It will set 
the military on a course of instability. All in order to save a few 
bucks.
  Our troops in Iraq should not have to worry whether their families 
will be moved to another city or another state. They have better things 
to worry about. Because of these reasons I support the suspension of 
BRAC.
  H.R. 4200 is far from a perfect bill. But it helps to fix the 
problems the Administration has not dealt with. It makes the military 
more effective and it protects our communities and troops.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support Chairman Duncan 
Hunter and the House Armed Services Committee efforts to provide our 
troops with the equipment necessary to successfully accomplish their 
missions in the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
more specifically.
  Specifically, the FY05 Defense Authorization bill funds procurement 
initiatives near-and-dear to my heart, to include full funding for the 
Up Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, providing the 
ability to purchase over 6,000 up armored Humvees, and funding for 
ballistic armor for other Humvees and trucks, as well as Interceptor 
Body Armor funding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is of particular concern to me since recently I 
approached the Chairman after several U.S. Army National Guard soldiers 
from my District in Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion of the 108th Light 
Infantry were killed and wounded on Easter Sunday during an attack in 
Samarra, Iraq.
  Private First Class Nathan Brown was killed in action after being 
struck by a rooftop fired RPG while riding in a 5-ton truck.
  Armored and up armored vehicles and body armor equipment are not just 
necessary but required, and it is Congress' job to provide these 
resources to troops in combat.
  The Pentagon must know it is Congress' intent to provide all the 
tools needed to successfully complete their missions in Iraq and around 
the world. The message Congress is sending to the bureaucracy that 
supports our military and the field commanders in theater is the same. 
Our collective expectation is for the Department of Defense to put this 
equipment to the best use immediately, in order to allow the men and 
women on the ground sacrificing their lives to fully succeed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 9 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and 
amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher) 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 214, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)

[[Page 10671]]


     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--214

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ballance
     Becerra
     Burr
     Crowley
     Deutsch
     Doolittle
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Johnson, Sam
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Norwood
     Quinn
     Tauzin
     Walsh


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1524

  Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, McINNIS, BACHUS and POMBO changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. PETRI changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Ryun) 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 290, 
noes 132, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               AYES--290

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)

[[Page 10672]]


     Wamp
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--132

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Emanuel
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon (PA)
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ballance
     Becerra
     Burr
     Deutsch
     Fattah
     Johnson, Sam
     Leach
     Norwood
     Quinn
     Tauzin
     Walsh


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes are left in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1534

  Messrs. ABERCROMBIE, CARDOZA and CROWLEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Are there any more amendments?
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sweeney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Upton, Chairman pro tempore 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. 
4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 648, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by 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 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. Waxman

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

       Mr. Waxman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4200 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of title X (page 409, after line 13), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF HOUSE CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF A SELECT 
                   COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE THE 
                   TREATMENT OF DETAINEES HELD IN CONNECTION WITH 
                   THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives--
       (1) that there should immediately be established, during 
     the 108th Congress, a select committee of the House to 
     investigate the treatment of detainees (both within and 
     outside the United States) who are held in connection with 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or any 
     other operation within the Global War on Terrorism;
       (2) that such a select committee should be composed of 10 
     members, five to be selected by the Speaker and five to be 
     selected by the Democratic leader; and
       (3) that such a select committee's investigation should 
     cover, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) The treatment of detainees.
       (B) The conduct of United States military and civilian 
     personnel operating facilities at which such detainees are 
     held.
       (C) The role of any contractor personnel in detention or 
     interrogation activities.
       (D) Allegations of abuse at any of those facilities and the 
     response to those allegations by officials at all levels of 
     the United States Government.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
is recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to recommit.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, George Will wrote a column recently about 
the administration's lack of accountability. He pointed out that no one 
was held accountable for the administration's false claim that Iraq 
attempted to obtain uranium from Niger or misleading claims about 
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
  He correctly concluded failures are multiplying because of choices 
for which no one seems accountable.
  We are about to repeat this mistake once again. We all agree that the 
abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison is 
completely unacceptable. Congress has rightly condemned this illegal 
and inhumane conduct; but this House must take the next step, and fully 
investigate these terrible episodes. We must determine how many 
individuals were involved and how far up the chain of command this 
extends.
  We also must find out whether this type of abuse has occurred 
elsewhere, inside or outside of Iraq. We need to review the role of 
independent contractors; what role they played, to whom were they 
accountable. If we do not insist on holding the executive branch 
accountable, we are creating exactly the same situation George Will 
described, ``an administration where failures go unpunished and 
officials need not worry about the consequences of their conduct.''
  This motion to recommit would express the sense of the House of 
Representatives that a select committee of the House should immediately 
be established to investigate the treatment of detainees held by the 
administration in connection with the global war on terrorism. A select 
committee is necessary because this House has ignored its 
constitutional responsibility for holding the administration 
accountable.
  Time and time again the House majority has demonstrated that it has 
no interest in performing any serious oversight of this administration. 
The Republican majority has refused to investigate the alleged White 
House's outing of CIA agency's Valerie Plame, which might have 
jeopardized our national security.
  The majority has declined to investigate allegations that 
administration officials threatened to fire the Health and Human 
Services chief actuary if he disclosed unfavorable cost projections for 
the Medicare prescription drug benefit to Congress. Now the House 
majority wants to do as little oversight as possible when it comes to 
abuse of detainees.
  One Republican leader objected to ``jerking those battle field 
commanders out of Iraq for hearings'' even when these same commanders 
are on the other side of the Capitol testifying before the Senate.

[[Page 10673]]

  Another suggested the ``congressional investigations would inflame 
hatred of the U.S. by providing fodder and soundbites for our 
enemies.'' Our enemies are already gleeful over the tarnishing of our 
credibility all around the world as champions of democracy and human 
rights.
  On the floor yesterday we were told that public hearings and some 
closed meetings amount to a ``massive investigation.'' Well, they seem 
to think this is all that they need to do; but they have not even 
brought General Taguba before them. They have not even looked at the 
issue of the civilian contractors. The majority seems to think that it 
is unpatriotic to ask tough questions and demand answers.
  What do they propose? They propose that the administration 
investigate itself. Well, this is an administration that does not even 
acknowledge mistakes, let alone accept responsibility to correct them. 
It has never found the person responsible in the White House for outing 
Valerie Plame.
  We have never heard any action taken about General William G. Boykin, 
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence who made the 
egregious anti-Muslim statement that this is a Christian holy war 
against Muslims.
  It has never responded to Richard Clark's revelations about what he 
said about our preparedness for September 12 except to make an all-out 
assault on his character.
  The administration has never told us who told them to write the Iraq-
Niger uranium deal in the State of the Union address which was based on 
bogus information that the CIA told them was bogus. They have never 
fired anybody for any of these mistakes.
  Well, I do not believe it is our constitutional responsibility to let 
the administration investigate itself. We have a fundamental 
responsibility to investigate this issue and to assert oversight over 
the military campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, oversight is not unpatriotic. Oversight is our 
constitutional duty. Now, I know there are different committees of the 
House that have different jurisdictions on this matter. Let us bring 
them all together in one select committee. But let us be sure we do the 
job of oversight. I ask for support for this motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. HUNTER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has 
made the point that Congress is not investigating. That is simply not 
true.
  Both the Senate and the House, particularly, have held particularly 
contentious hearings, and the country has seen those hearings because 
they have been public. But in addition to that, on a frequent basis we 
have held closed hearings because much of this information is 
classified. And we ask tough questions in those hearings, Republicans 
and Democrats together.
  But in addition to that, General Antonio Taguba just days after it 
was discovered, after these events had taken place, was tasked to do an 
investigation. That was in January. And through January and February 
and March and April that investigation went forward resulting in 
something that has become known as the Taguba Report, a report every 
bit this high with a 58-page summary.
  That report and six other military investigations which are still 
under way have led to a conclusion that this situation is being well 
taken care of. The conclusion is that there are a few people who 
committed some horrific acts and that the problem was the result of the 
collapse of leadership in one battalion, possibly two, and that some 
misdirected people got out of control.
  While this is going on, there is much good going on in the Middle 
East, in Iraq. Our troops are fighting to secure the peace in support 
of the CPA. They are fighting to secure important sites, important to 
economic growth and the welfare of the Iraqi people. They are fighting 
to build an Iraqi security service, border police, site police, 
security police and a police force.

                              {time}  1545

  They are fighting to secure hospitals and schools. They are fighting 
to promote local caucuses, to elect local individuals, and they are 
fighting to control foreign fighters, insurgents if you will.
  So there is a big job to do in the Middle East, and I was taken 
yesterday as I read in the press of another investigation that is 
ongoing by the 9/11 Commission when they interviewed Rudy Giuliani. Let 
me conclude with this. This is not an exact quote, but this is the 
meaning of what Rudy Giuliani said yesterday. He said words to this 
effect: There is only one enemy in the war on terrorism and it is not 
us. It is those who attacked us and murdered our loved ones.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) 
said it well. The interesting thing about this entire mess in Abu 
Ghraib is the fact that General Sanchez, just 3 days in January after 
that first soldier came forward, started the investigation on his own. 
There was no media. There was no CNN out there with an investigative 
reporter. The general did that on his own, and he then announced to the 
world in a press conference, kept it secret except for the 50 million 
people watching television, that we Americans were investigating 
ourselves over what happened in that prison. He started that 
investigation and it worked its way on down, and it has now culminated 
in the first conviction that took place just yesterday in Iraq.
  So the military has done well, and we held full blown, full Committee 
on Armed Services hearings here. They had them obviously in the other 
body. We have spent more time on this than we have any weapons system, 
any military operation, and we have done a good job.
  We have embedded some of the recommendations that were made in the 
Taguba report in the bill my colleagues are about ready to pass. We 
have embedded some of those recommendations. We have made some changes 
and some reforms in that bill.
  Now, it is time to refocus, and let me tell my colleagues why it is 
time to refocus. In the last 24 hours we have had 66 attacks on 
American and coalition forces in Iraq. We suffered 14 people wounded. 
We suffered two KIA. We have to return our focus to this war.
  About 3 years ago, we started this very complex and difficult 
military operation. It has been tough. We have had reluctant allies. We 
have had tactical problems. We have had enormous challenges, and 
through all of this, our troops have carried us, our great American 
troops. They have killed the enemy at 10,000 feet in the high mountains 
of Afghanistan. They have engaged him in these fierce fire fights in 
the choke points in Iraq. They have done a wonderful job, and the 
300,000-plus Americans who have served honorably and purely in the 
Afghanistan and Iraq theaters have received almost no publicity.
  When Master Sergeant Bill Pryor attacked an enemy position by 
himself, killing the four people that he took on and killed the last 
one in hand-to-hand combat, he received no publicity except maybe among 
a few of his platoon members that he saved. When Gunny Sergeant Jeff 
Bohr laid down his life by putting his body between his wounded marines 
and the enemy, he did not appear on any front pages.
  We have attended the Abu Ghraib mess with more press coverage than 
probably any military operation, including the invasion of Normandy. It 
is time to refocus. Let us refocus on those great and wonderful 2.5 
million people that wear the uniform of the United States. We do that 
by giving them the tools to get the job done, and this bill,

[[Page 10674]]

put together by Democrats and Republicans, does that. It gets the job 
done. Please vote ``yes.'' Vote down the motion to recommit and let us 
move this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). All time has expired.
  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. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 224, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 205]

                               AYES--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ballance
     Burr
     Deutsch
     Johnson, Sam
     Leach
     Norwood
     Tauzin
     Walsh


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1611

  Mr. COX changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 391, 
noes 34, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 206]

                               AYES--391

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee

[[Page 10675]]


     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--34

     Baldwin
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McDermott
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Stark
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ballance
     Burr
     Conyers
     Deutsch
     Johnson, Sam
     Leach
     Norwood
     Tauzin
     Walsh


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1619

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________